You've misrepresented much of "Limits to Growth," and the dozen or so validating studies performed since. You've claimed that it made hard claims, and was all doom-and-gloom, neglecting the "steady state" run that allowed for settling into a steady state, without catastrophe. You've also heavily relied on the study's opponents, while totally ignoring numerous validating studies.
But you do have a nice reference list for the data you've cherry-picked.
Malthus wasn't wrong; he just didn't anticipate the one-time gift of fossil sunlight that has allowed us to expand into six Earth's-worth of energy resource. The much-lauded "green revolution" in agriculture should more properly be called a "brown revolution," because it is totally based on fossil energy. Half the people alive were literally conjured out of thin air, thanks to the Haber-Bosch process, which depends on natural gas as both a convenient energy source and as a feedstock — this process can't easily be run on electricity, which is where almost all "green" energy winds up. We're currently using 40% more energy than that gathered by all the photosynthesizing plants on Earth. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Like many "limits" critics, you smile and wave your hands, while repeating "technology" over and over. Howard Odum taught us that "technology" is simply a form of embedded energy — as fossil energy goes into permanent, irrevocable decline, so will technology.
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis. I'm just not sure I see any people in that future.
Great write up on flaws of Malthusian thinking. We are not in danger of running out of food or resources so long as we do not get in our own way. Recent attempts in GOP-controlled states to ban lab grown meat, for instance, comes to mind….just why?
Thank you Max for addressing this and for laying it all out so clearly. I do have a couple of questions though and they're probably not that easy to answer since none of us can know what's going to happen next.
How do you see some kind of energy transition unfolding over the next twenty to fifty years (allowing for ups and downs)?
Is it possible that certain tech has been held back to make an appearance at the appropriate time and therefore somehow "saves the day?"
Surely the mere mention of such potential solutions would open up plenty of opportunities with investors and hopeful entrepreneurs rising to the challenge and eventually lead to a new paradigm where the old pessimistic ways shrivel up and fall off once and for all.
You've misrepresented much of "Limits to Growth," and the dozen or so validating studies performed since. You've claimed that it made hard claims, and was all doom-and-gloom, neglecting the "steady state" run that allowed for settling into a steady state, without catastrophe. You've also heavily relied on the study's opponents, while totally ignoring numerous validating studies.
But you do have a nice reference list for the data you've cherry-picked.
Malthus wasn't wrong; he just didn't anticipate the one-time gift of fossil sunlight that has allowed us to expand into six Earth's-worth of energy resource. The much-lauded "green revolution" in agriculture should more properly be called a "brown revolution," because it is totally based on fossil energy. Half the people alive were literally conjured out of thin air, thanks to the Haber-Bosch process, which depends on natural gas as both a convenient energy source and as a feedstock — this process can't easily be run on electricity, which is where almost all "green" energy winds up. We're currently using 40% more energy than that gathered by all the photosynthesizing plants on Earth. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Like many "limits" critics, you smile and wave your hands, while repeating "technology" over and over. Howard Odum taught us that "technology" is simply a form of embedded energy — as fossil energy goes into permanent, irrevocable decline, so will technology.
I have seen the future, and it is powered by current photosynthesis. I'm just not sure I see any people in that future.
Great write up on flaws of Malthusian thinking. We are not in danger of running out of food or resources so long as we do not get in our own way. Recent attempts in GOP-controlled states to ban lab grown meat, for instance, comes to mind….just why?
Thank you Max for addressing this and for laying it all out so clearly. I do have a couple of questions though and they're probably not that easy to answer since none of us can know what's going to happen next.
How do you see some kind of energy transition unfolding over the next twenty to fifty years (allowing for ups and downs)?
Is it possible that certain tech has been held back to make an appearance at the appropriate time and therefore somehow "saves the day?"
Surely the mere mention of such potential solutions would open up plenty of opportunities with investors and hopeful entrepreneurs rising to the challenge and eventually lead to a new paradigm where the old pessimistic ways shrivel up and fall off once and for all.