Podcasts about Thomas Robert Malthus

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

A radical new reading of eighteenth-century British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus, which recovers diverse ideas about subsistence production and environments later eclipsed by classical economics With the publication of Essay on the Principle of Population and its projection of food shortages in the face of ballooning populations, British theorist Thomas Robert Malthus secured a leading role in modern political and economic thought. In this startling new interpretation, Deborah Valenze reveals how canonical readings of Malthus fail to acknowledge his narrow understanding of what constitutes food production. Valenze returns to the eighteenth-century contexts that generated his arguments, showing how Malthus mobilized a redemptive narrative of British historical development and dismissed the varied ways that people adapted to the challenges of subsistence needs. She uses history, anthropology, food studies, and animal studies to redirect our attention to the margins of Malthus's essay, where activities such as hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening were rendered extraneous. She demonstrates how Malthus's omissions and his subsequent canonization provided a rationale for colonial imposition of British agricultural models, regardless of environmental diversity. By broadening our conception of human livelihoods, Valenze suggests pathways to resistance against the hegemony of Malthusian political economy. The Invention of Scarcity: Malthus and the Margins of History (Yale UP, 2023) invites us to imagine a world where monoculture is in retreat and the margins are recentered as spaces of experimentation, nimbleness, and human flourishing. Deborah Valenze is the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of History at Barnard College. A recipient of numerous fellowships, she has written four previous books on British culture and economic life. She lives in Cambridge, MA, and New York City. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

En el programa de hoy os ofrecemos un nuevo episodio In memoriam de Francisco Grande Covián. En esta ocasión, el Dr. Grande Covián se erige como defensor de las ideas de Thomas Robert Malthus, uno de los principales pensadores del siglo dieciocho, sobre el futuro de la humanidad, y en particular de su capacidad para alimentarse adecuadamente utilizando los limitados recursos del planeta Tierra. El Dr. Grande contrapone las ideas de Malthus, teñidas de un cierto pesimismo, con las más bien optimistas, por no decir utópicas, ideas de otros dos importantes pensadores de ese mismo siglo, el inglés William Godwin y el marqués de Condorcet, de nacionalidad francesa.

En el programa de hoy os ofrecemos un nuevo episodio In memoriam de Francisco Grande Covián. En esta ocasión, el Dr. Grande Covián se erige como defensor de las ideas de Thomas Robert Malthus, uno de los principales pensadores del siglo dieciocho, sobre el futuro de la humanidad, y en particular de su capacidad para alimentarse adecuadamente utilizando los limitados recursos del planeta Tierra. El Dr. Grande contrapone las ideas de Malthus, teñidas de un cierto pesimismo, con las más bien optimistas, por no decir utópicas, ideas de otros dos importantes pensadores de ese mismo siglo, el inglés William Godwin y el marqués de Condorcet, de nacionalidad francesa.

Hoy, en un nuevo programa de Quilo de Ciencia en su modalidad “in Memoriam”, el Dr. Grande Covián, con su voz clonada por IA, nos habla de los problemas de la alimentación mundial allá por el año 1984, ciento cincuenta años después de la muerte de Thomas Robert Malthus, y se adentra por lo que en esos años se preveía que podía ser el futuro de la alimentación de la humanidad. Como siempre, sus enseñanzas son sabias y sus análisis, muy interesantes y todavía de actualidad, en particular en relación con la polémica que continúa habiendo sobre el consumo de carne. A continuación, Jorge Laborda compara los datos actuales con los que pronosticaba la Organización Mundial de la Salud en los años 80 del pasado siglo, que el Dr. Grande Covián nos resumía.

Hoy, en un nuevo programa de Quilo de Ciencia en su modalidad “in Memoriam”, el Dr. Grande Covián, con su voz clonada por IA, nos habla de los problemas de la alimentación mundial allá por el año 1984, ciento cincuenta años después de la muerte de Thomas Robert Malthus, y se adentra por lo que en esos años se preveía que podía ser el futuro de la alimentación de la humanidad. Como siempre, sus enseñanzas son sabias y sus análisis, muy interesantes y todavía de actualidad, en particular en relación con la polémica que continúa habiendo sobre el consumo de carne. A continuación, Jorge Laborda compara los datos actuales con los que pronosticaba la Organización Mundial de la Salud en los años 80 del pasado siglo, que el Dr. Grande Covián nos resumía.

Sveriges demografi förändras fort. Propagandan mot att skaffa barn är stark. Födelsetalen är skrämmande låga. I vissa områden är över hälften av förstaklassarna barn till två utländska föräldrar. Hur ser Sverige ut om en generation?0:00:41 Inledning med nyheter0:06:41 Ekonomihörnan: Hur priser inte uppstår0:14:17 Tema: Demografi0:15:28 Begreppet skin in the game, om barnlösa politiker0:25:27 Summerad fruktsamhet, det genomsnittliga antalet barn per kvinna0:34:10 Thomas Robert Malthus lag0:58:36 Delar av Sverige är döende1:01:29 Exemplet Kramfors: demografisk utveckling1:09:09 Statens krig mot landsbygden1:22:11 Calhouns experiment om samhällens död Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An in-depth (kinda) discussion with Gavin, the Man from Down Under, on the Malthusian concept of inevitable world calamity!Thomas Robert Malthus was an influential British economist who is best known for his theory on population growth, outlined in his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population. In it, Malthus argued that populations inevitably expand until they outgrow their available food supply, causing the population growth to be reversed by disease, famine, war, or calamity.Comment, download, and catch up on all episodes at mitchwonders.comAll episodes are also at: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2041434.rssMaybe drop ol' Mitch a wee morsel to support the merch store at Venmo.com? Just search @mitchwonders And thank you all for your love and support!

The world's burgeoning billions have been kept fed thanks to the "Green Revolution" of the 20th century, which featured new hybridized crops with enhanced yields. Often deemed a miracle of science, it was also made possible by energy-intensive industrial fertilizers. Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch were each awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to the widely used processes for synthesizing ammonia from nitrogen taken from ambient air and hydrogen derived from fossil fuels. These ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers, along with mined fertilizers, today help to feed the world, something Thomas Robert Malthus never envisioned in his 18th century writings warning of overpopulation. Today we are concerned with another green revolution that seeks to end the use of fossil fuels, which when burned create emissions that are dangerously warming the atmosphere and creating the need for a second agricultural revolution to ensure the world's billions can still be fed in the face of drastic climatic extremes. So as we look to decarbonize the world's economy and phase out the use of fossil fuels, what is the fertilizer industry doing to green its highly fossil fuel-dependent industrial and mining processes?We talk with Alzbeta Klein, CEO of the International Fertilizer Association, freshly returned from COP28 in Dubai, where for the first time the world's nations agreed to the need to phase out fossil fuels to temper the runaway climate change we are experiencing. "Food is energy, and we need to understand that connection," Klein says. "We need to understand the transition for the energy markets, and we need to understand the transition for the food market because the two go hand-in-hand."We also hear from Hiro Iwanaga of Talus Renewables, a nitrogen fertilizer startup at the forefront of using photovoltaics to crack hydrogen from water, rather than fossil fuels. Also freshly returned from Dubai, Iwanaga talks about his company's demonstration project now under way in Kenya, and the company's next projects here in the United States. "The green hydrogen tax credit that was passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act makes our product cost-competitive," he explains.Also, Brandon Kail of Rocky Mountain BioAg speaks to his company's approach employing soil microbes as the foundation of a non-fossil fuel-based approach to plant nutrition, and Divina Gracia P. Rodriguez of the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research tells us about an EU-funded project in Ethiopia she is spearheading that seeks to address barriers to the adoption of human urine-based fertilizers.Support the show

