Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears
The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 24, 2008 | JUSTIN LAHART, PATRICK BARTA and ANDREW BATSON

Posted on 03/23/2008 9:52:54 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican

Now and then across the centuries, powerful voices have warned that human activity would overwhelm the earth's resources. The Cassandras always proved wrong. Each time, there were new resources to discover, new technologies to propel growth.

Today the old fears are back.

Although a Malthusian catastrophe is not at hand, the resource constraints foreseen by the Club of Rome are more evident today than at any time since the 1972 publication of the think tank's famous book, "The Limits of Growth." Steady increases in the prices for oil, wheat, copper and other commodities -- some of which have set record highs this month -- are signs of a lasting shift in demand as yet unmatched by rising supply.

As the world grows more populous -- the United Nations projects eight billion people by 2025, up from 6.6 billion today -- it is growing more prosperous. The average person is consuming more food, water, metal and power. Growing numbers of China's 1.3 billion people and India's 1.1 billion are stepping up to the middle class, adopting the high-protein diets, gasoline-fueled transport and electric gadgets that developed nations enjoy.

The result is demand for resources has soared. If supplies don't keep pace, prices are to climb further, economic growth in rich and poor nations alike could suffer, and some fear violent conflicts could ensue.

The resources now in great demand have no substitutes. In the 18th century, England responded to dwindling timber supplies by shifting to abundant coal. But there can be no such replacement for arable land and fresh water.

The need to curb global warming limits the usefulness of some resources -- coal, for one, which emits greenhouse gases that most scientists say contribute to climate change. Soaring food consumption stresses the existing stock of arable land and fresh water.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: news
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 03/23/2008 9:52:54 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

2 posted on 03/23/2008 9:53:29 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

3 posted on 03/23/2008 9:54:21 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Even the Wall Street Journal buys into this human-caused global warming BS! What’s the world coming to!?!?!?


4 posted on 03/23/2008 10:04:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Limits to Growth

"..Limits to Growth attracted controversy as soon as it was published. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of irresponsible nonsense".."

The crew that wrote this crap have built their careers on this speculation. This is like global warming, but with even less data or rigor.

5 posted on 03/23/2008 10:05:58 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Malthusian Fears

Makes sense to me.
We have 1 trill people on earth you might have to live with 20 people in your house, if you lucky to have one.
You have 100 people on earth we have a good time, but have to fend off the other species.
Somewhere in between is a good number.
Luckily we got the space shuttle.
6 posted on 03/23/2008 10:08:00 PM PDT by modican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

We can’t control the birth-rate in China, so we should immediately impose a command economy in the United States.

Similarly, we can’t control the emission of greenhouse gases in China, so we should transfer our heavy industry to China and impose a command economy in the United States.

Actually, its Sunday, and tomorrow’s Monday, so we should impose a command economy in the United States. When you’re a socialist, any reason is a good reason to impose a command economy in the United States.


7 posted on 03/23/2008 10:08:30 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Malthus has been proven to be full of cr@p. Population growth is absolutely necessary for there to be progress. Population allows for a greater division of labor, opens up new markets, and provides the needed labor to exploit new territories and opportunities.


8 posted on 03/23/2008 10:11:11 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Obama is the anti-Reagan, instead of opposing the world's tyrants, he wants to embrace them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

“There are no limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence”
—Ronald Reagan


9 posted on 03/23/2008 10:11:38 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
From 1960 to the year 2000 seems to have the highest spike of growth in population, but, from 2000 to 2010 it seems to slow down just a tab bit.
10 posted on 03/23/2008 10:12:01 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The world population is set to stabilize relatively soon, and then begin DECREASING. Malthus turned on his head..


11 posted on 03/23/2008 10:13:04 PM PDT by Paradox (Politics: The art of convincing the populace that your delusions are superior to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The US government doesn’t even know how many persons are living within this country.


12 posted on 03/23/2008 10:15:41 PM PDT by endthematrix (He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
"The resources now in great demand have no substitutes. In the 18th century, England responded to dwindling timber supplies by shifting to abundant coal. But there can be no such replacement for arable land and fresh water."

Nonsense.

Think: desalination and aquaculture (fish farms, aquatic plant farming, etc.).

Poof. Problem solved. Just use non-greenhouse-gas emitting nuclear energy for desalination and you're home free.

13 posted on 03/23/2008 10:21:13 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Oh, please! You don’t have real shortages when have proven reserves you refuse to tap unless you’re talking about a shortage of common sense.


14 posted on 03/23/2008 10:21:41 PM PDT by Dahoser (America's great untapped alternative energy source: The Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
To put it into perspective, if you grouped TEN billion people together so they stood close enough to touch each other they would ALL fit in the state of Rhode Island.

For those of you who find such hard to believe the total land area of Rhode Island is 1045 Square Miles (1,545 square miles including Water)

1045 Square miles converted to Square Feet is 29,132,928,000 Square Feet Divided by 10 Billion gives you 2.91 Square feet per person to stand on.

We are not anyway near close to Overpopulation.

15 posted on 03/23/2008 10:26:01 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

What a load. Can’t believe the WSJ published this trash.


16 posted on 03/23/2008 10:26:37 PM PDT by xjcsa (Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

Thank you! A society that is not growing is dying. Europe, Japan and Russia are all facing precipitous declines in native populations. The US is barely growing, and that is only due to immigration and the higher birth rates of recent immigrants.

Guess which major religious group has the largest birth rate? (It ain’t Catholics or Mormons.) If the West continues down its current path of negative growth, the depletion of resources will be the least of our worries.


17 posted on 03/23/2008 10:30:31 PM PDT by antidisestablishment (Our people perish through lack of wisdom, but they are content in their ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Those of us who remember all the hysterical tracts of the 70s railing against the “population bomb” and imminent exhaustion of oil supplies and economic collapse, etc. etc. are not easily impressed by such a weak article. If economic forces can be freed up from the depredations of state socialists then none of these challenges are remotely insurmountable.


18 posted on 03/23/2008 10:42:06 PM PDT by Enchante (Obama: You think Hillary's Ruthless? Hell, I'll Run Over My Own Grandmother to Get Elected!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment

True enough. However, population growth is good only if it is associated with liberty and the creativity it generates. The high populaton growth of the major religious group you have in mind is detrimental because it does not value liberty. Hence, even in a places like Saudi Arabia and Libya with their huge oil reserves, the per capita income in these two nations is actually declining. OTOH, the UAE is allowing a measure of liberty (at least for foreigners who live and invest there) and is really booming economically.


19 posted on 03/23/2008 10:44:45 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Obama is the anti-Reagan, instead of opposing the world's tyrants, he wants to embrace them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment

“The US is barely growing, and that is only due to immigration and the higher birth rates of recent immigrants.”

“barely growing” is not correct, at least by my standards.

The rest of your statement is correct.

1950 151,325,798
1970 203,211,926
1990 248,709,873
NOW 303,697,429
2050 438,000,000 Est.


20 posted on 03/24/2008 12:34:49 AM PDT by midway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson