Whoever said being human was logical? I may adopt a kid because I feel morally compelled to do so. But I don't think I'll be making any of my own.

It's not like I can stop other people from having sex without killing them or having them ingest massive amounts of heavy water for a week. Both of which have other moral implications.

I'd think most kids aren't planned. ;o

Also I wouldn't think having one or two kids would be a problem to the population ... the problem are the people who have like 5 (which not at all uncommon in Utaj).

1798: Thomas Malthus's Essay on Population

LOLMALTHUS that ole prophet of doom. My grandad loves him D:

I wish. The amount of unplanned children I know is outstanding.

Malthus was wrong on the specifics, but not in the broad idea - that eventually humanity's population will reach a level at which it can no longer be sustained and result in a population crash.

Limits to growth in 1972 was trying to predict whether that was going to happen sooner, or later. They predicted sooner. So far they appear to be correct.

We need better birth control.

We need better willpower.

But doesn't willpower = birth control? Without willpower, any form of birth control will be ineffective, as the person could simply remove it (save irradiating a womb or sack, but that wouldn't be forced anyways).

I assume "better birth control" = a better way for people to not have kids than currently exists, either better methods or the current methods more widely practised.

"better willpower" can easily go beyond simply talking about birth control, eg we need to consume less of the world's resources. It's no good saying "we'll solve the world's problems by reducing the population rate" if the remaining people don't do anything to reduce their consumption, or indeed if they increase their consumption to make up for the loss in population.

Thirded. xD

Better willpower = less pleasure. Nothx.

"The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." - The Population Bomb, by Paul Ehrlich.

Sounds about in line with me. Arguments that conclude we are overpopulated always understates, if it even considers, the effect of the price system and the development of technology.

Yet no one is dieing.

I can't really argue with a report I've never read about a book I've never read, and one I doubt you've actually read. But if we're going to just quote wikipedia, then here you go:

The most excellent Wired article that the quote comes from: http://www.webcitation.org/5Xu64dbNz

Paul Ehrlich has nothing to do with The Limits to Growth, so I don't know why you're bringing this up.

Bigger picture idea than debating a book I've never read. These kinds of predictions have been made time and time again and they always turn out wrong.

And yet The Limits to Growth clearly considered pricing systems and new technologies, and so far their predictions are on track.

I'd like to see infinite growth on a finite world and how you plan to achieve it.

The day of reckoning *will* come. The only question is how long it takes.

I don't question the notion that infinite growth on a finite world will eventually hit a limit. I question the notion that human consumption will grow in a static manner and the notion that we've reached the peak of our reserves.

My first point is that of the development of technology will solve the problems presented. Consider whale oil. In the mid 18th century it was the primary means for lighting. As its consumption grew, the supply of whales decreased at an ever increasing rate. Its exhaustion would represent a decline in the quality of life for many people. Yet it was never exhausted completely. Kerosene was invented and the crisis was averted.

Secondly, reserves do have a finite peak at some point. However, we can not know them, and hence, we can not predict when we will exhaust our resources, only when we will exhaust our current reserves. According to that chart on Wikipedia, which comes from the book itself, predicted that if petroleums reserves were 5 times that of known reserves in '72, the our supply would be exhausted by 2022 (which is NOT in line with reality). I'm willing to bet my fuel costs for 2022 that petroleum won't be gone that year. Also notable is the estimate that gold would be exhausted ten years ago. The book acknowledges that reserves grow over time as new reserves are discovered, but fails to acknowledge that the actual amount of reserves, discovered and undiscovered, is unknown. The article acknowledges this, but fails to acknowledge the implication it poses. That is, it is impossible to determine how long it will take to exhaust a resource because there may exist reserves which are undiscovered.

Thirdly, when a resource becomes scarce, it becomes more expensive. At some point, the price becomes so high that using that resource becomes uneconomical and alternatives are sought and used.

And to tie it all together, an example. Shale oil has only recently become economical. Fracking has only become recently possible because of advances in technology. The cost of retrieving a barrel of shale oil versus traditional approaches is more expensive, but because of the rising cost of oil, it is economically viable. And because we now have shale reserves we can go to, known reserves just tripled.