Many countries around the world have below-replacement fertility rates. And today's today's guest says it's happening faster than we think, with world population on track to peak around 2060. That's decades before the well-known UN model projection. What does that mean for the American and global economies, and what can we do about it — if anything? My AEI colleague Jesús Fernández-Villaverde joins this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast to discuss those questions and more.Jesús is a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, where he serves as director of the Penn Initiative for the Study of Markets. He's also the John H. Makin Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.In This Episode* The speed of demographic transition (1:19)* World population prospects (5:57)* The geopolitics of declining fertility (9:51)* Can public policy reverse demographic trends? (15:09)* Immigration and demographics (23:28)Below is an edited transcript of our conversationThe speed of demographic transitionJames Pethokoukis: A lot of our discussion is going to be based on a paper that you co-authored, “Demographic Transitions Across Time and Space.” When you talk about a demographic transition, you're talking about a shift that countries undergo as they get richer and develop, from a high-fertility/ high-mortality demographic to low-fertility and low-mortality. Is that what you mean by demographic transition?Why is that something economists study?Jesús Fernández-Villaverde: Two reasons. First, because we believe that demographics are intimately linked with economic growth. Go back to the beginning of our science: [Thomas] Robert Malthus, one of the very earliest economists, already wrote very coherently about it. And second, because it helps us to think about a long list of policy questions that depend in a crucial way on demographics. When I think about the future of Medicare, when I think about the future of Social Security, those depend crucially on demographics. Understanding demographics is key to having good economic policies.The key findings of that paper have to do with the speed and the depth of that transition? What are you saying that is different from what people previously believed about the demographic transition?You're absolutely right: It's about the speed. If you stop any economist or demographer and you ask them what is happening with fertility on the planet, they will tell you it's falling. That's well known. What we add is a twist; we say it's falling much faster than anyone had realized before. And it's falling at a speed that is going to fundamentally transform many of our societies and the planet as a whole in ways that most policymakers are not really taking into consideration. So it's the speed. It's not that it's falling; it is falling immensely fast.I look at the fertility of the planet as a whole in 2023. According to my calculations, it's already 2.2. That means that the planet in 2023 is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. … What I want the listeners to understand is, for the very first time in the history of humanity — humans have been around for 200,000 years — we are below replacement rate in terms of fertility.People and policymakers may have a general knowledge, but what you're saying is that they're dramatically underestimating how fast that is happening across the world.Exactly. Let me give you a couple of numbers which personally I think are mind-blowing. Usually, we talk about the replacement rate. The replacement rate is how many children does a woman need to have on average to keep population constant in the long run? And many listeners may have heard the number 2.1. Why 2.1? Because under natural circumstances, without any type of selective abortion, there are around 105 boys born per 100 girls. And a few of the girls that are born are not going to complete their fertility age. So that's why you need a little bit more than two.In fact, 2.1 is a very good number for the United States. It's not a good number for the planet. Why is it not a good number for the planet? Because of two reasons. Reason one: selective abortions. You go to China, you go to India — and these are huge countries, demographically speaking — there is a lot of selective abortions. In India or China, you have around 110 kids per 100 girls. Second, because in Africa, another big part of the demographic future of humanity, infant mortalities is still sufficiently high that it makes a little bit of a difference. For the planet as a whole, the replacement rate is not 2.1. It's more like 2.2, 2.25. It's kind of hard to know the exact number.So I go to the planet and I look at the fertility of the planet as a whole in 2023. According to my calculations, it's already 2.2. That means that the planet in 2023 — I'm not talking about the United States, I'm not talking about North America, I'm not talking about the advanced economies, I'm talking about the planet — is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. Of course, this depends on how people will react over the next few decades, how mortality will evolve. But what I want the listeners to understand is, for the very first time in the history of humanity — humans have been around for 200,000 years — we are below replacement rate in terms of fertility.World population prospectsThat doesn't mean the population's going down now, right? That means the population will be going down a generation from now.Yes.My argument is the United Nations is underestimating how fast fertility is falling. Instead of 2084, I'm pushing this to 2060, let's say. And instead of 9.7, I will say that we will peak around 9.2, 9.1, and then we are going to start falling.What does that mean for the long-term estimate of peak population? Usually, you hear about the UN forecast and the forecast is usually about nine or 10 billion. So are you saying we will not reach those levels?Exactly. First of all, let me tell you the United Nations' population prospects, so everyone knows where I am. The most recent version is 2022. The United Nations forecasts that the peak of humanity will be 2084, and that it'll be around 9.7 billion. My argument is the United Nations is underestimating how fast fertility is falling. Instead of 2084, I'm pushing this to 2060, let's say. And instead of 9.7, I will say that we will peak around 9.2, 9.1, and then we are going to start falling.And we'll start declining faster than what the UN thinks?Yes. Definitely faster. Let me give you a very simple example. The number of births that actually did happen in China in 2022 is what the United Nations forecasted to happen around 2040. So China is running 18 years ahead of the United Nations forecast. And China is a big chunk of humanity. For India, they are also five or six years ahead of the forecast. And if you go country by country, you realize that the United Nations is always behind. If you want, I can tell you why the United Nations is doing this. Basically, their model is running hot. It's forecasting way too many births for what we are actually seeing. And that's why I'm pushing the United Nations [from] 2084 to 2060.It's a big difference. You're talking about a difference of at least half a billion people, right?Yes.That's a lot. Tell me about the “Rule of 85,” because that's very fascinating. It's kind of a back-of-the-envelope way of looking at how to figure out some of these numbers.This is something I came up with when I was trying to explain this to undergrads, and I figured out that it's very easy to remember. Take the United States, take Canada, take Japan: the richest, most advanced economies, so the life expectancy is around 85 years. Imagine that you have a society where you have 1000 people being born every year. Since they are going to be living on average 85 years, in the long run, that's a society that is going to have 85,000 people. If you want to forecast what the level of population of a society will be, just look at the number of births that you have in any given year, multiply by 85, and that will give you kind of a middle-run assessment. It's such a simple rule of thumb. If you want to forecast China: China is slightly below 10 million births; 10 million times 85 — most of us can that in our head — it's 850 million. Well, their population now is 1.4 billion. So there you have a 60 percent reduction. South Korea, they had 240,000 births — I'm quoting from memory, a few thousand up or down — multiply by 85, you have slightly over 20 million. Current population of South Korea: 51 million.And that's 20 million when?It will be 20 million in 85 more years. But in some sense, this is a very optimistic scenario because it's assuming that births are not going to continue falling down, which are probably going to continue falling down because the new cohorts will be smaller. There will be less women having fewer children. In that sense, the Rule of 85, when fertility is going down, kind of gives you an upper bound.China is looking at a demographic abyss, and unless the Communist Party is able to change that, China is going to be a way less important economy in the middle run. The geopolitics of declining fertilityIt helps to have a lot of people in your country from a geopolitical standpoint. So you're talking about a different world of probably a much smaller China than people are expecting. Maybe relatively, then, a bigger India. And also what does, then, the United States look like? I do realize you don't have all these numbers in front of you either.I remember many of them. China is looking at a demographic abyss, and unless the Communist Party is able to change that, China is going to be a way less important economy in the middle run. In fact, I'm just finishing a paper with a couple of co-authors where we forecast the economic growth of China. And our main statement using demographics is that the US will grow more than China by the year 2034, because China is going to have such a big falling population. In comparison with India, India has now around 24 million births a year. I told you China is below 10, India is 25 million. So it's 2.5x as many kids per year as China. So in 50 years, the geopolitics of Asia are going to look totally different from what they are now. A lot of people in Washington are very worried about China. I think that they are right to be worried about China until the year 2030, 2035. After 2035, the future doesn't look very bright for China.Putting aside things that can change, like immigration, what would be your US population forecast?As you say, the absolute key is immigration. But let's suppose that we go — and it's not that I'm advocating that policy, but as a mental experiment, a thought experiment — let's suppose that we have perfectly closed immigration, zero immigration from now on. The US right now is 335 million, so we will probably peak at 340 million and then start falling. In fact, the US population that has both parents born in the US is already falling.What might change this forecast, either up or down? One thing you mentioned in another piece that you wrote is people's religious affiliation. Whether they become more religious, less religious, that seems to have an impact on their fertility rate and birth rates.Yes, exactly.And that can change.That can change. For instance, let me give you a very simple example that a lot of people may relate to. When Ireland was partitioned and the 26 counties in the south of Ireland became the free state of Ireland, and the six counties in the north stayed as Ulster or Northern Ireland, Protestants were around 65 percent of the population and Catholics were around 35 percent. That's why they didn't want to join the free state of Ireland. In Northern Ireland, probably Catholics are going to become a majority. Why? Because Catholics in Ireland for the last 80 years have had a little bit higher fertility.Why is this going to become so much more important? Let me give you a very simple example. Let's go back to 1950 and let me, in a very crude way, separate families between secular and religious. A secular family, let's say, has 2.5 kids. And a religious family, on average, has three kids. The difference is 0.5, but the base, 2.5, is sufficiently high that it doesn't make much of a difference. Now fast forward to 2023. The secular family is having one kid; the religious family is having two. First of all, the religious families have also reduced their size, but they have reduced their fertility less than seculars. And because the secular base now is so small, now we are talking about huge differences.The question, of course, over time is going to be, how much of this religiosity will be transmitted intergenerationally? It's the case that the sons and the daughters of religious families are also going to be religious or not. But let's assume there is some persistence. That basically will tell you that in 200 years, the composition of the US population will be extremely different. And in fact, this is not a crazy point. Most historians of what is known as late antiquity — late antiquity goes from around 300 in the current era to around 700 in the current era — argue that conversions to Christianity stop around the year 370, 380. I'm talking about Western Europe. Basically what happens over the next 300 years is that Christians have a higher fertility than non-Christians. And by the early 700s, there are just not that many non-Christians left in Europe, and Europe has become a totally Christian continent. So these things happen. Small differences in fertility, you run them for 200 years and it has a huge difference. And again, going back to my point, Northern Ireland is a very different place today than 100 years ago just because Catholics have a little bit more kids than Protestants.Aggressive policies like child subsidies, making it easier to reconcile family and work, maternity leaves, etc. can push you back to 1.7, 1.8. You are never coming back to three. You are never coming back to four. Can public policy reverse demographic trends?Something else that could change is public policy. In countries which are already experiencing these drops, they're giving bonuses to get people to have more kids. And there's a variety of sort of subsidies to encourage… Do those policies work? My baseline is that they probably really don't work. Maybe people have kids sooner than they would otherwise. Do we know of policies that actually have any kind of significant change on the number of kids people have at least in the rich countries?First of all, let me be absolutely open that the jury is still a little bit out because, as you say, maybe what is happening is that people are just changing the moment where the kids are born. My reading of the evidence is that you make a little bit of an impact. Right now, think about countries like Spain or Italy where fertility rates are around 1.2, which is absolutely horrible. It's like a reduction of half of the size of the population in each generation. Aggressive policies like child subsidies, making it easier to reconcile family and work, maternity leaves, etc. can push you back to 1.7, 1.8. You are never coming back to three. You are never coming back to four. The point I have argued to policymakers is if you are in a society where the fertility rate is 1.8, you can handle a gently decreasing population. What you don't want to be is in front of a demographic abyss. So policies, in my reading of the evidence, help you to go from disaster into gentle decline. And I think the evidence supports that that can be achieved.What do we know about societies that undergo a demographic decline? I imagine the past when that's happened, it's been because of war and disease, not because of choices people make voluntarily. There's been some sort of shock. Do we really have a good feel for what that looks like, when a country undergoes demographic decline, not because of disaster but because of just the choices people make, whether because of religious reasons or the cost of childcare or whatever?We don't. We have never been there. I have written a piece with what I think are educated conjectures. What type of educated conjectures [do] I have? First of all, it's going to be a society that is way less dynamic. I'm a little bit older than I used to be, and I already realize that for me to adopt new technologies now is much harder than when I was 10 years younger. As the average person in society becomes older and older, you are just going to have societies that adopt fewer new technologies, you have fewer new entrepreneurs, etc.For instance, there has been a lot of discussion that in the US there are now way less new businesses than 10, 15, 20 years ago. And there is a great economist at the University of California at LA, Hugo Hopenhayn, who has I think very convincingly demonstrated that this is completely driven by the fact that we have less 25-year-olds. Most new firms are created by people in their 20s, late 20s. We have now fewer people in their late 20s. And what he actually shows is that the percentage of people in their late 20s that create firms is the same as before. But there are less of them, so you are going to have fewer new firms.We are going to be also societies that somehow lose a little bit of the sense of the future, because everyone tends to be very old. And then the third point that I conjecture — and this is something that we really, really want to keep in mind — is that drops in population are not going to be uniform across space. What I mean by that is, let's suppose that as I was mentioning before, things continue in the way they continue now in South Korea for another 50 years. So South Korea is going to lose 30 million people. Those people are not going to disappear from Seoul, from the capital; they're going to disappear from rural areas. And then what do we do with those rural areas? There is going to be a moment, and you already see that even in the US, but in a lot of places in Western Europe, population in a county starts to fall down, fall down, fall down.And you know what the real problem is? One day they close the supermarket. And it's not because supermarket owner is evil. It's just because to run a supermarket, you need enough people. And suddenly there is not enough people in the county to have a large supermarket. And once you don't have a large supermarket in the county, life becomes very hard, because the only thing you have is a convenience store. So people move out. Even people who want to live in the small rural counties move out of the rural county because there are no services in the rural county anymore. I think about, who is going to keep the universities in a small rural areas open? There is just not going to be enough people to go to these colleges. And how do you go to your community and tell them that you are closing the local campus of your biggest state university just because there are not enough kids?At least a few of the listeners are already thinking of the film Children of Men. Are you familiar with it?I actually am not.The premise is that for some reason 18 years ago, 18 years previous, women over the course of like a year just stopped having kids. And the movie begins where the youngest person alive ends up being murdered. He's an 18-year-old. It's a world where nobody's having kids and society's beginning to fall apart. It's like people have nothing to live for. They're already trying to gather up great works of art and preserve them. They don't know for who. It just seems like a society that's winding down.Let's get back. Mortality could change, of course.Yes.CRISPR, all kinds of genetic editing — you can't really predict where technology will go, but that is something that could potentially change. Or even artificial wombs, maybe that will change people's choices as well.Fair enough. Let me just tackle the issue of mortality. Remember the Rule of 85? You can change it to 90, to 95, 100. You know, 100 will be very easy because you just put two zeros. Let me go back to China. I told you 10 million births a year; now apply a rule of 100, that will be 1 billion. They are still losing 400 million. And do we really think that increases in medical technology can push mortality much later than 100? I'm not an expert, but from when I talk with people who are a little bit more knowledgeable that I am, they tend to be skeptical. In fact, I have been talking with economists who have been looking at mortality and the changes in mortality in the US and other advanced economies. Most of what modern medicine does for you is increasing the quality of life over the last years. It used to be the case that you would see someone in his 70s and he will be old and in very bad shape. Now, you're in pretty good shape until three days before you die. So I think that a lot of what medicine is going to do is not increase our life expectancy that much; it's just about making our quality of life better. As a piece of a personal anecdote, if I may, both my wife and I are economists, which means that we have long sessions at home discussing investment portfolios and retirement accounts. And we include equations — I know that most of you probably don't have discussions with whiteboards at home and covariances of investment — but the age that I use for my own forecast of my own life is 90. I don't use more than 90, so at a personal level, I don't forecast myself living on expectation over 90 years old.Immigration and demographicsOne solution that's not a technological solution is immigration. But I would think there is a limit — even for the most pro-immigration country — to how many immigrants. It seems like it's not really a plausible policy for most countries, maybe for the United States more than others, but even here there's limits.Yes, of course. First of all, every time I talk about immigration, I remind people I'm an immigrant myself, as you can probably tell from my funny accent. So it's not that I'm against immigrants. What I tried to point out in something that I wrote is, look, I was mentioning that South Korea is about to lose 60 percent of their population. That will mean that if you want to keep population constant, you will need that 60 percent of people living in South Korea who are not of Korean heritage. Have we ever seen societies that undertake such a deep demographic change in a couple of generations? Can a political system digest that change? I'm quite skeptical. One thing is to bring 10 percent of your population, 20 percent of immigrants. A very different thing is to have 60 percent.Second point: I mentioned before that the planet as a whole is going to start losing people. And as far as we know, the net immigration to the planet is still zero. Maybe like in Men in Black there are some people coming from outside. But let's say the US in 2040 is still bringing immigrants from some developing economies, it means that demographic problem of these developing economies is going to become even more serious.So let me give you a concrete example. If I were the minister of finance of Brazil, I would not be able to sleep at night. Brazil will probably start losing population around 2030, 2032, if not earlier. Who's going to migrate to Brazil? Brazil is still losing population. The best and the brightest of Brazilians move to the US or to Europe. You go to any good US university, and there's a lot of top Brazilian students and researchers. Brazil starts losing population, which immigrants do you bring? Who's going to move to Brazil?Another country that, believe it or not, will probably start losing population maybe in another 20, 25 years are all Central American republics. Who's going to migrate to Guatemala? So what do you do then?More likely that even more so people who have possibilities, who could get a job in an advanced economy, they will leave.Exactly. So you're going to really, really be in a very tight spot. The immigration to me sounds really like I'm a US person, or I'm a German person, I'm thinking about this from a European or a North American perspective. I want the listeners to understand this is for the planet as a whole. And by the year 2055, every immigrant I'm gaining is someone else that is losing an immigrant.But let's suppose that immigration stays at a historical level, a historical average. The US is not going to be in a very tight spot, demographically speaking, in 2040. China is going to be on a very tight spot, and that's going to really be a game changer. Which goes back to my point before about why I'm not worried about China taking over the world in the year 2050.If you are a country who is able and has a history of accepting immigrants, it sounds like on a comparative level, that is really to your advantage. And if you think not only the size of your country, but the quality of your workforce is important, to me, you're making a case that this would be a big plus for the United States overall from a geopolitical, geo-economic position — relatively.Sure. Coming back to our discussion about China versus the US, I think the US is still going to attract immigrants. How many immigrants we want to attract — and I say “we” now because I'm naturalized, so I can say we — how many immigrants we want to attract is a discussion we can have. But let's suppose that immigration stays at a historical level, a historical average. The US is not going to be in a very tight spot, demographically speaking, in 2040. China is going to be on a very tight spot, and that's going to really be a game changer. Which goes back to my point before about why I'm not worried about China taking over the world in the year 2050.As I was mentioning in a previous answer, if somehow we avoid a conflict with China by the year 2030, in some sense, the war is won. It's just an issue of waiting 10 years, handling this situation. Because China will really, really need to do something serious with their economy and their political system. Now, something that can happen is that China, you know, starts forcing people to have a lot of kids. What I will [remind] listeners is some very basic facts of nature: Even if the Chinese government starts forcing everyone to have kids, it will take nine months — and one night, I guess — and then once the kid is born, it takes, what, 22 or 23 years before this person completes college. And if we want these people to be top researchers, etc., they need to go to graduate school. It's 20 years. Think about it in this way: If we are thinking about the top researchers among the cohort that is being born today in 2023, these people are not going to be researchers until 2051. Demographics has this enormous momentum; things that we decide today do not really show up until 30 years later. And by the way, that's one of the reasons I think that a lot of the demographic policies and a lot of economists are not very good, because most politicians do not think 30 years ahead. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

