Population and Economic Growth
User Contributions (0) and Related 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.
Let's say you're a god. You get to pick which of two realities exist. One has 10 billion people living happy, fulfilled, sustainable lives. Another has the same, with 20 billion. Which do you pick? I think it's perfectly reasonable to pick the latter. You don't really outline how this result is absurd.
In response to your first issue, I think you're mixing CO2 emissions per capita vs. total CO2 emissions. IF population increases and IF this leads to more people in cities, you are likely correct that CO2 emissions per capita will fall. Total emissions will surely rise though, all else equal. And since we are environmentally concerned with total emissions, the total seems to be the relevant number. Your point about innovation seems correct though; technology to reduce emissions seems to be a very plausible effect of a greater innovation talent pool.
For question 1, I think you're answering a different question than was asked. Specifically, the prompt begins with "According to Thomas Malthus" not "According to the system Thomas Malthus assumes we live in". Malthus most certainly thought an increase in population would result in a decrease in living standards. I'm not really sure I follow your analysis of grain transfers because it seems like you're just moving food around in the global system, which ultimately wouldn't improve global standards of living, although it might improve the locals standards of living of the conquering nation. The point about technology is relevant again, but trade likely isn't because I don't see trade as a function of population.
In any event, certainly you can make criticisms of the conclusions that Malthus draws from the system he describes, or even with the description of the system itself, but the question was simply about what Malthus thought would happen, which he clearly states in his work.