Global Warming: Bjorn Lomborg's Stern Report Review

[Weird Harold]

One thing that I have never seen singled out anyware as a simple solution to reduction of polution and consumption of natural resources is population control. What do you think of that? Doesn't it make sense to stop overpopulating as at least a first step? Or am I simple to think that way?

No, you're not "simple to think that way." But Population Control is only one of many elements needed, usually discussed separately -- as are most of the separate pieces needed to solve environmental problems -- and it gets diverted into debates about privacy, individual rights, and "who gets to decide and how."

It seems that everyone has a pet solution to global warming, pollution, projected resource exhaustion, energy needs, and all of the other interrelated problems facing our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Mostly those pet solultions involve something that "someone else" has to give up or "someone else's" money.

Among those pet solutions are:

1: Stop destroying the rainforests and upsetting the that part of the "carbon cycle."

2: Nuclear power generation of electricity -- or Wind power, or solar power, or geothermal or hydroelectric or or anything that doesn't involve fossil fuels.

3: Public Transportation and/or reducing private vehicle ownership.

4: converting to a Hydrogen powered economy -- replace all fossil fuel engines with Hydrogen fueled engines

The one thing that I notice lacking in the Global Warming debate is that everything is aimed at reducing the CO2 emissions, but almost nobody says anything about removing the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and causing problems -- except for those trying to save the rainforests.

There are several simple technologies that have been known for long time to scrub CO2 from ambient air -- If every person on earth was required to have a large algae tank or other CO2 scrubber (as part of their HVAC system) to remove the CO2 that they are responsible for releasing into the atmosphere, there would shortly be no CO2 problem.

But that sort of solution runs into the "why do I have to do something?" attitude that hampers any real solutions being implememted.

 

[Weird Harold]

(In other threads I have described how in the long term we can and almost certainly will have an electric economy powered by nukes, clean and sustainable for tens of thousands of years. "Conservation" will not be a public policy issue in that environment, but purely one of individual choice.)

Theonly problem I have with that scenario is that it ignores the maxim, "Usage will always expand to exceed capacity", so there is never going to be a time in the forseeabe future where "Conservation" isn't going to be an issue.

 

[Lady_Kit]

No, you're not "simple to think that way." But Population Control is only one of many elements needed, usually discussed separately -- as are most of the separate pieces needed to solve environmental problems -- and it gets diverted into debates about privacy, individual rights, and "who gets to decide and how."

It seems that everyone has a pet solution to global warming, pollution, projected resource exhaustion, energy needs, and all of the other interrelated problems facing our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Mostly those pet solultions involve something that "someone else" has to give up or "someone else's" money...

But that sort of solution runs into the "why do I have to do something?" attitude that hampers any real solutions being implememted.

You're right, it all comes down to who is willing to give up something, and few want to be the first in line for that. We're all pretty selfish when you get right down to it. Even those who do willingly sacrifice for others in one area often refuse to give up their belief or position in another. Just part of being human I suppose.

Thanks for responding.

Kit

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
(In other threads I have described how in the long term we can and almost certainly will have an electric economy powered by nukes, clean and sustainable for tens of thousands of years. "Conservation" will not be a public policy issue in that environment, but purely one of individual choice.)

Theonly problem I have with that scenario is that it ignores the maxim, "Usage will always expand to exceed capacity", so there is never going to be a time in the forseeabe future where "Conservation" isn't going to be an issue.

That maxim probably expresses some kind of truth, but not literal truth, because by defintion, usage cannot exceed supply. If prices can move freely, demand and supply will automatically be in balance.

Your broader point is correct, though, that energy will always be a scarce resource for the reason you describe. It will be rationed, but by individual decisions about how much of one's household budget to devote to this resource. Thus, use will not be a public policy issue, any more than is how many CDs you buy, or how much bread.

 

[neonlyte]

And unless you are prepared to slam the door in the faces of China, India and the rest of the third world people who would like to also enjoy the comforts, conveniences and security of industrial civilzation, it still means that the next 50-100 years will see increased emissions of CO2, etc.

Anyone who imagines for one moment the 'West' can slam the door in the face of the Chinese and Indians as they clamber for a greater share of at best static and probably diminishing resources is living in a dream world (I'm not pointing fingers - just stating the obvious).

I'm also beginning to object to the term 'Third World' - they are people, like us, surviving on far less than we take as 'our right'.

So here is the problem - in a nut shell. Who's prepared to nuke China and India to maintain 'our' supply of the world's goodies and eliminate, at a stroke, their inevitably increasing CO2 emissions as they try to reach our standard of 'civilisation'?

