R Buckminster Fuller - Boston College 1970 - Economic System and...Thomas Malthus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKnyAE40Fc8
US Navy, All the science known, was being used to kill, based on Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population.
Same principles that we live by today....
B. Fuller speaking on World Game, Boston College Full Video INTERNET ARCHIVES, Tape 1 - 3
https://archive.org/details/B.FullerSpeakingOnWorldGameBostonCollegetapeA/1970May02b.FullerSpeakingOnWorldGameBostonCollege1Of3Ss5_133_001a.flv
When Darwin was developing his theory of evolution, Malthus's essay on the Principle of Population gave him some valuable insights that would eventually be crucial to his work. In particular, Malthus's famous metaphor about the wedges that would drive a weaker structure out of a gap was helpful to Darwin in understanding the process of natural selection. In other words, the idea that a weaker structure will outcompete an otherwise strong one.
In contrast, Darwin proposed that individuals would not do what was best for them. They would only harm themselves and the community. This would impede progress. His understanding of human behavior is in direct contrast to Malthus's. He even argued against Smith's concept of the Invisible Hand. Ultimately, the argument between Malthus and Darwin is more complex than it seems.
In Malthus's essay, he discussed the idea that the better competitors would outnumber the poor ones. As a result, the less capable competitors would die off, leaving those with desirable traits to survive. He called this the theory of natural selection. This idea has broad application to the study of nature. But, it is important to note that this view of human action is far from universal.
Malthus's essay had a very significant impact on Darwin's philosophy. It shows that he saw human behavior through the lens of struggle and social injustice. He even wrote a book that would help others understand the same concept and why humans must struggle to survive. Although this may seem like a simplistic answer to the question "What is the purpose of life?" it reveals much more.
Darwin's essay also shows how he applied the idea of natural selection to the study of population growth. His essay's first three chapters only cover a few issues for acceptance. Those issues were already well-known in the literature of the time. It was Darwin's concern for the fate of the human race that led to his book. He was concerned that a slave's life in a slave's hands had to be inhuman.
It is not clear whether the essay was a good or bad piece of work. It is also possible to judge the importance of the essay by looking at the implications of the essay for other questions of philosophy. For example, if a human being was a selfish, self-centered individual, he could be a destructive force. A more rational society would not allow such a thing to happen.
Four years after the Reverend Doctor Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, the population of Great Britain stood at about 10 million people and GDP was 29.794 billion pounds or 2,979 pounds per capita. Today, the population of the United Kingdom is more than 67 million and GDP is more than 2.744 trillion pounds or 40,955 pounds per capita.
That is to say that since Malthus wrote, the population of Great Britain has sextupled while the standard of living has increased more than 20 times. Since his theory was, that due to resource exhaustion, population always increased to more than exceed productivity increases, and that therefore poverty was inevitable, his theory has been most thoroughly refuted.
And yet, strangely, his influence has never waned. There may be no better example of Keynes’ dictum that “practical men who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” than the case of Malthus. The question is why?
The cause I would suggest is two related facts. The first is human nature and our evolutionary environment. The second are the limited but obvious instances in which Malthus is correct. I will discuss these first, because it is probably part of the cause of human nature being as it is.
* * * * *
The intellectual power of Malthusianism is due to the seeming fact that the universe is not truly infinite. If as now seems to be the case, the big bang happened but once and all the matter and energy in the universe is the product thereof, it stands to reason that there must be an absolute limit to the number of people that can exist and the amount of goods that can be produced for them.
While this is undoubtedly true, it is not a valid line of reasoning in any reasonable time frame. To take the most obvious example, our sun produces 380 septillion joules of energy every second, 21 trillion times more energy than humanity currently uses every second. This output is expected to increase for the next five billion years. Now consider that there are about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, not to mention the 49 other galaxies in our local group. This is an inconceivably large amount of energy.
Likewise, the amount of matter in our solar system is also vast. The moon alone contains enough iron to build O’Neil cylinders, large rotating habitats, with a total surface area of more than a trillion square kilometers, 6,7
... keep reading on reddit ➡I've known way too many people, even people I otherwise respect, who believe this narrative that Thomas Malthus was basically Thanos. The real Malthus would have been as disgusted by Thanos as the rest of us.
These people also consistently say "well, our population increased, and we aren't starving, so Malthus was wrong!"
Firstly, Malthus just observed that the standard of living in Europe went up after the Black Plague, and concluded that overpopulation could be a problem. He was very clear that he felt this issue should be addressed by delaying marriage to reduce the birth rate (since they lacked other reliable birth control at the time).
Secondly, yes our population increased, but it's rate of increase has been slowing drastically since the invention of birth control! We did exactly what Malthus wanted, and then gave him the finger! If we were still reproducing at the same rate as people in Malthus' time we WOULD have mass starvation!