TESTO DELL'ARTICOLO ➜ https://www.bastabugie.it/it/articoli.php?id=7392UNA BELLA NOTIZIA: SIAMO OTTO MILIARDI DI ABITANTI di Federico CenciSiamo otto miliardi di persone nel mondo. Il record - come annunciato dalle Nazioni Unite - è stato raggiunto il 15 novembre. Per avere un'idea dello sviluppo demografico complessivo, basti considerare che rispetto al 2011 siamo aumentati di un miliardo. E che rispetto al 1974, siamo raddoppiati. Il prossimo obiettivo fissato dall'Onu dovrebbe essere raggiunto nel 2037, quando verranno superati i 9 miliardi.Dovremmo gioire di questi dati, giacché rappresentano il risultato dei progressi sanitari e medici. Eppure, come del resto è ampiamente prevedibile, hanno dato fiato alle trombe dei catastrofisti. È tornato ad agitarsi lo spettro di Thomas Robert Malthus, l'economista e demografo che già a fine Settecento predicava la necessità di allentare la pressione demografica per arginare povertà e fame nel mondo. Bisogna riconoscere a costoro, ai cosiddetti neo-malthusiani di sapersi adattare ai cambiamenti: gli annunciatori di sciagure a causa delle tante nascite non cessano infatti la loro disfattistica attività. È piuttosto noto a tal proposito quanto avvenne negli anni Sessanta: un collegio di esperti internazionali si riunì all'Accademia dei Lincei nel cosiddetto Club di Roma per lanciare un allarme. Nel mondo - avvisavano - c'erano quattro miliardi di persone, considerate troppe, per cui di lì a poco inesorabilmente le risorse si sarebbero esaurite e lo sviluppo arrestato.Sono passati quasi sessant'anni, ma - come direbbe Vasco Rossi - siamo ancora qua. Nessuna fine del mondo. Anzi, la fame e la povertà si sono notevolmente ridotte grazie ai passi da gigante della tecnica. È comprensibile che si faccia fatica a crederci, dal momento che la campana mediatica delle notizie negative non smette mai di oscillare nervosamente. Per avere allora un riscontro empirico sul miglioramento progressivo della condizione umana generale, si può visitare il sito Our World in Data: la popolazione è costantemente aumentata e così anche il suo tenore di vita. L'inizio di questo processo viene collocato da molti nella rivoluzione industriale, ma forse occorre spostare le lancette dell'orologio di un paio di secoli: come dimostra uno studio pubblicato sempre su Our World in Data, in Inghilterra già subito dopo il 1650 cominciò a crescere sia la popolazione sia il reddito pro capite.La storia, dunque, è maestra di vita, almeno quanto lo è l'attualità. Oggi, d'altronde, i Paesi in ascesa sullo scacchiere geopolitico sono quelli più popolosi, giovani e fecondi. Al contrario, la crisi morde il calcagno delle aree del pianeta in cui si fanno meno figli. Un esempio di tal risma, purtroppo, ce l'abbiamo dentro casa: periodicamente l'Istat sciorina previsioni sempre più cupe sul futuro demograficamente arido dell'Italia. Il concetto è piuttosto semplice: se diminuisce la popolazione e si riduce il numero di famiglie con figli, aumenta il divario tra individui in età lavorativa e non, a tal punto che il sistema di previdenza sociale rischia di esplodere.Cosa possiamo quindi fare noi italiani? Proviamo a rispondere con tre regole: la prima è non lasciarsi persuadere da chi profetizza sciagure dovute alla sovrappopolazione; la seconda è impegnarsi con i propri mezzi affinché si creino condizioni economiche e culturali per accrescere la natalità; la terza è sostenere i piani di sviluppo e di cooperazione nei Paesi del Terzo Mondo.

In diesem Interview treffen sich Prof. Rieck und Vince Ebert, um über Nachhaltigkeit, wissenschaftliche Modelle und eine optimistischere Zukunftsperspektive zu diskutieren. Erfahren Sie mehr über die fehlerhaften Vorhersagen des Club of Rome und den Unterschied zwischen Wetter- und Klimamodellen. Lassen Sie sich von den beiden Experten in eine lebhafte Debatte über Chaos vs. Gleichgewicht und die umstrittene Theorie der Kipppunkte entführen. ^Erstellt von der künstlichen Intelligenz GPT-4, damit Sie einen Grund haben, mein Buch zu lesen: ►Schummeln mit ChatGPT: ○https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ►Und hier das Buch von Vince Ebert: Lichtblick statt Blackout: ○https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ►WEITERE INFORMATIONEN VON TEAM RIECK: 04'26 Hier geht es zu dem Video mit der Originalquelle des Begriffs Nachhaltigkeit: ○ • Nachhaltigkeit un... Auch spannend ist es, wie der Begriff die Finanzwelt verändert hat. Mehr dazu: ○ • Wie gut ist nachh... 12'04 Die Malthus-Hypothese geht auf den britischen Ökonomen Thomas Robert Malthus zurück, der um das Jahr 1800 herum lebte. Malthus behauptete, dass die Bevölkerung grundsätzlich exponentiell wachse, während die Nahrungsmittelproduktion nur linear ansteigen könne. Diese Annahme führte zu der Hypothese, dass jede Bevölkerung zwangsläufig am Rande einer Hungersnot (oder verallgemeinert: Rohstoffknappheit) leben müsse. Mehr dazu: ○https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus... 14'00 Der Wirkungsgrad gibt an, wie viel einer Energieform in eine andere umgewandelt wird. Ein typischer moderner Benzinmotor hat einen Wirkungsgrad von etwa 30%, während Dieselmotoren einen Wirkungsgrad von 40% aufweisen können. Im Vergleich dazu hatten viele Motoren in den 1950er Jahren einen Wirkungsgrad von nur 15%, der Wirkungsgrad typischer Solarzellen liegt bei etwas über 20%. Der Wirkungsgrad ist dabei etwas anderes als die Effizienz: https://passipedia.de/grundlagen/effi... 22'54 Doomscrolling oder Doomsurfing bezeichnet das exzessive Konsumieren negativer Nachrichten im Internet. 24'12 Zur Website https://ourworldindata.org/ 25'35 Mehr Infos zu Club of Rome https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of... 28'30 Wie man praktisch Risiken von zukünftigen und unbekannten Ereignissen abschätzt, erklärt Prof Rieck in diesem Video: ○ • Corona, Impfung, ... 36'14 Die Kipppunkttheorie geht davon aus, dass es in vielen komplexen Systemen, z.B. in Ökosystemen, bestimmte kritische Schwellenwerte gibt, bei deren Überschreiten das System in ein anderes Gleichgewicht „kippt“. Grund dafür können sich selbst verstärkende Effekte (positive Rückkopplung) sein, die das System in eine neue und oft unerwünschte Richtung treiben. 47'10 Neun Gründe, wieso das Verbrenner-Verbot Unfug ist. Das EU-Parlament hat es trotzdem beschlossen. ○ • Verbrenner-Motore... 01'04'40 Dave Chappelle: ○https://g.co/kgs/p5xYQT ○Klimaneutralität allein reicht nicht: Es ist wichtig, dass Unternehmen und Organisationen nicht nur ihre CO₂-Emissionen reduzieren, sondern auch auf andere Größen achten. ○Kreislaufwirtschaft Die Idee einer Kreislaufwirtschaft ist in Ihrer naiven Form ein Musterbeispiel für das Denken in geschlossenen Systemen ohne Innovation. Zum Glück führt die Sonne dem System Erde ständig neue Energie zu, und die Menschen fügen ständig neue Ideen hinzu. ○Technologie und Innovation Sorgen dafür, dass beständig neue Möglichkeiten entstehen und vorteilhafte Gleichgewichte eingenommen werden können. ►WEITERES VON CHRISTIAN RIECK: *Digni-Geld - Einkommen in den Zeiten der Roboter: ○Print: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN... ○E-Book: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN... *Die 36 Strategeme der Krise: ○Print: https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ○Kindle: https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ○YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ProfRieck?s... ○Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/profrieck/ ○Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProfRieck ○LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/profrieck/ *Hinweis: Die angegebenen Links können Affiliate-Links sein, bei denen ich eine Provision bekomme. Vielen Dank, falls Sie diese Links nutzen! #ProfRieck #Nachhaltigkeit

In diesem Interview treffen sich Prof. Rieck und Vince Ebert, um über Nachhaltigkeit, wissenschaftliche Modelle und eine optimistischere Zukunftsperspektive zu diskutieren. Erfahren Sie mehr über die fehlerhaften Vorhersagen des Club of Rome und den Unterschied zwischen Wetter- und Klimamodellen. Lassen Sie sich von den beiden Experten in eine lebhafte Debatte über Chaos vs. Gleichgewicht und die umstrittene Theorie der Kipppunkte entführen. ^Erstellt von der künstlichen Intelligenz GPT-4, damit Sie einen Grund haben, mein Buch zu lesen: ►Schummeln mit ChatGPT: ○https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ►Und hier das Buch von Vince Ebert: Lichtblick statt Blackout: ○https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ►WEITERE INFORMATIONEN VON TEAM RIECK: 04'26 Hier geht es zu dem Video mit der Originalquelle des Begriffs Nachhaltigkeit: ○ • Nachhaltigkeit un... Auch spannend ist es, wie der Begriff die Finanzwelt verändert hat. Mehr dazu: ○ • Wie gut ist nachh... 12'04 Die Malthus-Hypothese geht auf den britischen Ökonomen Thomas Robert Malthus zurück, der um das Jahr 1800 herum lebte. Malthus behauptete, dass die Bevölkerung grundsätzlich exponentiell wachse, während die Nahrungsmittelproduktion nur linear ansteigen könne. Diese Annahme führte zu der Hypothese, dass jede Bevölkerung zwangsläufig am Rande einer Hungersnot (oder verallgemeinert: Rohstoffknappheit) leben müsse. Mehr dazu: ○https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus... 14'00 Der Wirkungsgrad gibt an, wie viel einer Energieform in eine andere umgewandelt wird. Ein typischer moderner Benzinmotor hat einen Wirkungsgrad von etwa 30%, während Dieselmotoren einen Wirkungsgrad von 40% aufweisen können. Im Vergleich dazu hatten viele Motoren in den 1950er Jahren einen Wirkungsgrad von nur 15%, der Wirkungsgrad typischer Solarzellen liegt bei etwas über 20%. Der Wirkungsgrad ist dabei etwas anderes als die Effizienz: https://passipedia.de/grundlagen/effi... 22'54 Doomscrolling oder Doomsurfing bezeichnet das exzessive Konsumieren negativer Nachrichten im Internet. 24'12 Zur Website https://ourworldindata.org/ 25'35 Mehr Infos zu Club of Rome https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of... 28'30 Wie man praktisch Risiken von zukünftigen und unbekannten Ereignissen abschätzt, erklärt Prof Rieck in diesem Video: ○ • Corona, Impfung, ... 36'14 Die Kipppunkttheorie geht davon aus, dass es in vielen komplexen Systemen, z.B. in Ökosystemen, bestimmte kritische Schwellenwerte gibt, bei deren Überschreiten das System in ein anderes Gleichgewicht „kippt“. Grund dafür können sich selbst verstärkende Effekte (positive Rückkopplung) sein, die das System in eine neue und oft unerwünschte Richtung treiben. 47'10 Neun Gründe, wieso das Verbrenner-Verbot Unfug ist. Das EU-Parlament hat es trotzdem beschlossen. ○ • Verbrenner-Motore... 01'04'40 Dave Chappelle: ○https://g.co/kgs/p5xYQT ○Klimaneutralität allein reicht nicht: Es ist wichtig, dass Unternehmen und Organisationen nicht nur ihre CO₂-Emissionen reduzieren, sondern auch auf andere Größen achten. ○Kreislaufwirtschaft Die Idee einer Kreislaufwirtschaft ist in Ihrer naiven Form ein Musterbeispiel für das Denken in geschlossenen Systemen ohne Innovation. Zum Glück führt die Sonne dem System Erde ständig neue Energie zu, und die Menschen fügen ständig neue Ideen hinzu. ○Technologie und Innovation Sorgen dafür, dass beständig neue Möglichkeiten entstehen und vorteilhafte Gleichgewichte eingenommen werden können. ►WEITERES VON CHRISTIAN RIECK: *Digni-Geld - Einkommen in den Zeiten der Roboter: ○Print: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN... ○E-Book: http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN... *Die 36 Strategeme der Krise: ○Print: https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ○Kindle: https://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASI... ○YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ProfRieck?s... ○Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/profrieck/ ○Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProfRieck ○LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/profrieck/ *Hinweis: Die angegebenen Links können Affiliate-Links sein, bei denen ich eine Provision bekomme. Vielen Dank, falls Sie diese Links nutzen! #ProfRieck #Nachhaltigkeit

Mit Rüdiger Bachmann und Christan Bayer. Darin: Trading Places, die Gaspreisbremse, Title Transfer Facility (TTF), Inflation, Price Level Targeting, Headline Inflation Rate vs. Core Inflation, Persistent inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, Die Blanchard-Werning-Diskussion (Start, die postkeynesianische Sicht, Krugmans Fußballgleichnis, Wernings Antwort, Weitere Einwände), EE-Potenziale, Thomas Robert Malthus, Profitrate, Wachstumskritik, Hunnenrede, Fordismus  

SINS OF THE FATHER PART 1 OCTOBER 02, 2022      AARON SMITH      SEASON 1      EPISODE 36 SHOW NOTES:Today, in Episode 36, we begin looking into the history of early eugenics and refresh our deductive reasoning. Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Thomas Robert Malthus, and Francis J. Galton are introduced in Part 1. As we progress through the topic, we will examine the historical manifestations of eugenics and investigate whether there are modern day examples of this ideology in practice under a new set of circumstances and terminology. Here's a hint, there appears to be a whole lot of lipstick on this particular pig...NIH National Genome Research Institute:https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-RacismPositive and Negative Eugenics- eugenicsarchive.ca:https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/5233c3ac5c2ec50000000086War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race:http://www.waragainsttheweak.comFeel free to email me at subtlecain@protonmail.com with any questions or suggestions. Your support is always appreciated!Substack Discussion Board:https://subtlecain404.substack.com/p/podcast-discussion-board/comments?s=rYou can support the show in these ways:Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/subtlecainSupport the show

Im 19. Jahrhundert wurde das „Bevölkerungsgesetz“ von Thomas Robert Malthus eifrig und von vielen zustimmend rezipiert. Malthus ging davon aus, dass die Menschheit exponentiell wachse, während die Lebensmittelproduktion nur linear ansteige, wodurch auf Dauer immer wieder große Hungersnöte die Menschheit dezimieren werden. Anschließend werde die Bevölkerung wieder anzufangen zu wachsen, bis die kritische Grenze erneut erreicht ist – ein regelrechter Teufelskreis. Malthus war sich sicher, ein Naturgesetz entdeckt zu haben, so sehr sogar, dass er sich gar keine Mühe mehr gab, dieses zu beweisen, sondern sich damit begnügte, es bloß zu postulieren. Es waren vor allem Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, die das malthusianische Denkgebäude einer fundamentalen Kritik unterzogen. Zwar loben die Begründer des Marxismus Malthus dafür, dass er immerhin die Klassenverhältnisse nicht verschleiert, doch sei die eigentliche Theorie aus mehreren Gründen nicht haltbar. Zunächst ist da die Naturalisierung von Verhältnissen, die in Wahrheit gesellschaftlich bedingt sind – Malthus suggeriert, der Mensch sei den Naturzusammenhängen ausgeliefert wie ein Tier. Weiter kritisiert Marx, dass Malthus den Grund für die Verelendung der Arbeiter in der Masse der Subsistenzmittel, nicht in ihrer Stellung zu den Produktionsmitteln sucht. Mehr dazu in der neuen „Wohlstand für Alle“-Folge von Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt. Literatur: Ronald L. Meek: Marx und Engels über Malthus. Werk- und Briefauszüge gegen die Theorien von Thomas Robert Malthus, online auf Englisch verfügbar unter: https://ia801600.us.archive.org/1/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.191351/2015.191351.Marx-Amp-Engels--On-Malthus.pdf. Ihr könnt uns unterstützen - herzlichen Dank! Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/oleundwolfgang Konto: Wolfgang M. Schmitt, Ole Nymoen Betreff: Wohlstand fuer Alle IBAN: DE67 5745 0120 0130 7996 12 BIC: MALADE51NWD Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Twitter: Ole: twitter.com/nymoen_ole Wolfgang: twitter.com/SchmittJunior Die gesamte WfA-Literaturliste: https://wohlstand-fuer-alle.netlify.app

Eine Theorie muss nicht richtig sein, um lange Zeit Einfluss zu haben. Thomas Robert Malthus ist dafür das beste Beispiel. Bis heute wird er immer wieder zitiert, um scheinbar zu beweisen, dass zu viele Menschen auf dem Planeten leben. Eine Dekade nach der Französischen Revolution veröffentlicht Malthus einen Essay mit dem Titel „Das Bevölkerungsgesetz“, in dem er erklären möchte, warum dauerhaft kein Wohlstand für alle geschaffen werden könne. Zwar können mehr Lebensmittel produziert werden, doch sei dieses Wachstum viel zu langsam im Vergleich zum angeblich exponentiellen Wachstum der Bevölkerung. Malthus ging davon aus, dass sich die Menschheit, wenn sie optimistisch in die Zukunft blickt, munter fortpflanzt, um dann wieder an ihre Grenzen zu geraten, wenn nicht alle ernährt werden können. Der Ökonom malt moralistisch unterfüttert und aufgrund einer bloß behaupteten Prämisse einen Teufelskreis, aus dem es kein Entrinnen gibt. Heute sind wir klüger: Zwar dürfte bis 2050 die Weltbevölkerung ihren Zenit bei knapp unter 10 Milliarden Menschen erreicht haben, doch erlebten wir in den vergangenen 200 Jahren einen gewaltigen Fortschritt, der es sehr wohl erlaubt, alle Menschen zu ernähren. Momentan haben wir es jedoch mit einem Verteilungsproblem zu tun. Außerdem dachte Malthus nicht daran, dass die Menschheit es eines Tages schaffen könnte, durch Verhütungsmittel den Sexualtrieb von der Fortpflanzung zu entkoppeln. In der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“ widmen sich Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt den Thesen von Malthus. Literatur: Thomas Robert Malthus: Das Bevölkerungsgesetz. Übersetzt von Christian M. Barth, Matthes & Seitz Berlin. Stefan Schulz: Die Altenrepublik. Wie der demographische Wandel unsere Zukunft gefährdet, Hoffmann und Campe. Ihr könnt uns unterstützen - herzlichen Dank! Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/oleundwolfgang Konto: Wolfgang M. Schmitt, Ole Nymoen Betreff: Wohlstand fuer Alle IBAN: DE67 5745 0120 0130 7996 12 BIC: MALADE51NWD Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Twitter: Ole: twitter.com/nymoen_ole Wolfgang: twitter.com/SchmittJunior Die gesamte WfA-Literaturliste: https://wohlstand-fuer-alle.netlify.app

Connaissez-vous notre site ? www.lenouvelespritpublic.frUne émission de Philippe Meyer, enregistrée en public à l'École alsacienne le 4 septembre 2022.Avec cette semaine :David Djaïz, essayiste et enseignant à Sciences Po.Béatrice Giblin, directrice de la revue Hérodote et fondatrice de l'Institut Français de Géopolitique.Richard Werly, correspondant à Paris du quotidien helvétique Blick. Lionel Zinsou, ancien Premier ministre du Bénin et président de la fondation Terra Nova.Fin de l'abondance, crise ou défi ? En conseil des ministres, le 24 août, le président a annoncé la « fin de l'abondance, de l'insouciance et des évidences ». La « fin de l'abondance », c'est celle de l'accès aux matières premières et aux produits « qui nous semblaient perpétuellement disponibles », a reconnu Emmanuel Macron. La crise sanitaire puis le conflit ukrainien ont réduit la voilure des échanges internationaux et l'espoir d'une mondialisation heureuse. C'est aussi l'accès à l'eau, raréfié en raison du réchauffement climatique, mais également celui aux « liquidités sans coût », a ajouté le chef de l'Etat. Les taux d'intérêt négatifs appartiennent désormais au passé. « Nous aurons à en tirer les conséquences en termes de finances publiques », a prévenu M. Macron. Il y a cinquante ans, le Club de Rome, un cercle de responsables économiques et politiques occidentaux, lançait un cri d'alarme. Reprenant le discours « malthusien » d'un révérend, Thomas Robert Malthus, auteur d'un Essai sur le principe de population publié à Londres en 1798, il affirmait : « Si les rythmes de croissance et donc la surconsommation des réserves se poursuivent, les limites seront atteintes au siècle prochain. » Après le choc pétrolier de 1973, Pierre Messmer, alors Premier ministre, ne disait pas autre chose en annonçant, la fin de l'énergie illimitée et bon marché.Après un été marqué par la canicule, la sécheresse et des incendies de forêt hors norme, l'enjeu est au cœur de la rentrée politique de la Première ministre, à travers un entretien au Parisien, le 28 août, son discours aux entrepreneurs, le 29, puis un séminaire ministériel à l'Élysée, le 31. Devenue plus populaire que le président, elle aura la lourde tâche de vendre aux Français son grand plan pour une sobriété choisie plutôt que subie, une sobriété juste et équitablement répartie. Pour le court terme, il convient d'« arrêter dès maintenant toutes les consommations d'énergies qui ne sont pas indispensables ». Dans ce but, elle en a appelé à « la responsabilité collective » : État, collectivités publiques, entreprises, associations et particuliers. Pour le plus long terme, le gouvernement prépare « un plan global et complet : se déplacer, se nourrir, produire, se loger, consommer », a détaillé Élisabeth Borne. Celui-ci sera élaboré « à l'automne », secteur par secteur, avec les ministres concernés. Trois premiers chantiers vont être lancés « dès septembre » : la forêt, l'eau et la production d'énergies décarbonnées, qu'il s'agisse du nucléaire ou de l'accélération du déploiement des sources renouvelables. Son suivi sera réalisé par le nouveau secrétaire général à la planification écologique, Antoine Pellion.En annonçant « la fin de l'abondance », Emmanuel Macron a réalisé une improbable union des oppositions ; les uns criant à l'insulte pour les plus modestes, privés d'abondance ; les autres dénonçant un discours aux résonances décroissantes. Selon un sondage Elabe publié le 24 août, les trois premiers mots évoqués par les sondés pour qualifier cette rentrée sont « lassitude », « nostalgie » et « tristesse », la « sérénité » ne pointant qu'en quatrième position.Vous pouvez consulter notre politique de confidentialité sur https://art19.com/privacy ainsi que la notice de confidentialité de la Californie sur https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Human Nagafi Es hat ne Weile gedauert, aber Human hat seine Antwort zusammen. Er geht noch mal tief rein: Was ist eines der stärksten Ordnungsmächte unserer modernen Gesellschaft? Eigentum! Woher kommt diese Idee? John Lock! Was haben Thomas Robert Malthus und Herbert Spencer damit zu tun? Leider zu viel! Auch Darwin und Marx stecken da … Re: Fink, der Protestant: Eigentum, Religion & verschwundene Mediatoren weiterlesen