No one.

Are they prepared to nuke us?

Probably not.

So it's no change and we'll struggle along, adapting where we can and some of us will descend to the level of 'peasants' because that is infinitely preferable to having no life at all.

A massive increase in nuclear energy supply might offset some of these problems, but I'm guessing if you started today, the first plant would not come 'on stream' for twenty years given all the regulatory hurdles these things have to go through. And guess what would be the first target in an energy war, if such a thing were to happen, and that is not by any means ruled out, I'll give you a hint, what did Israel so painstakingly take care to destroy in the recent Lebanon skirmish?

Where is the good news? After 45 years of speculation, we all (not sure how India and China view this) roughly agree there's too much CO2 being emitted. That may be contributing to global warming, the oceans might rise 2 metres over the next century forcing re-settlement upon hundreds of millions of people. But the oceans were 2 metres higher 1,000 years ago and we don't know what caused that - it certainly wasn't industrialisation, motor cars or aeroplanes.

I don't know where this is going any more than Stern or Lomborg, but taking any measure is preferable to taking none. In the meantime, making sure that 45million African kids get an education still ranks higher in my book than pissing in the wind over CO2 emissions. 'We' will not seriously begin to control CO2 until millions of 'our' people die from floods, crop failure, and environmental disaster brought by increasingly severe weather systems. Many will be forced to turn to peasantry.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Anyone who imagines for one moment the 'West' can slam the door in the face of the Chinese and Indians as they clamber for a greater share of at best static and probably diminishing resources is living in a dream world (I'm not pointing fingers - just stating the obvious).

I'm also beginning to object to the term 'Third World' - they are people, like us, surviving on far less than we take as 'our right'.

So here is the problem - in a nut shell. Who's prepared to nuke China and India to maintain 'our' supply of the world's goodies and eliminate, at a stroke, their inevitably increasing CO2 emissions as they try to reach our standard of 'civilisation'?

No one.

Are they prepared to nuke us?

Probably not.

So it's no change and we'll struggle along, adapting where we can and some of us will descend to the level of 'peasants' because that is infinitely preferable to having no life at all.

A massive increase in nuclear energy supply might offset some of these problems, but I'm guessing if you started today, the first plant would not come 'on stream' for twenty years given all the regulatory hurdles these things have to go through. And guess what would be the first target in an energy war, if such a thing were to happen, and that is not by any means ruled out, I'll give you a hint, what did Israel so painstakingly take care to destroy in the recent Lebanon skirmish?

Where is the good news? After 45 years of speculation, we all (not sure how India and China view this) roughly agree there's too much CO2 being emitted. That may be contributing to global warming, the oceans might rise 2 metres over the next century forcing re-settlement upon hundreds of millions of people. But the oceans were 2 metres higher 1,000 years ago and we don't know what caused that - it certainly wasn't industrialisation, motor cars or aeroplanes.

I don't know where this is going any more than Stern or Lomborg, but taking any measure is preferable to taking none. In the meantime, making sure that 45million African kids get an education still ranks higher in my book than pissing in the wind over CO2 emissions. 'We' will not seriously begin to control CO2 until millions of 'our' people die from floods, crop failure, and environmental disaster brought by increasingly severe weather systems. Many will be forced to turn to peasantry.

You're pretty smart, Neon.

I have only one quibble with your post, and that is the implicit 'reification' (treating an abstract thing as if it were a real thing) of the political obstacles to locating nuke plants in the U.S. The obstacles do seem like an "existential reality," but of course they're not. Apply the right stimulus, and the U.S. political system will respond. We are a very wealthy nation and can afford a lot of silliness, but not an infinite amount. Eventually, nukes will be built. Probably when the supply/demand realities of fossil fuels make burning them hugely more expensive than burning atoms.

One other quibble, actually. Here's what Lomborg wrote in an earlier article: "The U.N. tells us global warming will result in a sea-level change of one to two feet. It is not going to be the 30 feet Al Gore is scaring us with. Is this one to two feet going to be a problem? Sure, but remember that this past century sea levels rose between one-third and a full foot. And if you ask old people today what the most important things were that happened in the 20th century, do you think they are going to say: 'Two world wars, the internal combustion engine, the IT revolution . . . and sea levels rose'? It's not to say it isn't a problem. But we fix these problems."

Which means this is just a quibble, because you essentially said the same thing.

