by spwa4 | 2025-06-17 23:37:45+00:00
This again. "Society will collapse unless ...". Popular argument for close to two-and-a-half centuries now. Always the same mistake since 1798 (and before, really). People assume the limits of current technology are absolute under changing circumstances ... instead of an adaptation in society of their time and economics. Therefore society can never deal with some change that is happening and must collapse into a sad pile of misery. Oh and to prevent it you must give me power.

Uh ... no. Just no.

In the original book, "An Essay on the Principle of Population", Thomas Malthus proposed that the fact that food production could not be increased when population rises due to unavailability of soil productivity. A trivial mathematical argument (the geometric series) "proved" society must change entirely, and accept vastly different power structures to avoid painful collapse.

Everything examining his thesis was described in a way that refused to see how that discounted his argument. Epidemics, famines and wars of course all have specific causes, some natural some human, and were not the result of overpopulation or his geometric rise in population. He couldn't come up with a single historical example of that. But still "all disasters in history" proved his thesis.

Of course, nobody gets to say that his thesis was so popular, not because it was reasonable or correct, but because it was an argument, not totally unreasonable at first sight, for a total change in who holds power.

His book sold well. So did the next edition. It was entirely, 100% wrong, and frankly, given his education it is very hard to believe Thomas Malthus wouldn't have known it was wrong. Popular, but wrong.

Of course what happened in practice was that advances in technology allowed for vast increases in productivity and density, and most didn't even need to be discovered: at that point we knew 100 different ways to fertilize soils to prevent food exhaustion, they just weren't worth it at that point in history. They weren't a constant or a limitation, and weren't even necessary. We CAN feed 9 billion people with agricultural methods used in 1800. That would not require all available agricultural land, just more than we currently use. The only discovery needed was commercial in nature: which of those 100 methods provide best bang-for-buck. We adapted. Far more than was necessary.

The argument in this thesis is similar in principle. You see, he begins with "The limits to growth", a book that predicts that when humanity increases energy production, unavoidable chemical pollution is going to cause a collapse in the human population due to large-scale poisoning of food-producing ecosystems and humanity directly. That argument was made in 1972. Obviously this didn't happen and while it is a problem, it is a problem with solutions, a problem solved because commerce causes costs to shift ... as opposed to a fundamental problem. We have 100 different ways to produce energy without destroying the world, we're just not using them.

In the second edition of "the limits to growth" the population collapses due to climate change causing mass poisoning ... and in the third edition human population collapses because climate change ... causes climate change.

In Tainter's paper, the population collapses because people can't be bothered to work anymore ...

Oh and all these facts combine to the fact that we're doomed, and need to radically change, not as economics indicates, but as the smart decision makers (presumably the buyers of these books) decide.

Here's the problem. This is a stupid argument! What do we have, really?

1) Malthus was wrong. The reason he gave for collapse is wrong. It did not lead to collapse and will never lead to collapse.

2) "The limits to growth", first edition, was wrong. The reason they gave for collapse is wrong.

3) "The limits to growth, the 30 year update", was wrong. The reason they gave for collapse is wrong.

4) "Limits and beyond", a 2 year-old book, could be right. But what I don't understand about the argument is that while global warming will undoubtedly cause people movement and even death ... a collapse in society? Why? Let's say, absolute worst case, that it causes 1% of people to die in some countries. That seems unlikely in the extreme, because humanity can easily prevent that, but at least it's still possible. But such a scenario is not even remotely close to the collapse predicted.

So I would say that while it is not definitively proven wrong yet, it seems very far fetched, and, frankly, wrong.

5) Tainter's book is that societal collapse has already happened because we've become lazy ... Uh, no it hasn't, by his own measure. Society has grown in complexity since 1988, it has not decreased. I remember 1988, and trust me, we are better of. Young and old.

And then the blog poster makes an incredible jump. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 prove that society is going to collapse! I am utterly baffled. How does this argument work? 5 totally wrong claims combine to a right claim? HOW? "I have 5 books, one stating the earth is flat, another triangular, then cone-shaped, donut-form and the last book says it's a hollow, pig-shaped, clay coin container. Therefore my claim that the moon is made of cheese is proven!".

Uh ... no? This is just 5 wrong-but-popular books that, when combined, lead to a popular-but-spectacularly-wrong conclusion. I frankly don't even understand how you arrive at the conclusion he arrives at. If society collapses it will be for an entirely different reason than stated in any of these books.

The first 4 books are easily discounted by pointing out that using solar power to make calories with zero waste is possible with current technology. So we can adapt. And while the 5th ... I studied Latin once and I have never heard of anything done since that compares to the absurd ridiculous wasteful spectacles of luxury described as having happened in the Roman empire. For example, I have never again heard of a senate, anywhere on the planet, anywhere else in history, having to impose a limit on the number of prostitutes per senator during sessions, then failing to enforce that limit.

Of course in reality: society will adapt again, and again, and again. And yes, it will be an economical decision.