Malthus and the limits to growth.

[Gorgo Primus]

The sociological part of his theory was on spot.

No, it really wasn't. Being educated makes you have LESS children not more, helping the poor betters society it doesn't make it worse, people have sex out of wedlock, etc.

If you actually read his works you'll see that the man was a moronic demagogue who didn't know the first thing about people or the world.

His didn't want people to control population growth, he didn't even predict a population boom. The only thing on his mind was convincing people that nothing could be done for the poor and no change in society was possible. His goal was to get people to ignore the poor, support the status quo, and get the King and Nobles all over the world to lavish him with fame and fortune.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

Oil is merely a factor that can be rendered obsolete. Plastics can be produced from other substances, you know

Excessive reliance on some resource isn't Malthusian, it is just stupidity, hehe

 

[telesien]

No, it really wasn't. Being educated makes you have LESS children not more

I don't want to continue that part not related to Victoria and also it have been some years since I was learning about him, but isn't this what he said? Lower education=more children?

 

[Herbert West]

Oil is merely a factor that can be rendered obsolete. Plastics can be produced from other substances, you know

Excessive reliance on some resource isn't Malthusian, it is just stupidity, hehe

I disagree. You can substitute resource X with resource Y, but resource Y will also "run out" ni the economic sense, requiring it to be substituted with resource Z, etc, all the while consuming more and more energy for set amount of resource X,Y,Z.

 

[telesien]

I disagree. You can substitute resource X with resource Y, but resource Y will also "run out" ni the economic sense, requiring it to be substituted with resource Z, etc, all the while consuming more and more energy for set amount of resource X,Y,Z.

See? Everything is so simple when you look back. "Hahaha. Malthus was so stupid, he never thought of the technological progress." But we do the same thing all the time. Ok, that was my last off-topic post here, I swear on the lives of my future grand-children

 

[unmerged(68110)]

I disagree. You can substitute resource X with resource Y, but resource Y will also "run out" ni the economic sense, requiring it to be substituted with resource Z, etc, all the while consuming more and more energy for set amount of resource X,Y,Z.

Not exactly.

The main problem (and indeed it is my main pet peeve, personally speaking) of current mainstream economics is that it thinks always in terms of scarcity. This kinda got around with people, and not exactly in a good manner.

To better illustrate what I am talking here, allow me to use a reference from an astronomer of my university who used this extrapolation: scarcity in an endless universe is simply a baseless assertion. Our reliance to resources is limited by our access to them and not by them per se.

An example: Energetic needs can be completely obsolete once we develop fusion technology or learn sophisticated methods of harnessing solar energy in massive scale. Sure, we are now entirely dependant on the hydrogen/helium deposits of the Earth or the continued existance of the Sun, but the scale of these resources in such scenario is so absurd it effectively defeats scarcity. A more practical example would be oxygen: it is vital for our living, yet we do not worry about how available it is.

Technological progress has shown that it can defeat labour (Marx et al) and, in my opinion, can defeat scarcity as well.

 

[Herbert West]

The Earth is not infinite. The amount of energy buffer we have is not infinite.

I am a nuclear scientist (okay, soon to be).

Fusion will not be infinite. Even if we assume that the actual fuel has energy and resource costs of zero, the cost of building, maintainging, and disassembling the power plant will not be zero, it will cost money, time, resources, and energy. Some of the resources spent will never, ever be recoverable, no matter how good the tech.


And if you want to be pedantic, there is always the second law of termodinamics, you always, always have some sort of loss.

Bottom line: the Earth is finite, the Uinverse is finite, resources are finite, enthropy can only grow, your teacher was wrong.

 

[OHgamer]

Folks, most of the discussion here is not related to gameplay or game structure, but really well beyond the scope of this forum into discussion of theory and historiography of Malthus and his ideas. There is a history forum where that kind of discussion belongs, this forum really needs to stay focused on questions of gameplay and not get sidetracked in endless debate over the nature of Malthus' ideas.

 

[Aeon221]

The Earth is not infinite. The amount of energy buffer we have is not infinite.

I am a nuclear scientist (okay, soon to be).

Fusion will not be infinite. Even if we assume that the actual fuel has energy and resource costs of zero, the cost of building, maintainging, and disassembling the power plant will not be zero, it will cost money, time, resources, and energy. Some of the resources spent will never, ever be recoverable, no matter how good the tech.


And if you want to be pedantic, there is always the second law of termodinamics, you always, always have some sort of loss.

Bottom line: the Earth is finite, the Uinverse is finite, resources are finite, enthropy can only grow, your teacher was wrong.

A sphere of matter (also known as the observable universe) with a diameter of 28 billion light years has been constructed by natural forces around a functionally irrelevant point (also known as the earth) in a period in which light itself can only have moved 14 billion light years.* This leads one inevitably to the conclusion that either the universe is infinite in size, or that it is so enormously gargantuan that it may as well be declared infinite because we're absolutely at our wits end trying to describe something that is so big that light itself is too slow to show us where the ends are.