 

[Weird Harold]

Your broader point is correct, though, that energy will always be a scarce resource for the reason you describe. It will be rationed, but by individual decisions about how much of one's household budget to devote to this resource. Thus, use will not be a public policy issue, any more than is how many CDs you buy, or how much bread.

As long as energy generation facilities are centralized and regulated, energy resurces vs energy consumption is going to remain a public policy issue. The cumulative effects of three TVs and six CD players in every home will make the millions of individual choices a "public policy" issue when it comes time to dig into the budget to build another power plant so everyone can have what they perceive as their rightful piece of the pie -- which will always be just a bit bigger than anyone else's.

Just as one example, The perrenial "brownouts" each summer as airconditioning requirements in big cities exceed the capacity of the "Grid" to meet the power needs of everyone who feels that keeping their house at 70F instead of a more economical and energy efficient 75F is an individual choice that doesn't affect anyone else.

If youwant to move energy out of the "public policy" domain, you're going to hve to decentralize energy production so the "energy hogs" have to provide the generating capacity to fill their individual needs with more than a wilingness to spend a few extra pennies here and there.

 

[amicus]

How delightful it has become to look around and see another beacon of light brightly shining as I plunge into the hundering third of barbarians at the gate.

Thus as I wade in, ‘sword and pistol’ at my side, (Froggy went a’courtin’)I am pleased to express my gratitude for a trusty sword to my left and right and possibly one to watch our backs.

There are two things I shall attempt here, both have been endlessly debated and discussed in hundreds of books and countless hours of combative conversation for perhaps a century. I don’t expect a lot of success as it is almost by definition, impossible to reduce these discussions to pithy paragraphs and succinct sentences; but I can try.

The first is two fold: That every opinion holds equal weight and that there are no ‘truths’ by which one can proceed. Not even the most livid leftist would disagree, I think, that some opinions are more worthy than others? More difficult is just the concept of ‘truth’ which so many deny its mere existence.

‘Truth’, such as it is by definition, does not exist in a vacuum; it must reflect the past, present and future and it must adhere to human values, not just any ‘human values’ but the universal and absolute human values of life and the derivative ‘freedom of choice’.

Thus the twit that suggested as a solution to global problems, ‘population control’, has a partial truth; having three billion people on the globe instead of seven billion would indeed reduce demand for services. What that twit ignored or disregarded was that to reduce the population, one must advocate the use of force which is a violation of basic human rights or use force to limit the freedom of an individual to procreate if there chose.

By that I mean to imply and say, that a solution to a problem, (means to an end) cannot violate the truth of innate human rights, liberty and freedom and be a valid means of solution.

Of course that doesn’t mean it never happens. Current day China limits the population to a ‘one child policy.’ The now defunct dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler who enforced conscription, enslaved entire populations and committed genocide on those, ‘undesirables’ in their ghetto’s, all in a quest for the, ‘greater good’, violated the basic truths of human life, liberty and freedom. And human nature will out, eventually, and seek a return to the basic concepts of those universal and absolute values I speak of.

In summation: solutions to problems, large or small, must not violate those basic, innate, inalienable, absolute and universal rights of the individual human to live free.

The subject of the post by Roxanne has somewhat expanded, as it should, for ‘global warming’ caused by the actions of man or only exacerbated by them, is, as others have said, just the tip of the iceberg in human global expansion.

Without contributing to the discussion, as I have so many times before, I choose to address the underlying issue and the inherent contradiction which so many fail to acknowledge.

There appears to be, in much of humanity, an unconscious or sub conscious distrust and hatred of individual human rights and freedoms. This is a many faceted anomaly expressed in religion where man is required to sacrifice his individuality to the will of an all powerful God. Man is perceived as being basically evil and must be reborn as pure and without ego or self interest, willing to sacrifice, again, for the greater good, which in this case has many names.

The biggest stumbling block that thwarts an understanding of modern, ‘global’ problems, be it climate change sea life diminution, exhaustion of other natural resources, petroleum, minerals, timber of even clean air and water, the huge misconception to overcome is that the ‘collective’, government at large can act to solve those problems.

Quite the opposite. Government, the ‘collective will’ forced upon others, is the cause of most, not the solution. Without demeaning teachers or bureaucrats, for they are indeed needed and necessary and provide essential services, the old saying, those who can ‘do’, do, those who can’t, teach. Government employees are quite the same. They can only function in an environment that is pre determined by codified instructions; original, creative thinking is by definition, banned and prohibited so the clerks can get on with their assigned tasks of implementing rules and regulations upon the populace.

