Contributed Content (0) and Suggested Materials (2)
Ask a Question
I think the questions are pretty tendentious.
Like for question 3: why can't increased population lead to reduced co2 emissions? Cities have an easier time cutting emissions compared to people tearing around the countryside in SUVs, and urban Europe is a leader in green energy (so there's the 'economies of scale and density' point to population growth); and advances in technology seem likely to help with co2 emissions (so there's the 'increased innovation' checkmark).
And question 1, '1. According to Thomas Malthus, increases in population will eventually __________________ in living standards. *' seems just underspecified. Why does an increase in population lead to a decrease in living standards? In a Malthusian equilibrium, we could see a sudden infusion of Egyptian grain from our conquests, leading to a rise in living standards with a lagging rise in population, followed by the grain running out, standards falling until we hit a smaller population and equilibrium again. Or it could be technological or trade based gains, rather than conquest.
The Other Benefits section is also absurd. Do you really think that there are further economies of scale that require more than 7 BIllion People to unlock? That is really astoundingly ill thought out.
Your claim that "More Happy People" is a philosophical issue is one of the most absurd things I've heard in this whole series. Its complete rubbish. This is a completely nonsensical concept that makes sense only on the most shallow understanding of Utilitarianism - (and even that is one of the more dubious philosophical theories). I can't believe you basically said: More people = more happiness = better. ISeriously that undermiens the credibility of the series. - maybe if it was in jest. but I didn't think so.