Schon vor ca. 20 Jahren habe ich Vorträge und Seminare zum Thema Wissenschaft und Umwelt gehalten. Vieles von dem, was ich damals gesagt habe, hat sich bis heute (leider) bestätigt. Diese Episode ist so etwas wie ein Frühjahrsputz für mich: Wie steht die Einordnung der verschiedenen Ideen und Ansätze der Umweltbewegungen mit-, gegen- und zueinander? Wie steht es zwischen Theorie, Ideologie und Praxis? Werten und Aktivität? Welche Rolle spielt Wissenschaft? Wo sehen wir begriffliche Verwirrungen? Wie finden wir den Weg von, aber auch der Spalt zwischen Ethik und Praxis? Diese Episode wird die Themen keinesfalls abdecken, ich sehe es eher als ein Aufwerfen von Bällen, die zum Teil in früheren Episoden, zum Teil in späteren Episoden wieder aufgefangen und genauer betrachtet wurden oder werden sollten. Welche Ansätze und Ideologien gibt es in der Umweltbewegung? 1. De-Growth (Wachstumskritik) Wachstumskritik hat eine lange und wechselhafte Tradition, die wenigstens auf Thomas Robert Malthus um 1800 zurückgeht und immer wieder neu interpretiert wurde und wird. Eine moderne Definition der Ziele  ist: »Gerechtes Herunterskalieren von Produktion und Konsum, der das menschliche Wohlbefinden und die ökologischen Bedingungen verbessert« Wir finden in dieser Gruppe leider aber auch eine nicht zu geringe Zahl an Extremisten, denen auch die radikale Reduktion der Menschheit wünschenswert erscheint um das Ziel zu erreichen, etwa: »Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.«, David Gräber 2. »Business as Usual« Wenn wir ehrlich sind, interessiert das Thema Umwelt im Alltag immer noch fast niemanden, jedenfalls dann nicht, wenn es über das Ausrollen von Wohlfühltechnologien und -ideen geht, die dem Einzelnen (scheinbar) wenig Kosten verursachen aber ein gutes Gefühl geben, etwas geleistet zu haben: »Das Ausrollen von ineffektiven Wohlfühl-Technologien ist dreifach schlecht — abgesehen vom offensichtlichen, dass sie ineffektiv sind, führt es auch dazu, dass der Druck nachlässt etwas wirkungsvolles zu tun, weil ja gehandelt wird, und vielleicht das schlimmste: es lenkt mögliche Ressourcen weg von wichtigeren Bedürfnissen.«, Steven Koonin 3. Eco-Modernismus Dder mittlerweile 101 jährige James Lovelock in seinem letzten Buch Novacen: »Das Bestreben nach einer besseren Zeit vor dem Anthropozän ist eine Phantasie. Zunächst einmal, weil es nie eine goldene Zeit frei von Wünschen und Leid gab und zweitens, weil wir, um dorthin zurück zu gelangen, die offensichtlichen Vorteile der Moderne rückgängig machen müssten« Beim Eco-Modernismus steht der Mensch im Zentrum der Veränderung aber auch der Verantwortung; Reduktion des menschlichen Einflusses auf die Natur durch Entkopplung, Intensivierung und Innovation sind der Anspruch: »Intensivierung vieler menschlicher Tätigkeiten — im besonderen Landwirtschaft, Energiegewinnung, Forstwirtschaft und Siedlung — mit dem Ziel, weniger Land zu nutzen und weniger in die natürlichen Welt einzugreifen ist der Schlüssel, menschliche Entwicklung von den negativen Einflüssen auf die Umwelt zu entkoppeln« Eco-Modernisten lehnen radikale Wachstumskritik ab. Selbst Jorgen Randers, der Mitautor der »Grenzen des Wachstums« von 1972, schreibt vor wenigen Jahren: »Der fundamentale Grund, warum die meisten Menschen Wachstum bevorzugen ist, dass es der einzige Weg ist, den moderne Gesellschaften gefunden haben um drei Probleme effektiv zu lösen: Armut, Arbeitslosigkeit und Pensionen« Aber können wir glauben, dass wir die Herausforderungen der Zeit alleine mit Technik und Wachstum lösen können? Wie lange kann das gut gehen? 4. Singularisten/Eskapisten & Post-Humanisten Die Insel oder das Landgut in Neuseeland reicht für viele Milliardäre nicht mehr aus, um sich vor den Katastrophen der Welt zu verstecken. Heute muss es der Mars, Raumstationen oder gar das Verlassen des Sonnensystems sein. Jedenfalls ist das die Vision einiger Vertreter einflussreicher US-Eliten. Sollte das doch nicht klappen, können wir uns ja in Computer hochladen und virtuell weiterleben. Oder übergeben wir als Menschen gar den Stab an intelligente Maschinen? Wer glaubt an diese Phantasien, beziehungsweise hält sie für eine wünschenswerte Zukunft? *** Im zweiten Teil dieser Episode stelle ich die Frage, was Philosophie und Ethik zu diesem Themenbereich zu sagen hat? Wer steht eigentlich im Zentrum der Betrachtung, Mensch oder Natur? Sollten wir Deep oder Shallow Ecology betreiben? Wem sollen wir folgen, Deontologen oder Utilitaristen und was ist von der »PAT« Formel zu halten? Haben die Wachstumskritiker bisher mit ihren Vorhersagen recht behalten, und selbst wenn nicht — was bedeutet dies für die Zukunft? Außerdem: nicht nur die Interessen westlicher Industrienationen zählen: »Diese verschiedenen Ansätze haben ein gemeinsames Design, das ökonomische Ziel, die Kosten des Klima-Aktivismus zu sozialisieren und die Armen die Rechnung für die Reichen zahlen zu lassen.« und »Die Weiterführung globaler Armut und niedriger Einkommen kann nicht die Klima-Strategie der reichen Welt sein.«, Samir Saran Welche Rolle spielt Ideologie und wie ist die Lücke zwischen Ideologie, Wissenschaft und tatsächlicher Umsetzung zu überbrücken. Gerade unter Aktivisten erleben wir oft ein hohes Maß an Motivation, Kritik an Missständen aber nur sehr selten kohärente und realistische Ideen, wie die Situation verbessert werden kann.  »Es zeigt sich, dass in den fortgeschrittensten Phasen der Idiotie der Ideenmangel mit Ideologieüberschuss kompensiert wird.«, Carlos Ruiz Zafon, eine Figur in Das Spiel der Engel Oftmals scheint die Medizin des Aktivismus schlimmere Folgen zu haben als die Krankheit — helfen uns die zahlreichen NGOs also, das Problem zu lösen, oder richten sie oftmals mehr Schaden als Nutzen an? »Tausende Kuhhörner, vergraben auf einem Acker, sollen für eine gute Ernte sorgen. Für Demeter-Landwirte ein gängiges Ritual. Ein Verband zwischen Biolandwirtschaft und Esoterik.«, ZDF-Bericht zur Bio-Landwirtschaft zwischen Ökologie und Esoterik Dass es nicht nur um nutzlose Esoterik geht, sondern dass inkohärente Öko-Ideen auch massive Schäden anrichten können, zeigt der radikale Versuch in Sri Lanka auf eine vermeintlich grüne Landwirtschaft umzusteigen: »Die Befürworter von Bio-Landbau, überzeugt von naturalistischen Fehlschlüssen und argwöhnisch über moderne landwirtschaftliche Forschung, können keine plausible Lösung anbieten. Was sie anbieten, wie das Disaster in Sri Lanka offen gelegt hat, ist Elend.«, Ted Nordhaus Das Experiment in Sri Lanka wurde nach wenigen Monaten beendet, weil die Folgen verheerend waren.  Ein anderes Beispiel: Greenpeace protestiert zur gleichen Zeit in England gegen ein Solarkraftwerk und in Frankreich gegen Kernkraft. Wer kann das rational nachvollziehen und unterstützen? Wenig hinterfragte Ideologisierung finden wir aber auf allen Seiten. Wie kommen wir aus diesem Patt heraus? Kann es gelingen, die vernünftigen Ideen aller Seiten zusammenführen und die wenig hilfreichen (aber lauten) Vertreter beider Seiten zu ignorieren? Es gibt gute Beispiele von Aktivisten, die tatsächlich zuhören und ihre Meinung ändern, wenn sie von besseren Argumenten überzeugt werden, wie auch Episode 46 mit der Aktivistin Zion Lights zeigt! Nehmen wir uns diese zum Vorbild. Zum Abschluss: eine ganze Reihe von Begriffen tauchen in diesem Kontext immer wieder auf, die zumindest hinterfragt werden sollten, eine kleine Auswahl diesmal: Wissenschaft und Szientismus Probleme vs. Dilemmata »Umwelt« Naturalistischer Fehlschluss Vorsorge Prinzip Zusammenfassend: wie geht es weiter? Die Zeit, wo wir uns als passive, von Natur oder Gott getriebenen Lebewesen sehen konnte ist vorbei: »Wir können uns wahrscheinlich kaum mehr so etwas wie Naturphänomene vorstellen, die im Sinne der klassischen Theodizeefrage vollständig auf Natur als Gegenkonzept zu Kultur oder Gesellschaft ausgelagert werden können. Selbst wenn ein Komet auf die Erde zurasen würde, […] würden wir das nicht alleine einem«, Armin Nassehi Wie kommen wir zu einer systemischen Sicht, zu einem Blick, die »Gaia« als ganzes betrachtet, das menschliche Wohlbefinden nicht hinten anstellt und trotzdem nicht zur Katastrophe führt? Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 7 und 8: Alles wird besser... oder nicht? Episode 15: Innovation oder Fortschritt Episode 16: Innovation oder Forrtschritt oder Stagnation? Episode 18: Fortschritt oder Stagnation: Gespräch mit Andreas Windisch Episode 39: Follow the Science Episode 42: Gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen: Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 44: Was ist Fortschritt? Ein Gespräch mit Philipp Blom Episode 46: Activism, a Conversation with Zion Lights Fachliche Referenzen Extinction Rebellion Website Degrowth US Readings Jason Hickel, Degrowth: A Call for Radical Abundance Hating Humanity Won't Get You Canceled - WSJ Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand, The Guardian (2018) Steven Koonin, Unsettled, What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters Patrick Curry, Ecological Ethics, An Introduction, Polity Press (2006) Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Environmental Ethics Samir Saran, Enough Sermons on Climate, It's Time for ‘Just' Action Peter Treue, Blut und Bohnen, Der Paradigmenwechsel im Künast-Ministerium ersetzt Wissenschaft durch Okkultismus, FAZ (2002) Cornelius Janzen, Ritual der Demeter-Landwirte: Warum sie Kuhhörner in der Erde vergraben, ZDF (2021) Demeter, »biodynamische« Präparate Mark Lynas, Finland's Green Party endorses nuclear power (2022) James Lovelock, Novacene, The coming age of hyper intelligence Jorgen Randers, 2052 A global forecast for the next forty years (2012) Ted Nordhaus, Sri Lanka's Organic Farming Experiment Went Catastrophically Wrong, Foreign Policy (2022) Der Mensch - das Mängelwesen, NZZ (2004) The Doomslayer. The environment is going to hell, and human life is doomed to only get worse, right? Wrong. Conventional wisdom, meet Julian Simon, the Doomslayer. Wired (1997) Population, Affluence, and Technology, Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Roger Pielke Jr., More on the Iron Law of Climate Policy (2010) Carlos Ruiz Zafón, eine Figur in Das Spiel des Engels