So…if you truly and sincerely have a concern about the environment, the ecology or the economy and you seek answers to what appear to be insoluble problems then, in the words of John Galt, “Get the hell out of our way!”

While these words and thoughts are my own, you will note I quoted no one and made but few references, I cannot claim authorship of the ideas and concepts I tried to express. I, like many, stand on the shoulders of Giants from the far distant and recent history.

Those courageous and brave men and women who, by their individual efforts, contributed to the knowledge of all mankind.

The power, innovation and creative ability of the individual human mind set free, is an astounding history of a species demonstrating dominance in an extremely hostile world.


Amicus…

 

[Lady_Kit]

What that twit ignored or disregarded was that to reduce the population, one must advocate the use of force which is a violation of basic human rights or use force to limit the freedom of an individual to procreate if there chose.

Amicus, I never suggested that the population be reduced through violent means. I'm sorry you see that as the only method available to us. Perhaps force would also be in order to ensure carpooling, recycling or the use of alternative energy? Or have I read more into your words than you meant? As you may have done when reading my post?

I did not suggest that a movement to reduce population be anything other than voluntary. I simply asked a question to which I hoped to receive civil responses. I believe in the right of the individual to choose, and hope that when given good choices, each person will make decisions that benefit all of humanity, but I am not foolishly naive. We all act, for good or ill, in our own interests first. We are programmed to survive, after all.

It would be wonderful to believe that as we evolve and become more “civilized” humans will gain a greater ability to consider the fate of others before acting in our own interests. Based on the news of the day, though, I’d say we’re a ways from that point. Maybe when that happens, if it happens, we’ll be capable of accepting that complex problems like global warming require complex solutions. And able to listen to all interested parties instead of attacking those who ask questions.

The Twit

 

[Pure]

//Government, the ‘collective will’ forced upon others, is the cause of most, not the solution. Without demeaning teachers or bureaucrats, for they are indeed needed and necessary and provide essential services, the old saying, those who can ‘do’, do, those who can’t, teach. Government employees are quite the same. They can only function in an environment that is pre determined by codified instructions; original, creative thinking is by definition, banned and prohibited so the clerks can get on with their assigned tasks of implementing rules and regulations upon the populace.

So…if you truly and sincerely have a concern about the environment, the ecology or the economy and you seek answers to what appear to be insoluble problems then, in the words of John Galt, “Get the hell out of our way!”//


Who is "us"?

OH, it's you creative entrepreneurial types! How could I have missed that.

I realize some oil companies, for instance, have begun to address alternatives (BP). I suppose companies that fish will look to 'solve' the fish problem, as they did with the codfish.

Could I ask youse creative guys for a better solution to the Chinese population explosion?

Some of 'us' think that your approach is a bit like asking the fox to guard the henhouse, but then again we prefer death to life, and hate America, so what the fuck do we know?
===

Oddly enough, the blanket denial of any problem of population, food supply, resources is going to create an environment-- as in China, re population-- where draconian measures by national governments or international entities are all that are left. "freedom respecting" solutions, like the way W. Europe solved its population growth problem, take a lot longer (e.g., educate the women, improve their economic status).

 

[Lady_Kit]

Not all entrepreneural types are bad. Some actually try to create things that will help humity and do so from the US. Sometimes we become entrepreneurs to find wasy to avoid being eaten by the foxes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As long as energy generation facilities are centralized and regulated, energy resurces vs energy consumption is going to remain a public policy issue.

. . . If youwant to move energy out of the "public policy" domain, you're going to hve to decentralize energy production so the "energy hogs" have to provide the generating capacity to fill their individual needs with more than a wilingness to spend a few extra pennies here and there.

I agree with you about the effects of regulation, but not centralization. And I don't accept that generation facilities will always be regulated; indeed, in my post I specified "if prices are free to respond" supply in demand will be in balance. I.E., if generators are not regulated. (Whether they are centralized or not doesn't matter.)

So we're kind of talking past each other. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm using some different premises, is all.

BTW, one of the negative effects of regulation is to limit the ability of suppliers to respond to "energy hogs" in ways that limit demand to match the supply. Different prices at different times of day, for example. You want to run your clothes dryer and AC full time between 2 pm and 7 pm on the hottest day of the year? Fine - the rate is four times higher than in the evening or early morning. Enough people will respond to that to reduce the demand at prime time. Under the current regulatory regime utilities aren't allowed to do this! Oh what a tangled web we weave, whenever government mucks around in commodity markets.

