Thanks for that detailed reply, and there is much there that I agree with. In terms of the Malthusian argument itself, I've been following the 'peak oil' debate for 4 years now, before it became mainstream, so I'm quite aware of the oil = agricultural collapse =
dieoff.com arguments.
I became so concerned about these matters a few years ago I started campaigning about it. This is no small feat when I actually come from a humanities background, not a technical background. I think the dieoff argument above is an extreme scenario only possible if we are REALLY stupid and nuke each other over oil. But the risks are there.
The overwhelming argument I've heard is that this is the lifetime of 'peak everything'. All concentrated metal ores, concentrated conventional fossil fuels and concentrated non-renewable resources vanish in the lifetimes of babies born today if we keep increasing them at today's rates of consumption. (Actually, some of these models assume concentrated iron ore bodies runs out at only 2% growth pa, and I think the world average today is 10%!)
This is all very interesting, and yet I'm also watching increasing deployment of renewable energy, using renewable materials, nano-tech on the way, etc. It's the ultimate race!
But the question was what to do when we DO 'fill the earth' whenever that is and whatever it looks like. Aren't we just postponing that question discussing a history of previous Malthusian prophecies? How are we going to structure our finances in a 'steady state' economy?
