Malthus Was Wrong, But Not Why You Think

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1837 ^ | William M. Briggs

[mattstat]

But Malthus was wrong about our species, and exactly in the opposite direction you commonly hear. Man has not bred up to the point that he can be supported by the available food supply. Man does not follow the strict theory of evolution.

NOTE: this does not imply that that theory is wrong overall; merely that it is incomplete with respect to our species; e.g., strict Darwinan “selfish genes” theory does not sufficiently explain abortion, altruism, and adoption, to name just the As.

In fact, mankind has turned out to be quite a slacker, survival-of-the-fittest-wise. As things get better, we breed not more, but less. Take a look at this picture, which shows the estimated World population since 1950...

[Cyber Ninja]

I have always thought that socialism blew a Grand
Canyon sized hole in the bottom of the Darwinian
boat that sent it to the bottom long ago.

Socialism; survival of the sh!tt!est.

[Cacique]

Not at all, socialism evolves into survival of the ruthless. It is the un-compassionate people not shackled by bourgeois sentimentalism that rise to the top in such a system. Their survival depends on the subservience of the masses to the will of the leadership and the ability of rid every one they suspect of opposition. As Stalin was fond of saying. “One death is a tragedy, 50,000 is a statistic.”

[newheart]

Malanga says it’s because we lack an overly strong government. But if he’s right, and since our government has only grown stronger, then the US will be on the same downward path soon.

Barring significant change in direction, the U.S. will be on the downward path, and one wonders if the decline might not be even more precipitous. It is not merely due to bigger, stronger government but to the decline in reliance on traditional sources of meaning—faith, family, relationships. We are satiated by the luxury technology provides us but at the expense of meaning. And when meaning goes, malaise (a risky word to use, I know) dominates. Like an individual with depression loses motivation to participate in life, so a culture in malaise does the same thing.

Look at Europe. Having rejected real values and traded them for comfort and the nanny state they have lost the will to live. As a result in 20 years Islam will be the dominant belief system.

[equalitybeforethelaw]

Population growth is a measure of a cultures economic success as well as its faith in the future. I would argue that with the 40+ year campaign of post modernism and its constant deconstruction of any and all institutions that the public (those that listen to them) start to believe that all life is futile. If futility is your starting point, chances are pretty good that you won’t be having a large family. With our country, we have been using illegal immigration to offset the drop in fertility. This, as the Europeans know, is a problem. Funny thing is the illegal alien produces offspring at double the rate of native born Americans. Guess they have a positive attitude towards the future. From an objective point of view, who do you think is happier, the post modern intellectual, or the illegal alien who cherishes the Catholic Church? You can choose to see life as futile or fanstastic (half empty/half full) the only difference seemingly is one is happy, the other not.

[newheart]

From an objective point of view, who do you think is happier, the post modern intellectual, or the illegal alien who cherishes the Catholic Church?

I'd definitely put my money on the illegal alien. Of course, that does not mean that the solution is to encourage illegal immigration. ;-) And I believe it is a bit of a misconception that all or even most of the illegals coming across the borders 'cherish the Catholic church.' Many are only nominally Catholic (think European here.) I believe the main motivation is to participate in the opportunity the American Dream holds for people. They are just as likely to become caught up in the materialist side of the American Dream as native born citizens. Unless I am mistaken, first and second-generation immigrants tend to have higher birth rates than native Americans, while by the third and fourth-generations the rates decline to the norm.