If suppliers are free to adjust prices, buyers will adjust consumption to match the available supply. Your posts are all true only when this condition does not apply. And in that case - you're right.



PS. - the monopoly issue. That's why we have regulation, of course. Whether monopoly is a real problem or not is not proved, because there is always some competition. If the central power generator jacks up prices unreasonably, maybe my neighborhood will go in on its own generator - whaddya think about that, Mr. Central Edison Corp? Or, we could continue to regulate the power lines like a utility but dereg the actual power generation. That's happening now to a certain extent.

 

[amicus]

Lady Kit, my sincere apologies for the 'twit' misnomer.

I blanketed you, because of your suggestion, with many who do see a mandatory population reduction as a legitimate problem solving apparatus.

My mistake. Sorry.

amicus...

 

[Lady_Kit]

Apology accepted, Amicus. Thank you.

 

[amicus]

Pure: It is not just the Energy Giants or the timber tycoons or the railroad baron's and I know you see them that way, to which I refer.

Although all things inevitably merge with economics, I was speaking in more general terms about the human mind being set free to create.

Such innovative ideas as Archimedes and DaVinci, marvelously creative and innovative minds. Those who discovered one could do more with petroleum products than just 'burn' them for heat or light.

After the Soviets used up all their German scientists, or they died of old age, the communists demonstrated the efficacy of that system to completely destroy human innovation through slavery and oppression.

It is not a real difficult concept to embrace...try a little harder.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hey, Kit, welcome to the political threads, or at least those I engage in.

I meant to respond earlier to your population thing. We actually know exactly how to limit population now: Create an affluent society, and give women equal rights. It's not the subject of this thread, but the only way the first has ever been done is through capitalism. That is, by giving entrepreneurs the freedom to do their thing, and allowing them to reap the rewards if they succeed, or pay the price if they fail. Someone will be along momentarily to say that nations with mixed economies become affuent also, but they won't contend that the wealth is created by the socialist side of the mix.

 

[Pure]

//Theonly problem I have with that scenario is that it ignores the maxim, "Usage will always expand to exceed capacity", so there is never going to be a time in the forseeabe future where "Conservation" isn't going to be an issue. //


RAThat maxim probably expresses some kind of truth, but not literal truth, because by defintion, usage cannot exceed supply. If prices can move freely, demand and supply will automatically be in balance.

This truism conceals a lot. For instance the gasoline supply problem can indeed be 'solved', with the 'demand and supply in balance.'
If, at some future point with limited oil reserves left, the price of gasoline were to rise, say, to $200/gallon, there would be *exactly* the proper, low, demand for it, i.e. from the very rich.

Here's another example of how this mechanism, while yielding 'balance', does not yield a socially desirable result. Consider putting solar panels on the market for homes. They will be expensive: so the demand will balance; i.e., not many can afford them. And the supply will remain low, and the price high. So not much installation. The market is conservative.

So the city says, we'll underwrite by $500 the first installation.. THEN people have the money for greater demand, and the supply will increase.

Now a Randista will object: Let the city do nothing. Let the price of electricity go up: at some point people will be screaming for an alternative, when their electrical bills are $500/mo. At that point, theyll happily go for the installation of solar panels. And as that demand goes up, probably the supply will. The problem is how long does one wait for this 'natural' solution, according to Rand's specifications, and how much social harm is done in the 'waiting period.'

As Adam Smith was aware, government have to act to prevent damage of uncontrolled corporate entities. the 'invisible hand' is not, contra Rand, a panacea.

 

[amicus]