I've often read in defense of Jefferson not freeing his slaves that doing so would have ruined her financially, however, couldn't he have freed them gradually to lessen the blow to his finances? Fellow Virginian Robert Carter did so, and he owned more than twice as many slaves as did Jefferson. So why did Jefferson not institute a similar system of gradually emancipating his slaves, seeing as he spoke out so passionately against slavery?
Via Quentin L Cooks Facebook page
"It is estimated that 46% of the world lives in countries where the fertility rate is below 2.1 children, the rate necessary for the population to remain stable. Most European and Asian countries are below this level. Italy and Japan are both at 1.3 births. Japan is expected to decrease in population from 120 million to about 100 million by the year 2050.
This worldwide decline in population has been described by some as the “demographic winter.” Many countries are not having enough children to replace the generation that is dying. I recently demonstrated this concern while speaking to students at BYU, as shown in this video.
We must be at the forefront of changing hearts and minds on the importance of children. We should stay close to the Lord as we make decisions about our own families, while refraining from judging the familial choices of others. It is my testimony that every family member is important and their roles are beautiful, glorious, and fulfilling."
Poster's Comments:
Because there isn't enough pressure in the church to have kids. But I mean that's the couples decision right cough cough
Are church numbers dwindling so much that we need to birth more children to baptize?
I would love your thoughts! ---MeeseeksboxProbs
Four years after the Reverend Doctor Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, the population of Great Britain stood at about 10 million people and GDP was 29.794 billion pounds or 2,979 pounds per capita. Today, the population of the United Kingdom is more than 67 million and GDP is more than 2.744 trillion pounds or 40,955 pounds per capita.
That is to say that since Malthus wrote, the population of Great Britain has sextupled while the standard of living has increased more than 20 times. Since his theory was, that due to resource exhaustion, population always increased to more than exceed productivity increases, and that therefore poverty was inevitable, his theory has been most thoroughly refuted.
And yet, strangely, his influence has never waned. There may be no better example of Keynes’ dictum that “practical men who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” than the case of Malthus. The question is why?
The cause I would suggest is two related facts. The first is human nature and our evolutionary environment. The second are the limited but obvious instances in which Malthus is correct. I will discuss these first, because it is probably part of the cause of human nature being as it is.
* * * * *
The intellectual power of Malthusianism is due to the seeming fact that the universe is not truly infinite. If as now seems to be the case, the big bang happened but once and all the matter and energy in the universe is the product thereof, it stands to reason that there must be an absolute limit to the number of people that can exist and the amount of goods that can be produced for them.
While this is undoubtedly true, it is not a valid line of reasoning in any reasonable time frame. To take the most obvious example, our sun produces 380 septillion joules of energy every second, 21 trillion times more energy than humanity currently uses every second. This output is expected to increase for the next five billion years. Now consider that there are about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, not to mention the 49 other galaxies in our local group. This is an inconceivably large amount of energy.
Likewise, the amount of matter in our solar system is also vast. The moon alone contains enough iron to build O’Neil cylinders, large rotating habitats, with a total surface area of more than a trillion square kilometers, 6,7
... keep reading on reddit ➡Four years after the Reverend Doctor Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, the population of Great Britain stood at about 10 million people and GDP was 29.794 billion pounds or 2,979 pounds per capita. Today, the population of the United Kingdom is more than 67 million and GDP is more than 2.744 trillion pounds or 40,955 pounds per capita.
That is to say that since Malthus wrote, the population of Great Britain has sextupled while the standard of living has increased more than 20 times. Since his theory was, that due to resource exhaustion, population always increased to more than exceed productivity increases, and that therefore poverty was inevitable, his theory has been most thoroughly refuted.
And yet, strangely, his influence has never waned. There may be no better example of Keynes’ dictum that “practical men who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” than the case of Malthus. The question is why?
The cause I would suggest is two related facts. The first is human nature and our evolutionary environment. The second are the limited but obvious instances in which Malthus is correct. I will discuss these first, because it is probably part of the cause of human nature being as it is.
* * * * *
The intellectual power of Malthusianism is due to the seeming fact that the universe is not truly infinite. If as now seems to be the case, the big bang happened but once and all the matter and energy in the universe is the product thereof, it stands to reason that there must be an absolute limit to the number of people that can exist and the amount of goods that can be produced for them.
While this is undoubtedly true, it is not a valid line of reasoning in any reasonable time frame. To take the most obvious example, our sun produces 380 septillion joules of energy every second, 21 trillion times more energy than humanity currently uses every second. This output is expected to increase for the next five billion years. Now consider that there are about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, not to mention the 49 other galaxies in our local group. This is an inconceivably large amount of energy.
Likewise, the amount of matter in our solar system is also vast. The moon alone contains enough iron to build O’Neil cylinders, large rotating habitats, with a total surface area of more than a trillion square kilometers, 6,7
... keep reading on reddit ➡