So, while we might not be able to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe is indeed actually infinite, we have a much stronger ground for saying that human stupidity certainly is. I cite the above quoted passage as sufficient proof of that hypothesis.



*Bit of a puzzler how matter could have moved, at the absolute least, twice as fast as light, eh? The reason we call the beginning of the universe the big bang has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, and everything to do with the sound someone's brains make when they're trying to understand just what in the blazes happened 14 billion years ago. The most basic way of putting things is that matter didn't move all that fast at all, it's just the fabric of space itself was expanding and brought matter along with it. Which opens up a whole new can of worms, really.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

Herbert: Not my teacher, one of the guys of the Physics department. I am at the Economic Sciences, thankfully

I won't argue with someone who is more qualified than me at that example...

...But I sustain the latter point. For the relevant social needs, you CAN defeat scarcity. It is the entire point for some economic theory branches - technology as a means to defeat such concepts in, again I reiterate, a social form.

ADDENDUM: Didn't see OHGamer's post while I was making this one. I will finish my sidetracking here.

 

[rjf101]

There should be maximum population limits set for each province, based on various factors (maybe size, climate, RGO, industrialization, etc.) I mean, in one game I have London already has nearly 9 million people in 1895, crammed into an area that even today only holds some 7 million people. And the way its growing, I expect it to be well over 12 million by the end of the game. There definately has to be some way to prevent this from hapenning in the game.

Also, Ireland has about 13 million people. In real life, in the modern day, Ireland only has 5.6 million (that's including Ulster/Northern Ireland!). The only real emigration I've had from Ireland was a few tens of thousands who went to the Seychelles and Mauritius. But emigration to the US has been very small, and their growth rates are about the same as in most English provinces. So something has to be done to correct this.

 

[Aeon221]

Herbert: Not my teacher, one of the guys of the Physics department. I am at the Economic Sciences, thankfully

I won't argue with someone who is more qualified than me at that example...

...But I sustain the latter point. For the relevant social needs, you CAN defeat scarcity. It is the entire point for some economic theory branches - technology as a means to defeat such concepts in, again I reiterate, a social form.

ADDENDUM: Didn't see OHGamer's post while I was making this one. I will finish my sidetracking here.

When you get right down to it, most other sciences are just a limited expression of physics.

Where the argument against scarcity breaks down is the issue of energy. In essence, while resources are functionally infinite, the energy required to obtain said infinite resources is not necessarily commensurate with the energy gained from them. Economics models this inefficiency in acquisition in a number of ways, but you've experienced it late at night when you've decided that getting yourself a midnight snack isn't worth the energy expenditure of getting up and going to the fridge.

The essential absurdity of man's (and woman's) eternal problem of resource scarcity in an infinite universe is thus adroitly represented as late night laziness in the presence of delicious snacks! But our ridiculous example posits the most sublime element of man(and woman)kinds brilliance: that the solution is through science. You may be too lazy to get your late night snack, but you'd be more than willing to buy a robot built buy a scientist to get your snacks for you (or vacuum your house, I <3 U ROOMBA).

And we as a species will also find some way to get at those delicious but distant resources. Maybe by using single celled bacteria to build humans on other planets! Maybe through the near magic of quantum tunneling! Maybe through robotics!

In the end, we as a species have conquered everything from ice ages to diseases to seriously large and unappealing oceans. We've even conquered the W-2 and the 1040 -- and not just the 1040EZ either, but the honest-to-goodness-itemize-your-deductions 1040! Anyone who counts us out before we've had a chance to really ponder the issue -- like Malthus and all the Malthusians who have followed him -- will find themselves eventually, inevitably, proven wrong. Heck, even if the universe were eventually ground into a thin film of dirt spread throughout all of space, there'd still be a few humans left eking an existence off of it -- and probably mocking the Eagles while they do it, seriously choke some more you pathetic losers -- because that is what we do.


edit: Anyway, gameplay suggestion, I hope we end up with resources that are initially limited that can be improved upon through SCIENCE. The POPS might eat everything at the start of the scenario, but by the end you'll be maintaining twice as many in the same land.


SCIENCE!

 

[unmerged(68110)]

Mechanical Production tech - now with 200% more debate in the forums!

 

[Barón Rojo]

I hope don't see again Uruguay with a population of 300 million. xD

 

[Easy Max]

*Bit of a puzzler how matter could have moved, at the absolute least, twice as fast as light, eh?

I hope responding directly to this doesnt inflame OHGamer to destroy the thread, but I see a small logical snafu in this point. I'm not well versed on the particulars, so I'll only use figures you fronted yourself.

You claim the universe to have a 28 billion light-year diameter (coming to this conclusion because you suppose that the "big bang" or some such effect happened 14 billion years ago, and that matter was simultaneously projected out in every direction, thus along one axis, matter would be 28 billion light years apart).