Pure, you err yet again: "...As Adam Smith was aware, government have to act to prevent damage of uncontrolled corporate entities. the 'invisible hand' is not, contra Rand, a panacea..."

~~~~~~~~

Government is required to act, yes, in defense and protection of individual and property rights, but not as you postulate, to control, manage and restrict the free market place.

The invisible hand always works and more importantly, it works without the use of force or violation of rights and when it does not, then and only then, does government have the mandated authority to act on behalf of those whose rights have been abridged.

You just don't get it, do you?

amicus...

 

[Lady_Kit]

Roxanne, thanks for the welcome. I generally avoid political threads, but this subject is a one to which I pay particular attention.

Though population control isn't the central topic, it is an impacting factor to climate change. In my opinion, people have become something of an infestation on the planet and greenhouse gases are not the only things that cause the global temperature to rise. I would submit that more parking lots, buildings, cars, houses and concrete also add to the problem. As an example, some studies have shown that the growth of Atlanta, GA has significantly impacted area weather patterns. On a more basic level, one only has to consider how hot a room gets as the number of people inside increases; more warm bodies, higher termperature.

Though I've never been rich, I have been poor, and I will agree that affluence does offer better options. Equality for women does solve some problems too, though I'm not sure if population is one of them. I've known many women who used pregnancy to hook a man, or in an attempt to keep a man. Both actions I find deplorable, and both by their own choice. But, I know that women are sometimes prevented from acting in their own best interests because they are do not have equal rights. For example, when a woman can't become surgically sterilized without her husbands consent. Something that happened to me.

As I said, its a complex problem.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, thanks for the welcome. I generally avoid political threads, but this subject is a one to which I pay particular attention.

Though population control isn't the central topic, it is an impacting factor to climate change. In my opinion, people have become something of an infestation on the planet and greenhouse gases are not the only things that cause the global temperature to rise. I would submit that more parking lots, buildings, cars, houses and concrete also add to the problem. As an example, some studies have shown that the growth of Atlanta, GA has significantly impacted area weather patterns. On a more basic level, one only has to consider how hot a room gets as the number of people inside increases; more warm bodies, higher termperature.

Though I've never been rich, I have been poor, and I will agree that affluence does offer better options. Equality for women does solve some problems too, though I'm not sure if population is one of them. I've known many women who used pregnancy to hook a man, or in an attempt to keep a man. Both actions I find deplorable, and both by their own choice. But, I know that women are sometimes prevented from acting in their own best interests because they are do not have equal rights. For example, when a woman can't become surgically sterilized without her husbands consent. Something that happened to me.

As I said, its a complex problem.

Actually, it happens in the aggregate, on the societal level. The full rights for women part is easy to understand - when women have options like entering the workplace, in the aggregate they choose to have less kids. The affluence part is a little more mysterious, but it does seem to be directly related. When a nation reaches a certain per-capita income level, fertility rates start dropping.

 

[Lady_Kit]

Actually, it happens in the aggregate, on the societal level. The full rights for women part is easy to understand - when women have options like entering the workplace, in the aggregate they choose to have less kids. The affluence part is a little more mysterious, but it does seem to be directly related. When a nation reaches a certain per-capita income level, fertility rates start dropping.

I see your point. Well put!

 

[Pure]

The invisible hand always works and more importantly, it works without the use of force or violation of rights and when it does not, then and only then, does government have the mandated authority to act on behalf of those whose rights have been abridged.

in a sense it works, as i've described above; gasoline is so expensive only the very rich can buy it. others can walk.

unfortunately you haven't read Smith, and 'always works' for the public good, is NOT a claim of Smith's, but of Rand. i wonder if you think a coal miner's 'black lung' is a violation of his 'right to life.' ?? Can the gov't regulate air quality in mines? or is that best left to the mine owners guided by the 'invisible hand.'

 

[Pure]

simple question

RA When a nation reaches a certain per-capita income level, fertility rates start dropping.

P: Apply this to China, ca. 1960. And let's assume that NO tough government measures limiting population are instituted in the mean time.

 

[amicus]

Ah, again, Pure the gadfly, flitting about buzzing in ears...


As if it mattered how much or how little I personally have read of Smith, or Rand or Marcuse, or Shrumpeter or Von Mises or Malthus or anyone else for that matter, even the Bible if it suits you, I do not quote chapter and verse of anything but do indeed hope to learn as I read and comprehend.

I notice more and more just how poorly you seem to deal with actual thinking when you are not parroting someone else. Of course it could be a matter of choice on your part, never stating your own opinions, as god forbid, you may be called upon to defend them.

For Lady Kit and Roxanne...I think one can show the birthrate declining as a result of the industrial revolution, before women's emancipation or affluence was attained.

and I have no idea what Pure was getting at about China...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

re china

what i was getting at, is your (ami's) idea of solutions to problems, that respect people's freedom.

Supposing we were in China before the strict population controls, i.e. maybe 1960.

Of course if Chinese women could be greatly 'uplifted' in economic terms, they will have fewer babies.

If that effort had started in 1960, it would still not have born much fruit, till now.

Even, hypothetically, opening china to the 'invisible hand' of capitalism would take centuries to raise the level of women to that of Italy, if ever.

Since the problem needed to be addressed in short order, the Chinese government undertook the "one child" policy, strictly enforced, but informally and legally (and with some pressure to get abortion, if necessary).

In short, in some situations, the 'statist' or authoritarian solution is virtually the only one, for some problems.

If you disagree, propose another solution.