Background information for jacqueline r kasun

Poverty was seen as a beneficial check. Some, such as William Farr[31] and Karl Marx,[32] argued that Malthus did not fully recognize the human capacity to increase food supply. The one line takeaway from Malthus is. If you make everyone equal, everyone starves at once I think is what he was saying. Seriously, check this out. He thought that poverty was ok, because instead of socialism, when everyone dies at the same time, the lazy and stupid people died.

Not Crisis! Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. Liberals call it the Malthus Problem, or something like that. They want some sort of socially engineered society, which is actually going to be miserable, but they know that without major population control, their schemes will fail, because the natural order without things like war, poverty, etc, there would be mass famine.

Paul Ehrlich - Avoiding a collapse of civilisation: Our chances, prospects and pathways forward

Social Engineering to get rid of war and poverty fails because of the Malthus problem. For the last couple of hundred years, western science and technology have done a spectacular job of boosting productivity and expanding our carrying capacity at a pace far exceeding population growth. How long this can continue, no one knows. At some point, there is presumably an absolute limit.

The doom and gloomers see this limit just around the next corner. They've been crying wolf for so long that they've made themselves look foolish, but that doesn't mean the wolf isn't out there somewhere.

The interesting thing now is that every developed society is experiencing plummeting birth rates and the prospect of population decline, apart from immigration. The reasons are familiar enough: years of additional schooling; delays in family formation; the emancipation of women and their incorporation into the labor force; declines in infant mortality; and the much higher costs of raising children in middle and upper-middle class splendor in modern technological society. It may turn out that we have permanently outrun Malthus, and that prosperity is the reason.

That would be good news if it happens. And poor people are a check. DWI deaths are a check.

Jacqueline R. Kasun: The Independent Institute

Wars are a check. Checks are like bad things that are actually good because although they might be sad because people are dying, them dying then keeps everyone from starving.


  1. texas criminal law pretrial drug test positive new bond!
  2. Contact information of Springer & Society for the Development of Austrian Economics;
  3. Jacqueline R. Kasun;
  4. ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ!
  5. ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ.
  6. free people search by email address.

Abortion is on his list of checks, and there are tons of checks in place. Malthus was also wrong about population. Rich people, not poor people, tend to have fewer kids. I guess the idea there is that rick people are more likely to have their kids survive. He assumed that the richest person in the world would have a million kids if he could support them.

One very simple observation that the left ignores and it will be catastrophic. Those that don't will continue to grow to their own limits. Then they will flood those countries that doesn't have sustained populations.

Еще по теме ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ:

In my book Social Engineering is Social suicide. But that prosperity can not last if we continue shifting debt instead of wealth to as yet unborn generations. More trash to remove in [ Post Reply Private Reply To 17 View Replies ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. The left is just a pack of panic freaks.

Similar authors to follow

Thomas Malthus, the original socialist. Ehrlich was ridiculously wrong in almost all of his predictions, and only got more praise for his doomsday diatribes. The Food Removal. Zeus was going to resolve the burdens of the earth in 8th century BC by riding the world of overpopulation : Odyssey.

I was just catching up on my Malthus on Wikipedia. So, Marx was arguing with Malthus, huh? The one line takeaway from Malthus is There will be too much Overpopulation and Everyone will Starve to death. He did not argue that unless we do something, there will be starvation. Many here would vote for him. But people think the opposite. Human populations do not typically sit and starve. If you make everyone equal, everyone starves at once I think is what he was saying.


  • The War against Population Summary;
  • Navigation menu.
  • allstate company five digit id number.
  • The Persistent Myth of Overpopulation;
  • Seriously, check this out. He thought that poverty was ok, because instead of socialism, when everyone dies at the same time, the lazy and stupid people died. Not Crisis! Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate.

    Еще по теме ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ:

    The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. Liberals call it the Malthus Problem, or something like that. They want some sort of socially engineered society, which is actually going to be miserable, but they know that without major population control, their schemes will fail, because the natural order without things like war, poverty, etc, there would be mass famine.

    Social Engineering to get rid of war and poverty fails because of the Malthus problem. For the last couple of hundred years, western science and technology have done a spectacular job of boosting productivity and expanding our carrying capacity at a pace far exceeding population growth. How long this can continue, no one knows.

    At some point, there is presumably an absolute limit. The doom and gloomers see this limit just around the next corner. They've been crying wolf for so long that they've made themselves look foolish, but that doesn't mean the wolf isn't out there somewhere. The interesting thing now is that every developed society is experiencing plummeting birth rates and the prospect of population decline, apart from immigration. The reasons are familiar enough: years of additional schooling; delays in family formation; the emancipation of women and their incorporation into the labor force; declines in infant mortality; and the much higher costs of raising children in middle and upper-middle class splendor in modern technological society.

    It may turn out that we have permanently outrun Malthus, and that prosperity is the reason. That would be good news if it happens. And poor people are a check. DWI deaths are a check. Wars are a check. Checks are like bad things that are actually good because although they might be sad because people are dying, them dying then keeps everyone from starving. Abortion is on his list of checks, and there are tons of checks in place. Malthus was also wrong about population. Rich people, not poor people, tend to have fewer kids.

    I guess the idea there is that rick people are more likely to have their kids survive.