Physical or Biological Determinism will always cause the sort of societal pain that comes from stripping man of his rights as an image bearer of God. If we view people as simply the flesh that they inhabit, we will rob them of what makes them special: God breathed life and a spirit into each one of us. This gives us a unique value. This realization of the infinite value should move us to view every human as priceless. The trouble with Secular Humanism that neither the value of God nor the value of man is recognized. Only the need for self actualization is acknowledged. So what would happen to a culture saddled with such a worldview if a certain minority were to be singled out as an obstacle to the majority's self-actualization, whether through pseudoscience, religious innuendo, or avarice? We only need to look to recent history to see the results. In the 1700s a man named Thomas Robert Malthus produced the theory that the exponential population growth, combined with an arithmetic food supply growth, would produce immense human suffering in the inevitable overpopulation that would occur. The Malthusian Theory of Population, when combined with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, bred an incredibly dangerous atmosphere where man thought it best to play God considering God's absence from man's worldview. This playing God took the form of Eugenics, or Good Birth (Eu-Greek for Good, Genes Greek for birth). Eugenics was rather popular during Margret Sanger's day. It is important to remember that while she was a product of her times, those times are not that far behind us and neither are the propositions that motivated people like Margret Sanger. So now that we have partially set the stage, let's not use some Pro-Life source. (Unfortunately, in the zeal for the Pro-Life cause, so many in the Pro-Life movement are not always accurate when representing Sanger. We should always build the strongest version of the opposition's argument when forming a response. Dismantling steelmen, not strawmen, prepares us to engage our culture successfully.) Let us use scholars like Edwin Black (not a conservative), Planned Parenthood, and most importantly, Sanger herself to look at the founder of the contraceptive movement that has evolved into the abortion movement. From Planned Parenthood on Margret Sanger: “Was Sanger Racist? Arguments continue about whether or not her outreach to the Black community was racist. We know that Sanger was conscious of race, and that she was capable of revolutionary thinking that defied sexism of the time. She did not apply that revolutionary thinking to race and class, choosing instead to follow the paternalistic attitudes of the time and willfully ignoring how Black people were harmed by her movement. However, there is no evidence that Sanger, or the Federation, intended to coerce Black women into using birth control: “The fundamental belief, underscored at every meeting, mentioned in much of the behind-the-scenes correspondence, and evident in all the printed material put out by the Division of Negro Service, was that uncontrolled fertility presented the greatest burden to the poor, and Southern blacks were among the poorest Americans. In fact, the Negro Project did not differ very much from the earlier birth control campaigns in the rural South...it would have been more racist, in Sanger's mind, to ignore African Americans in the South than to fail at trying to raise the health and economic standards of their communities” (“Birth Control or Race Control,” 2001).” There are several issues here. First, Sanger herself was an ardent supporter of sterilizing the “unfit”. Quote “As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out the unbalance between the birth of the ‘unfit' and the fit. Admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these classes.” -Sanger 1919 This was not simply one race, but many for the average eugenist. The Appalachian, the Southern Italian, the Jew, the Black were all common targets of Sanger's peers in the movement. She was somewhat tight lipped about race, though those she considered to be mentally unfit were fair game (again the issue of IQ was often deduced by race through weighted IQ tests as scholars like Edwin Black are quick to point out.) However, let's look at her actions and words as they speak volumes about her end goals. More from Planned Parenthood “However, it is true that Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women's auxiliary branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926 (Sanger, 1938, 366). Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose to align herself with ideologies and organizations that were explicitly ableist and white supremacist. In doing so, she undermined reproductive freedom Black people, Latino people, Indigenous people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others…” But these were the targets of the Eugenics movement. Just recontextualize this with any other person who is not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Someone who believed in breeding better humans, proposed her ideas to racists, who then furthered her cause. But she was not a racist. She only did racist things surrounded by racist people. “Sanger and Eugenics Eugenics is the theory that society can be improved through planned breeding for “desirable traits” like intelligence and industriousness. In the early 20th century eugenic ideas were popular among highly educated, privileged, and mostly white Americans. Margaret Sanger pronounced her belief in and alignment with the eugenics movement in her writings, especially in the scientific journal Birth Control Review. At times, Sanger tried to argue for a eugenics that was not applied based on race or religion (Katz, 1995, 47).” Point of order, this is what someone else has postulated posthumously to save the face of Planned Parenthood. “But in a society built on the belief of white supremacy, physical and mental fitness are always judged based on race. Eugenics, therefore, is inherently racist.” Sanger also argued that reproductive choices should be made by each woman, not by the state. “Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. ... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment” (Sanger, 1919a).” Also from Sanger: “A marriage license shall in itself give a husband and a wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.” Sanger- Article 3, 27 March 1934 This provokes the question: Was she speaking about two different groups of people? She often referred to the fit and unfit. She doubled down even further in the same publication when she wrote: “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child and no man shall have the right to become a father without a permit for parenthood.” These last two quotes came after Sanger supported the Supreme Court Decision Buck v Bell. “Yet Sanger's points of disagreement did not prohibit her from embracing harmful eugenic ideas. For example, she endorsed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that states could forcibly sterilize people deemed “unfit” without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge. The acceptance of this decision by Sanger and other thought leaders laid the foundation for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized, often against their will. (Chesler, 1992, 485) A majority of states would go on to adopt involuntary sterilization policies, leading to more than 60,000 people being sterilized by the states in the 20th century. These policies targeted people with disabilities and people broadly labeled “feebleminded” or “mentally defective” by the state. Sterilization policies were violently ableist, and were applied in deeply racist ways. In the South, so many Black women were given unnecessary hysterectomies that it gave rise to the euphemism “Mississippi appendectomy.” In California, 20,000 people were sterilized between 1909 and 1979, among them a disproportionate number of Black, Mexican American, and Asian American people. In the 1970s and 80s, Indigenous women were sterilized at staggering rates, without their consent: At least 25% of Native American women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976. The ripples of the Buck v. Bell decision are still felt today. In 2020 at Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia, immigrant detainees were sterilized against their will. Sterilization policies in the U.S. in the 1930s would ultimately inspire some of the worst human rights atrocities in the history of the world, including the Nazi regime's eugenics laws. While Sanger was not associated with Nazism — her books were among the first burned by Nazis in their campaign against family planning (“Sanger on Exhibit,” 1999/2000), and she helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany (“Margaret Sanger and the ‘Refugee Department',” 1993) — she is not absolved of her endorsement of Buck v. Bell and the harm it caused. Sanger's belief in eugenics undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others. Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger's belief in eugenics.” Sanger may not have liked where things ended up in Germany, but she had already met the Nazis half way with the Buck v Bell case. It is important to note, that she shifted her approach in light of the Nazi situation, but Edwin Black in his book “The War Against the Weak” is clear to note that he does not believe that Sanger was a racist, but consorted with the worst of them. Why might she have done this? She would say herself: “These two words (Birth Control) sum up our whole philosophy. It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination, and eventual extinction of defective stocks… Those human weeds which threaten the finest flowers of American Civilization.” -Sanger “Highlights in the History of Birth Control” October 1923. All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class… Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately a cleaner race.” -Sanger “Morality and Birth Control.” Feb 1918. She may have even had good intentions. But shouldn't that scare us all the more? Should this idea that all of this was done for the betterment of the human race and female sex be all the more frightening? We need a standard. The one that our Father in Heaven has set. https://youtu.be/HsrOPDdbTzM 18:45 Quotes on Sanger arguing for sexual freedom https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/cc/2e/cc2e84f2-126f-41a5-a24b-43e093c47b2c/210414-sanger-opposition-claims-p01.pdf https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/tag/edwin-black/ NM Holocaust Video On Eugenics: https://youtu.be/jeSM9vz6ylg

In this episode of Perspectives, we speak with Emily Merchant, author of Building the Population Bomb. In her book, Dr. Merchant explores the history of population growth modeling and the intellectual and ideological battles over the concept of overpopulation. The author describes the battle between the so-called mercantilist position—held by a number of statisticians, among others—which held that population growth was the driver of national economic development and geopolitical strength, and the Malthusian position (named after noted economist Thomas Robert Malthus)—held by quite a few biologists and natural scientists—that saw rapid population growth as a harbinger of poverty, famine, and ecological collapse. The publication of the 1968 book The Population Bomb by Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich made overpopulation a cause célèbre in the late 1960s and 1970s. However, as Dr. Merchant makes clear, those fears did not come to fruition, and many of the problems that were blamed on overpopulation would more accurately have been ascribed to colonial and postcolonial economic relationships, and the maldistribution of global resources. Emily Merchant is a historian of science and technology at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Merchant was a 2012-2013 Dissertation Research Fellow at the Consortium for History of Science, Technology & Medicine. To cite this podcast, please use footnote: Emily Merchant, interview, Perspectives, Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, November 9, 2021, https://www.chstm.org/video/130.

Perché l'economia si chiama scienza e perché è una scienza triste? Siamo nel 1800 in Inghilterra e scopriamo le figure di Thomas Robert Malthus e David Ricardo. #Economia #EconomiaPerTutti #Pianoinclinato http://www.pianoinclinato.it/ Sottofondo musicale composto da Enrico Marani Sigla: Sweeter Vermouth by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4450-sweeter-vermouth License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

วาระนี้ #Analysand มาพูดคุยเรื่อง Fully Automated Luxury Communism ซึ่งเป็นเรื่องเบาๆ พักสมองจากเรื่องทฤษฎีกันอีกครั้ง รอบนี้คุยสบายๆ ว่าด้วยเศรษฐกิจและความเป็นไปได้ของสังคมที่ก้าวข้ามความขาดแคลน . ขอขอบคุณสหายศิริวัชรผู้ช่วยปรับ/ตัดแต่งเสียง ครั้งนี้เราไม่ได้ใช้สตูดิโอ เนื่องจากอัดเสียงทางไกล เสียงอาจไม่คมชัดเหมือนเท่าใด แต่ฟังได้แน่นอนครับ . เช่นเคย หากผู้ฟังท่านใดสนใจติชมสามารถ comment ไว้ได้ที่ SoundCloud, YouTube, @the_analysand ใน Twitter, หรือส่ง E-mail มาได้ที่ analysand@protonmail.com ครับ . ข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม ========== - Novara Media คือสื่อฝ่ายซ้ายจากสหราชอาณาจักร สนใจโปรดดู https://novaramedia.com/ . - Aaron Bastani (เกิด 1984) นักข่าวและหนึ่งในสมาชิกก่อตั้ง Novara Media ซึ่งเราได้นำหนังสือของเขามาพูดในวันนี้ นั่นก็คือ Aaron Bastani, Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto (London ; New York: Verso, 2019). - Moses Hess (1812-1875) คอมมิวนิสต์ยุคแรกๆ (ก่อนที่ Karl Marx จะเรียกตัวเองว่า Communist) มีผลงานเช่น Hess, Moses. 2012. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought: Moses Hess: The Holy History of Mankind and Other Writings, ed. by Shlomo Avineri (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press). - Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) นักเศรษฐศาสตร์กระฎุมพีชื่อดัง มีผลงานเช่น Malthus, T. R. 2008. T. R. Malthus: Principles of Political Economy: Volume 1, ed. by John Pullen (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press). - Noam Chomsky (เกิด 1928) นักกิจกรรมทางการเมืองชาวอเมริกัน หรือในทางวิชาการหลายคนอาจรู้จักเขาในนามนักภาษาศาสตร์ ผลงานล่าสุดของเขาคือ Noam, Chomsky, and Marv Waterstone. 2021. Consequences of Capitalism (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books) . - เรื่องดวงอาทิตย์เทียมในเกาหลีใต้ โปรดดู https://phys.org/news/2020-12-korean-artificial-sun-world-sec-long.html - เรื่อง Communism & Socialism ในยุค Karl Marx โปรดดู Sven-Eric Liedman, A World to Win: The Life and Works of Karl Marx (London ; Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2018). - Paper เรื่องยาปฏิชีวินะที่ปฐมพงศ์พูดถึง คือ B. Spellberg and others, ‘The Epidemic of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections: A Call to Action for the Medical Community from the Infectious Diseases Society of America', Clinical Infectious Diseases, 46.2 (2008), 155–64. - เรื่อง The Human Genome Project โปรดดู https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project - คอร์สเรียนออนไลน์เรื่อง Genome ที่ปฐมพงศ์พูดถึงโปรดดู https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/whole-genome-sequencing - เรื่องข้อตกลงทางอวกาศระหว่างสหรัฐอเมริกากับสหภาพสาธารณรัฐสังคมนิยมโซเวียตโปรดดู https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/85/hr12575/text ส่วนข่าวเรื่องประธานาธิบดีทรัมป์เซ็นให้เอกชนสามารถนำทรัพยากรในอวกาศมาเป็นกรรมสิทธิ์ (property) ได้ โปรดดู https://phys.org/news/2020-04-trump-moon-asteroids.html - คลิปอ.สรวิศพูดเรื่องต่างๆ ที่ปฐมพงศ์พูดถึง เช่นเรื่องทรัพยากรธรรมชาติในยุคทุนนิยม โปรดดู https://youtu.be/bCrYahhH3qk - เรื่องโรจาวา โปรดดูคลิปของ 'พูด' ใน https://youtu.be/ZNRslk-9RdI และสามารถอ่านบทความของ Dindeng ได้ใน www.dindeng.com/rojava/ - เรื่องเครื่องพิมพ์สามมิติกับความปราถนาดีของรัฐบาลลุงตู่ โปรดดู https://www.blognone.com/node/78242 หรืออ่านใน มติคณะรัฐมนตรี วันที่ 23 กุมภาพันธ์ 2559 ได้ครับ - สนใจบทวิเคราะห์ภาพยนตร์ ฟรีแลนซ์: ห้ามป่วย ห้ามพัก ห้ามรักหมอ (GMM Tai Hub, Jorkwang Films, 2015) โปรดดู http://www.dindeng.com/freelance-the-protestant-work-ethic-th/ - ภาพยนตร์ Spider-Man ที่ปฐมพงศ์พูดถึงคือ Sam Raimi, Spider-Man 2 (Columbia Pictures, Marvel Enterprises, Laura Ziskin Productions, 2004). . - White Collar Labour หรือ แรงงานคอปกขาว โดยทั่วไปหมายถึงแรงงานทำงานที่ 'มีทักษะ' ต่างๆ เช่น ผู้จัดการ พนักงานออฟฟิศ หรืองานวิชาชีพต่างๆ . แก้ไขข้อผิดพลาดที่เกินอภัย =================== - ประมาณ ณ เวลา 27.50 ปฐมพงศ์พูดผิด ขออนุญาตแก้ไขว่า 'กำลังการผลิต' ควรจะเป็น 'อำนาจทางการเมืองของชนชั้นแรงงาน'

VTT Juhana Vartiainen käy Samin kanssa läpi uusklassisen taloustieteen historian kohokohdat, #neuvottelija-yleisön pyynnöstä. Adam Smith - markkinatalous, näkymätön käsi ja absoluuttinen kilpailuetu David Ricardo - koronkiskonta ja suhteellinen kilpailuetu Karl Marx (ja Thomas Robert Malthus) - työväestön riisto ja kommunismi Alfred Marshall - marginalismi ja valtavirran taloustiede Sir John Maynard Keynes (ja Jean-Baptiste Say) - kysyntä ja tarjonta, makrotaloustiede, likviditeettiloukku Friedrich Hayek (ja Ludvig von Mises) - itävaltalainen taloustiede ja subjektiivinen arvoteoria Milton Friedman (ja Irving Fischer) - rahapolitiikka ja keskuspankkien valta Makrotaloustieteen tulevaisuus - käyttäytymistaloustiede (ja poliittinen taloustiede) Kerro kuka puuttuu ja kenestä haluaisit oman jakson? Jakso on nauhoitettu #puheenaihe-studiossa Rami Kurimon kanssa sen jälkeen kun Sami Miettinen ja Juhana Vartiainen olivat keskustelleet rahapolitiikasta ja universalismista euroalueella, liiittovaltiokehityksestä sekä Samin kehittämästä ECU2-mallista, jolla se Samin mielestä voitaisiin estää. #neuvottelijat-yhteisö neuvottelun tukena

When Thomas Carlyle famously described Economics as ‘the dismal science’ it was said that it was inspired by the writing of Thomas Malthus. His doom and gloom essay on population was to have a legacy that lasted his lifetime and beyond but were his predictions correct? And if he wasn’t, why do we still talk about ‘Malthusian’ economics now? As always, your friendly neighbourhood economists, Pete and Gav will be guiding you through the numerous arguments surrounding Bob’s work and wondering whether he was just a mild-mannered vicar, a headline-grabbing egotist or just a son who wanted to prove his dad wrong. Technical support as always comes from the Drop Down Thread tea maker Nic and music comes from Jukedeck. You can create your own at jukedeck.com.