Thusly, matter hasnt moved twice as fast as the speed of light, it has moved at the speed of light in opposite directions, meaning that they are 28 billion light years apart, in only 14 billion years. Do you see what I am saying? The difference might seem trifling, but it removes the implication that anything traveled at the speed of light.

-- None the less, I appreciate both the point you've made, and the manner in which you made it ; )

 

[Brownbeard]

I think this is implemented with RGO capacity which is province specific and not expandable ad infinitum like in old Victoria.

As for industry and services, these constraints do not apply and the effect is the opposite, the more, the merrier.

 

[Oorlog]

I think this is implemented with RGO capacity which is province specific and not expandable ad infinitum like in old Victoria.

As for industry and services, these constraints do not apply and the effect is the opposite, the more, the merrier.

So RGO's are constrained but not factories? this will only shift the problem. Living conditions in factories were appalling. Dont know if this lessenend pop growth since the more kids the more income as they were sent to work at a young age.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

There should be maximum population limits set for each province, based on various factors (maybe size, climate, RGO, industrialization, etc.) I mean, in one game I have London already has nearly 9 million people in 1895, crammed into an area that even today only holds some 7 million people. And the way its growing, I expect it to be well over 12 million by the end of the game. There definately has to be some way to prevent this from hapenning in the game.

Also, Ireland has about 13 million people. In real life, in the modern day, Ireland only has 5.6 million (that's including Ulster/Northern Ireland!). The only real emigration I've had from Ireland was a few tens of thousands who went to the Seychelles and Mauritius. But emigration to the US has been very small, and their growth rates are about the same as in most English provinces. So something has to be done to correct this.

There absolutely does need to be a limit on population per province. (And before we knew much about V2 there was a discussion here about urbanisation, which, sadly, doesn't seem to have made it in.)

About Ireland though: at the onset of the 1845 famine its population was 6.5m as against England and Wales' 18m. By 1910 England and Wales were up to 36m whereas Ireland had fallen back to 4.5m. Had Ireland repeated the big island's rate of increase, then, we would in fact be looking at about 13 million at the same date, putting your total well within believable limits.

Of course we aren't, because V1 didn't properly represent that classic Malthusian cycle.

Whether Ireland itself was capable of feeding 13 million is another thing.

 

[henryjai]

There absolutely does need to be a limit on population per province. (And before we knew much about V2 there was a discussion here about urbanisation, which, sadly, doesn't seem to have made it in.)

About Ireland though: at the onset of the 1845 famine its population was 6.5m as against England and Wales' 18m. By 1910 England and Wales were up to 36m whereas Ireland had fallen back to 4.5m. Had Ireland repeated the big island's rate of increase, then, we would in fact be looking at about 13 million at the same date, putting your total well within believable limits.

Of course we aren't, because V1 didn't properly represent that classic Malthusian cycle.

Whether Ireland itself was capable of feeding 13 million is another thing.

There need not be a hard-cap on the population limit, as that would be crumpsy, instead an exponential decaying growth rate (when population gets large, the growth rate would drop to very low) would do the trick. And emigration rate should be an expoential growing function, that the population would cease to increase at a certain point due to emigration balancing the population growth.

This is the most elegant solution I think as it is simple and could easily be modded I imagine, by tweaking the formula the growth-population curve would be changed in shape, you don't even need much testing since it is so mathematical and precise. Medical advancement/other conditions should change a variable in the formula so the maximum population value would increase.

It also provide the other countries/provinces a (small) source of immigrants. People always complain that population just stack in the East Coast, this way people would consider moving from New York/Boston to Chicago/whatever due to increaed emigration rate for high population.

I think growth rate is not only related to number of childrens, but instead the child mortality rate, or how many children that actually survive to adulthood to form a family of 4 people (1 size of POP). So I would think that a medically advanced state (with enough food those kind of things) would have at least a slightly larger growth rate for sure.

 

[unmerged(199559)]

If we adopted more sustainable practices and solved the food distribution problem (the big one!), I think that humanity has definitely not hit Earth's carrying capacity yet.

Largely a problem of infrastructure. By squeezing the population into vast 1 mil+ archology-towers, waste and similar problems can be more effectivly tackled.

Combined with low energy fast intercontinental travel from both one tower to the next, but also from production centers to the towers, much of the transfercosts would be under control. I suppose vacum-tube-subways would be best..

Next comes production. Its unacceptable to keep on producimg food in a sumerian fashion in the ground, and should move into hydrophonics and vast, possibly underground, greenhouses. Production can be easily 100-fold increased and nutrition far better controlled. Letalone issues like nutrition spills.

Also enery production would need to be hundredfold increased, both to make tunneling easy and cheap, but also as a means of production. Supposedly beanstalks (spaceelevator kind) not just open up space, but also generate vast amounts of energy from lightning related effects.
And if we are to ever reach some kind of a singularity event, that will require some rather vast amounts of energy for the zillions of ai-developed computers. Would be nice to have those damn intergalactic warpdrives already