= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinHanson comments on Non-Malthusian Scenarios - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
Theory makes clearer predictions about medians than means.
Doesn't that seem like a bias? If what we care about is average income, then we should talk about average income (and about more than just the most likely outcome if necessary), not switch to talking about median income just because it's easier to make predictions about it.
Also, I think your "nature is doomed" depends on average, not median, income to approach subsistence level. Suppose you have one individual who has half of the world's income, and the rest are living at subsistence. Clearly that one individual can preserve much of nature by him or herself.
People have been predicting Malthusian scenarios since, well, Malthus, cheerfully indifferent to the continued failure of such predictions to match reality.
Is there any weight of evidence whatsoever that could convince you of the falsehood of such predictions?
The evidence that would disprove Robin is disproving the population growth rate he assumes or finding a way to increase wealth in a super linear manner once we've reached the theoretical maximum usage of each atom.
How has Malthus been proven false? From what I recall, he said that overshoot & collapse are inevitable unless people exercise 'moral restraint'. That seems pretty bang on to me.