Empezamos la exploración de una de las mentes más altas del siglo XIX. David Ricardo es uno de los economistas que ha generado mayor influencia sobre sus contemporáneos. Ricardo es un pensador de obligado estudio para todos aquellos que desean conocer el largo desarrollo de las ideas económicas. Tras sesudas lecturas de los libros de Smith, David Ricardo empozó la complicada tarea de examinar sobre un esquema obediente a la razón y la lógica las ideas expuestas por el filósofo escocés. Sin limitarse a las ideas principales del recién inaugurado liberalismo económico, Ricardo construye una hermosa teoría que coloca al trabajo en el centro del proceso de construcción de valor. En otras palabras, el valor es siempre fruto del trabajo. Es bueno recordar que la teoría de valor-trabajo ricardiana rompe con la idea de establecer un conjunto de leyes económicas válidas sólo en un estado primitivo, donde la propiedad privada y el desarrollo de instrumentos de trabajo especializados no existen. Es en Smith y Ricardo donde encontramos los orígenes de la teoría valor-trabajo que manejará Karl Marx. Otro aporte singular desarrollado por Ricardo es su teoría de la Renta. ¿Cómo y por qué surgen las rentas? Ricardo planteará que las rentas de la tierra surgen a raíz de los rendimientos decrecientes, del crecimiento poblacional y de la escasez de tierras de máxima calidad. La ausencia de uno de estos tres factores es suficiente para que las rentas sobre la tierra no surjan en una etapa primitiva. 

Thomas Robert Malthus tiene fama mundial por sus singulares ideas sobre temas de sobrepoblación. Tocando la crueldad, Malthus parece defender un conjunto de mecanismos “naturales” que sirven como controles demográficos. En materia económica Malthus señala la importancia de la demanda. La utilidad social de los terratenientes, desdeñados y menospreciados por Smith y Ricardo, será la de aportar esa demanda necesaria para el buen funcionamiento de la economía.  

From its beginnings as a discipline nearly 150 years ago, economics rested on assumptions that don’t hold up when studied in the present day. The notion that our economic systems are in equilibrium, that they’re made of actors making simple rational and self-interested decisions with perfect knowledge of society— these ideas prove about as useful in the Information Age as Newton’s laws of motion are to quantum physicists. A novel paradigm for economics, borrowing insights from ecology and evolutionary biology, started to emerge at SFI in the late 1980s — one that treats our markets and technologies as systems out of balance, serving metabolic forces, made of agents with imperfect information and acting on fundamental uncertainty. This new complexity economics uses new tools and data sets to shed light on puzzles standard economics couldn’t answer — like why the economy grows, how sudden and cascading crashes happen, why some companies and cities lock in permanent competitive advantages, and how technology evolves. And complexity economics offers insights back to biology, providing a new lens through which to understand the vastly intricate exchanges on which human life depends.This week’s guest is W. Brian Arthur, External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, and Visiting Researcher at Xerox PARC.  In this first part of a two-episode conversation, we discuss the heady early days when complex systems science took on economics, and how biology provided a new paradigm for understanding our financial and technological systems.  Tune in next week for part two...If you enjoy this podcast, please help us reach a wider audience by leaving a five-star review at Apple Podcasts, or by sharing the show on social media. Thank you for listening!Visit our website for more information or to support our science and communication efforts.Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast Theme Music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInFor more information:Brian’s Website.Brian’s Google Scholar page.“Where is technology taking the economy?” in McKinsey, 2017.The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves.“Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered” by Gould & Eldredge.

Der Mann war Sozialphilosoph, Nationalökonom und Pfarrer, aber als sonderlich barmherzig blieb der englische Wissenschaftler der Nachwelt nicht in Erinnerung. Denn Thomas Robert Malthus schürte Ängste. In seinem einflussreichen Essay "On the principle of population" warnte er als erster vor der Überbevölkerung. Autor: Jörg Beuthner

Hi everyone! Welcome back for another week of reviews! We’re continuing our Streaming Sundays series with a review of the Amazon Original documentary, ONE CHILD NATION, which was released in theaters earlier this year, and is now exclusively available on Amazon Prime. It’s a strong contender for the award season and offers us a rare opportunity to examine the results of a grand social experiment. We’ll be back next week with a review of the second Scorsese film from Netflix this year, THE IRISHMAN, another great Oscar contender, but one I waited to watch after it was available at home. Because three and a half hours. It’s Sunday, so that also means there’s another Patreon exclusive episode available at patreon.com/onemoviepunch. This week, I decided to re-cut and re-master a series of audio essays and dramas from last year, collectively entitled “Stories from the Fire”. It was one way that helped us process our wildfire evacuation last year, the second time for our family since moving to California. While you’re over there, please consider contributing monthly at any level. All contributions go to help paying our expenses and to help us grow with our audience. Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our good friends at the Top 5 For Fighting podcast. Every week, Greg and Mike cover a host of topics, and when they disagree, you know they’re going to fight about it. Don’t miss their guest review here at One Movie Punch for ALIENS (Episode #604), where we tried to figure out what was going on, with mixed results. You can catch their podcast on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram @Top5ForFighting. Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases. Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content. Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. Here we go! ///// > ///// Today’s movie is ONE CHILD NATION, the Amazon Studios documentary directed by Nanfu Wang and Jialing Zhang. The documentary follows Nanfu Wang as she examines the history and effect of China’s one child policy after becoming a first-time mother herself. The film examines the reasons, benefits, drawbacks, horrors, and lasting effects of this grand social experiment. No spoilers. However, content warnings for violence against women and children, including some very difficult stories. ONE CHILD NATION deals specifically with the implementation, enforcement, abolishment, and lasting effects of the one child policy in China, which lasted from 1979 through 2015. The policy was enacted after the previous and now current two child policy, with the aim at slowing population growth to prevent starvation and to raise overall standards of living across the country. 36 years later, widespread famine has been avoided and the overall standard of living has been raised across the country, but many sociological experts and political pundits question the link between China’s birth rate policies and the results later. ONE CHILD NATION also seeks to question this correlation, from the perspective of Nanfu Wang, who was a second child born under the one child policy, exempted under one of the many loopholes that allowed roughly half of all families to have a second child. Nanfu Wang has since relocated to the United States, but returns to China to examine this policy from a number of different perspectives, and from her own perspective of being a mother to her first child. As such, ONE CHILD NATION is as much about Nanfu Wang discovering her own history and culture as much as it is about the policy itself, which is part of the reason ONE CHILD NATION is so effective as a documentary. You can’t talk about the one child policy without talking about propaganda. My initial understanding of China’s one child policy was shaped largely by propaganda, in the form of mainstream media reports focused on forced abortions and sterilizations, and babies left in the markets to die, all shocking events that Nanfu Wang verifies and validates within her documentary. And it’s true, the government did send public health crews to communities for sterilizations and abortions, but the number of forced procedures is hard to calculate outside of anecdotal evidence from two different workers Nanfu Wang interviews, particularly when the policy itself had high support among the population. In fact, both workers look back on their efforts with very different points of view. ONE CHILD NATION helps us understand the level of social acceptance of the policy, even from Nanfu Wang’s own family and community, citing the reasons for the policy almost universally. Stories of babies left in markets to die are definitely horrific, but only possible if entire communities walk past, not much different from folks who walk past the homeless in the United States, a situation China was trying to avoid. Or for that matter, the shocking number of “dumpster babies” that happened in the United States by women without access to safe abortion. But attempting to avoid one problem through social policy also lead to a host of other social problems, like sex-selective abortion, birth tourism, and hidden children living on the margins. Each of these negative effects is covered well by Nanfu Wang, with some surprising stories along the way, including one health worker’s self-guided attempt at social redemption. I think the hardest thing for me to reconcile with the one child policy is its basis on some questionable science. Thomas Robert Malthus drove this fear of overpopulation in his 1798 work, “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, which basically says populations grow exponentially while food grows linearly, and when population outgrows food, we arrive at famine. It’s a simple principle that’s easy to communicate, but much more complex to understand. Malthus’ views require modification, given the rise of contraceptive practices, agricultural advancements in food production and distribution, and roughly two hundred years of data challenging that theory. I have no doubt that there is a connection between population and food consumption, but I also know there are other social and political factors that affect that relationship. My one criticism of ONE CHILD NATION is that it doesn’t address this particular underlying idea, at least not directly. Malthusian ideas of overpopulation are also alive and well within so-called Western countries, often argued from positions of extreme privilege at best, and from positions of extreme racism at worst. Most of the concerns with overpopulation today have little to do with food and famine, and more to do with environmental degradation and economic hardship. Each person adds to the carbon footprint of the world through consumption, even if there are technologies to make consumption much cleaner and more efficient. Each person adds to the economic hardship for a family, especially in urban communities divorced from the ability to grow food, a key advantage of large, rural families. I want to close with a generational look at a one child policy. After I saw this film, I spent the next couple of days sorting through it, sometimes in the car with my family on the way to school. My daughter, whose generation faces environmental devastation and perhaps the breakdown of economic systems, supports the idea of a one child policy, from a standpoint of long-term practical survival. ONE CHILD NATION is focused almost exclusively on whether anyone has the right to as many children as they want, which was also the focus of the propaganda in the United States about the policy. But what the film lacks is a focus on the responsibility that comes with bringing children into the world, which is also ignored in the debates about abortion in the United States. It’s also why I support a one-child policy, even if both my daughter and I are vehemently against the way it was implemented in China, while also having no social or moral judgment about multi-child families elsewhere. It’s a complicated issue, more complicated than the initial reasoning for a one child policy in China, but necessary for surviving on a planet with limited resources. ONE CHILD NATION is a personal and social journey into the history and effects of China’s one child policy. Nanfu Wang explores her own upbringing under the policy and her new perspectives as a recent mother, focused mostly on the more horrific effects of the policy, but without diving too deeply into the underlying reasons for the policy. Documentary fans, or anyone curious about the effects of China’s one child policy, should definitely check out this film, but please heed all the content warnings. Rotten Tomatoes: 99% (CERTIFIED FRESH) Metacritic: 85 (MUST SEE) One Movie Punch: 8.7/10 ONE CHILD NATION (2019) is rated R and is currently playing on Amazon Prime.

Ray Keating compares the philosophy of Thanos – the villain in two of the biggest movies ever – Avengers: Infinity Warand Avengers: Endgame– to the late-18th-early 19thcentury economist Thomas Robert Malthus. Why does Thanos to commit great evil? We seem to find the answer in the work of Malthus, who basically argued that humanity would face rather dismal choices as population growth would outstrip the production of food. Murderous evil springs from bad economics.Sign up for Ray Keating's nonfiction books email list! You'll receive free newsletters and updates, notifications about events, and 40% off coupons for any and all of Keating's forthcoming books covering entrepreneurship, business, your career, writing, Disney, TO DO list solutions, and more! Go to https://raykeatingonline.com/contact.

At the dawn of the First Industrial Revolution, a new academic field emerged: Economics. (Well, something called “Political Economy” anyway.)  But centuries of economic thought had to be supplanted first.In this Chapter, we review some of the ideas that permeated Europe leading up to the Industrial Revolutions. We'll discuss the works of Plato and Aristotle, the Scholastics, the Mercantilists, Quesnay and the Physiocrats, Galiani, Beccaria, Verri, and of course, Thomas Robert Malthus.

