Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
|
I haven't had a chance to read the paper but the results don't sound surprising. Population control would naturally be a slow mechanism and with life expectancy increasing the effect would be even slower. It is rather surprising that even a massive 'mortality event' (for want of a better term) would make so little difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ
Also, it would be interesting to see in parallel who can come up with an economic theory that allows a stable population to exist, vs the current requirement for an ever expanding consumer base supported by a proportionally massive pool of extremely poor workers.
|
Actually the only economic system that
mandates constant growth is capitalism. Previous systems grew from greed/ambition but could, and did, remain static for quite long periods of time. That is certainly true of hunter-gatherers but also even for absolute monarchies. The Roman empire was at times static for (I think) hundreds of years.
Socialism of course promises the same. Production geared to human need and no profit motive. The issue is how to make it a working system. [Having a proletarian revolution is a country where the proletariat dominates would be a good start - it was only 5% of the population in Russian and probably less in China and Cuba.] However, given what a fraught and emotional topic that is, I plan to leave it right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Dean, I'm at a workshop right now on Quaternary extinctions...
|
And speaking of fraught and emotional topics .... have hostilities commenced yet?