Welcome to Blackbird9's Breakfast Club's Wednesday Podcast, Chosen Tellers Visions Of Apocalyptic Futures. Tonight we will look at the life and career of jewish Science Fiction Writer Harlan Ellison. https://www.blackbird9tradingposts.org/2018/07/04/chosen-tellers-visions-of-apocalyptic-futures-blackbird9/In the First Hour we cover the chaotic events brought on by the teachings of the Frankfurt School Marxists. Their mission has always been to establish a Greater Israel ruled by globalism under the direction of Talmudic Noahide Law and at the same time force all other nations to surrender their independent sovereignty. In our Second Hour of Chosen Tellers Visions Of Apocalyptic Futures, Frederick looks at the life and career of jewish Science Fiction Writer Harlan Ellison (1934-2018). From the apocalyptic writings of Hebrew culture in our T2-Iron Era (4000 B.C. - 2000 A.D.), to the early Malthusian doomsday pseudo science of Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798, to the early science fiction writings of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, to the Cultural Marxist demoralization campaign of the early post-nuclear age science fiction writers, to the 1975 release of the film A Boy and His Dog, the host discusses how Harlan Ellison became the epitome of the angry, intransigent jewish supremacist artist and vanguard of the A-Ward Winning (((Modern Maccabee))) World Zionist traitor within movement.

Welcome to Blackbird9's Breakfast Club's Wednesday Podcast, Chosen Tellers Visions Of Apocalyptic Futures. Tonight we will look at the life and career of jewish Science Fiction Writer Harlan Ellison. https://www.blackbird9tradingposts.org/2018/07/04/chosen-tellers-visions-of-apocalyptic-futures-blackbird9/In the First Hour we cover the chaotic events brought on by the teachings of the Frankfurt School Marxists. Their mission has always been to establish a Greater Israel ruled by globalism under the direction of Talmudic Noahide Law and at the same time force all other nations to surrender their independent sovereignty. In our Second Hour of Chosen Tellers Visions Of Apocalyptic Futures, Frederick looks at the life and career of jewish Science Fiction Writer Harlan Ellison (1934-2018). From the apocalyptic writings of Hebrew culture in our T2-Iron Era (4000 B.C. - 2000 A.D.), to the early Malthusian doomsday pseudo science of Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798, to the early science fiction writings of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, to the Cultural Marxist demoralization campaign of the early post-nuclear age science fiction writers, to the 1975 release of the film A Boy and His Dog, the host discusses how Harlan Ellison became the epitome of the angry, intransigent jewish supremacist artist and vanguard of the A-Ward Winning (((Modern Maccabee))) World Zionist traitor within movement.

This week i invite my next door neighbour in for a chat . Is Our beautiful planet riddled with crazy dictators, War and poverty or is it actually the calmest its ever been? Just one of the topics me and my Springbok pal chat about as well as our worlds population and the Malthusian Theory by Thomas Robert Malthus. www.intelligenteconomist.com Who is Raymond Kurzweil and what is Elfego , Hans Rosling and Joe Rogan? Find out how we conclude this weeks episode , is it time to chillax or jump on the next shuttle and fly to the moon ? And here is a super amazing website to check out to make us all feel better .... https://www.humanprogress.org As well as all this we have music once again from Searmanas www.facebook.com/searamanas/ If you fancy contacting me email : jaff10@hotmail.com twitter: www.twitter.com/@mrjaff10 facebook: www.facebook.com/themarcjeffreypodcastshow For a full back catalogue look me up on itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-marc-jeffrey-podcast-show/id1206615943?mt=2 Many Thanks Marc    

Die Geschichte strotzt nur so vor falschen Vorhersagen. Vom ominösen Maya-Kalender, nach dem wir alle seit sechs Jahren tot sein sollten, über Nostradamus bis hin zu den vielen vielen Leuten, die  nicht an den Durchbruch des Telefons, Automobils oder Flugzeugs glaubten: Menschen behaupteten immer schon gerne, sie wüssten über die Zukunft bescheid. Melde dich hier für den Déjà-vu Newsletter an. Hier kannst du Déjà-vu Geschichte finanziell unterstützen. Ein besonders gutes Beispiel aus der Wissenschaft sind dazu die Thesen des Nationalökonomen Thomas Robert Malthus, der sich mit Bevölkerungsentwicklung und dem natürlichen Limit der Weltbevölkerung auseinandersetzte. An der Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert stellte Malthus seine bahnbrechende und weit rezipierte Theorie zur Bevölkerungsentwicklung auf. Er deklarierte darin, dass die Weltbevölkerung schlicht schneller wächst, als die Nahrungsmittelversorgung ihr folgen kann. Dieses vollkommen untragbare Bevölkerungswachstum muss sich früher oder später selbst korrigieren. Durch Krieg, Seuche und Hungersnot. Und all das schien ihn noch nicht mal sonderlich zu stören. Heute wissen wir, dass Malthus‘ berühmte Bevölkerungsfalle nie eintrat. Die Weltbevölkerung erreichte seitdem zwar ein nie dagewesenes Niveau. Trotzdem leben wir immer noch. Wie konnte eine so weit rezipierte Theorie ihrer Zeit also so grundlegend daneben liegen? Und zu guter Letzt: Warum hatte Malthus trotz all dem nicht vollkommen unrecht? All das erfahrt ihr in der heutigen Episode des Déjà-vu Geschichte Podcast! Wie in der Episode erwähnt, findet ihr alle Déjà-vu Podcasts und auch alle Blogartikel auf deja-vu-geschichte.de. In der Zwischenzeit nochmal die obligatorische Erinnerung: Wenn euch der Podcast gefällt, bewertet ihn doch bitte auf iTunes! Das würde mir sehr helfen. Und wenn ihr schon dabei seid: Abonniert ihn doch auch gleich! Weiterlesen

This podcast episode is dedicated to Chapter III from Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. The title of the chapter is Struggle for Existence.  We discussed Thomas Malthus and how his ideas of population growth influenced Charles Darwin. In particular, Malthus noted that human population growth is geometric which is clearly represented by the graph below that shows global human population growth in the last 300+ years.  Human population on earth is currently over 7 billion with the estimates that in the next 50 years we may level off somewhere between 7-16 billion people, which is a large margin of error. The thought is that cultural norms and female education will decrease individual female fertility which will ultimately dampen global population growth.If true and human population stabilizes it will be unusual since humans would be exhibiting self-regulation of their population instead of having external mortality factors (disease or predation) determining population size. Graph summarizing human population growth.Although Malthus was correct in his view of human population growth, his prediction about the rate of food availability being linear was wrong because modern agriculture has also shown a geometric increase in yield/acre by utilizing evolution (artificial selection in breeding newer varieties of crops) and fossil fuels to operate machinery, irrigate crops and manufacture fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to increase crop yield. This phenomenon has been named the Green Revolution and it began in western cultures at the end of World War II. The graphs below show how increases in yield/acre for two food crops (corn and wheat) and two other crops (cotton and tobacco) have mirrored the geometric increase of human population growth. Increase productivity in selected cropsOne of the exciting ideas that Darwin introduces in this chapter is the idea of trophic cascades, the interaction between the various organisms in an ecosystem. We discussed Darwin's beautiful example of the complex indirect relationship between cats in a village and the population of clover in the fields. Recently a complex example has come to light when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone national park. The reintroduced wolves altered the foraging behavior of elk thereby reducing the elk negative impact on young tree recruitment which increased forest and understory growth. Increase in tree growth along the river banks stabilized the soil and reduced erosion which resulted in improved water quality and river flow.Ultimately the reintroduction of wolves influenced fish communities, beaver abundance and other indirect effects which are documented in detail in a variety of scientific papers which can be found at the Global Trophic Cascades research program website from Oregon State University. The researchers have linked a large number of their original research papers for free download.From Ripple et al. (2014) Science 343 If you do not feel like reading, then we recommend you watch the short but wonderful TED talk by George Monbiot as he describes some of the complex trophic cascades uncovered in different ecosystems.Josh and Sarah brought up the idea of how invasive species can illustrate the importance of predators and disease in controlling population size since many invasive species can dramatically increase their population size when compared to their native population sizes in the land of origin.We mentioned Josh's favorite study species the Hemlock Wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae),  kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata)  and winter creeper, all of which are invasive in the eastern US. Wooly adelgid image from http://www2.ca.uky.edu/Kudzu image from http://www.forestryimages.orgWinter creeper image from http://www.local12.comURL: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kevin_MacLeod/Best_of_2014_1461/Broken_RealityComments: http://freemusicarchive.org/Curator:

Before Economics episode 12: Thomas Malthus – An Essay On The Principle Of Population

Before Economics episode 16: Thomas Malthus – Principles Of Political Economy

In the battle of ideas we understand that ideas have consequences. If bad ideas are allowed to have control of people’s actions they will make bad actions. One such bad idea is the myth of overpopulation, which has been disproven. And yet, it is often presented as if it’s true in order to justify killing other vulnerable human beings, but it was disapproved long ago. Thomas Robert Malthus came up with the idea in 1798 and he used it to justify killing the vulnerable and needy because they were contributing to the overpopulation problem. But contrary to his prediction, the world is not ending in thirty years and in fact human beings have been proven to be our greatest asset in society and not “things we throw away.” OverpopulationIsAMyth.com brings out the many facts regarding actual population facts and the many myths that are used to prop up killing vulnerable human beings like unborn children, the elderly, and the disabled. Go to OverpopulationIsAMyth.com to find out more.

Today's guest is Steve Horwitz, he is the Charles A. Dana Professor and Chair of the economics department at St. Lawrence University. Steve recently wrote an article titled, "Make Babies, and Don't Let the Greens Guilt Trip You about It." This was a response to an argument made by the bioethicist Travis Rieder, who was recently profiled by NPR. Rieder argues that it is immoral to have children because of the burden additional humans place on the Earth, in particular because of the risk of catastrophic climate change. Here's how that NPR piece put his argument: "Back at James Madison University, Travis Rieder explains a PowerPoint graph that seems to offer hope. Bringing down global fertility by just half a child per woman 'could be the thing that saves us,' he says. He cites a study from 2010 that looked at the impact of demographic change on global carbon emissions. It found that slowing population growth could eliminate one-fifth to one-quarter of all the carbon emissions that need to be cut by midcentury to avoid that potentially catastrophic tipping point." The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it views human beings as consumers and not as producers and innovators. Humans are able to contribute to the division of labour and to come up with ideas. That division of labour allows everyone to become more productive. Rieder's ideas echo those of Thomas Robert Malthus, and he is wrong for much the same reasons. Malthus anticipated a world where the diminishing returns in agriculture and exponential population growth would lead humanity to subsistence in a few generations. As Malthus predicted, populations did skyrocket, but contra Malthus, people got significantly richer too. What happened? Innovation happened. Along with that innovation, and contributing to it, was a finer division of labour created by population growth. As Adam Smith wrote, "the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market." Humans create resources, not by violating thermodynamics, but by discovering better ways to satisfy our needs with the physical matter that exists. Resources are subjective. To a farmer 500 years ago, striking oil was a nuisance. It would ruin his crops and destroy the value of his land. Yet today, the very same oil is a valuable resource because we've discovered how to make it useful. Julian Simon challenged the idea that we're running out of resources, declaring human innovation to be "the ultimate resource." Rieder and other environmentalists are different from Malthus in that they worry not about more people eating too much food but about them releasing too much carbon. A lot of this comes down to our estimate of the social cost of carbon. Rieder sees this cost as being so high, it outstrips all other concerns. He expects apocalyptic changes in the Earth's climate within twenty years. Economists are not climate scientists, we aren't trained to be able to perform our own studies on the relationship between carbon emissions and global climate. But what we can do is look at the bulk of the published research. The two things we could say about this to someone like Rieder are, first, that he seems to have based his arguments on the absolute highest estimates of the climate impact of carbon, where a reasonable person might have looked at the median estimates. And second, people who have performed meta-analyses of this literature have found evidence of publication bias towards finding a larger impact, meaning the best estimate would be somewhat below the median estimate once we correct for publication bias. If the kind of climate change Rieder sees coming in twenty years is really more like two hundred years away, it changes the argument a lot. With the costs of climate change so far out in the future, and the costs of abatement concentrated on the present, our cost-benefit analysis needs to account for the discount factors in such long time spans. The projects that have to be sacrificed today to abate climate change over the next couple centuries have their own benefits that need to be weighed against the costs of releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It all comes down to opportunity cost. Other links: Progress Does Not Depend on Geniuses Against Fossil Fuel Divestment with Pierre Desrochers

En 1798, salió a la luz un libro titulado Ensayo sobre el principio de la población (An Essay on the Principle of Population) escrito por Thomas Robert Malthus. Sus ideas sobre las consecuencias de un aumento de la población humana y la necesidad de control levantaron ampollas en una sociedad que pensaba que la riqueza de una nación dependía de su número de habitantes. Hoy, cuando la población humana mundial roza los 6.900 millones de personas, les invitamos a reflexionar escuchando la biografía de Thomas Malthus.