Talk:Cornucopianism

message: I dont understand "Furthermore, it always has in the past, even when population was increasing at a far faster rate of growth." What does the "it" refer to?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.155.19 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear Sentence

message: Heavy metals may be 'finite' in terms of the amount currently existing on Earth, but they are all 100% recyclable nearly by definition.  The only way we're ever going to 'run out' of them is to launch them clear out of our solar system forevermore.  Even today much of our heavy metals come directly from recycled materials (ie - lead from old car batteries).
Sorry to say, doomers, but oil and gas aren't 'finite' either, in the long term.  Dead plant-life is responsible for the coal reserves we currently mine, dead animal life, the oil we pump.  As long as life exists on this planet, it will die, hence these fossil fuels cannot be considered 'finite' in an ultimate sense.
Sure, we won't live to see any of our fossil fuel reserves replete, but that doesn't mean they won't.  As for an age without oil, frankly, it's long overdue, and in stark contrast to every doomer rant out there, humans, by their very nature, adapt to their environments, and frankly, we're *really* $*!#ing good at it (despite the fat, lazy, want-for-nothing culture we find ourselves immersed in at present).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.176.66 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Finite Resources

message: This section reads like it was written by a child. 128.101.53.240 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Cornucopian

message: The sentence "Fundamentally they believe that there is enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the estimated peak population of about 9.22 billion in 2075" is misleading. Simon clearly stated the belief that continued population growth was not just feasible but desirable: "“We now have in our hands — in our libraries, really — the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years”. 
On the other hand, many experts who believe that the earth could provide for 9 billion people are not cornucopians.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.81.18 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Julian Simon?

message: I edited the phrase that declared Simon to be a cornucopian. He denies being a cornucopian theorist in his book 'The Ultimate Resource'.
Just because he denies it doesn't mean he is not the flag-bearer and most frequently-cited source for Cornucopian theorists. He is one and this needs to be corrected. --Valwen 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon a cornucopian? 

message: The opening sentence is thus **A cornucopian is someone who posits that there are few intractable natural limits to growth, and believes the planet can provide a practically limitless abundance of natural resources** , though a cornucopian view would be THE WORLD not THE PLANET, nobody denies that we may well have to go off planet to fulfill the cornucopian ideal. I have changed PLANET to WORLD.
Which is an good segue into Asteroid Mining and Space Colonization. The proponents of which would surely be classed as cornucopian and so should maybe be linked here? See Mining the Sky for example, which specifically addresses issue of resource and population limits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.131 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Planet to World 

message: Hey, does anyone think this guy's concept of Ephemeralization falls under this? It's a solo stub, and I was hoping to give it some links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaong (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buckminster Fuller]] 

message: This is a purely subjective viewpoint, but it seems like the article is biased in support of Cornucopians. Contrary to this, it seems that the further reading is all biased against Cornucopians (It consists only to links dismissing the ideology, and does not provide examples of actual cornucopian writings). 2600:8807:4401:6000:4CC7:B69C:39FC:DA4D (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bias in separate sections 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornucopianism →  – In Google Ngram Viewer, "cornucopian" is much more common than "cornucopianism". Furthermore, Britannica chose "cornucopian" as its article title. Both titles are workable, but I find "cornucopian" preferable. The start of the article can say something like this: "A cornucopian is someone who X. The views of cornucopians are called cornucopianism." In Google Scholar, "cornucopian" finds 6,630 articles while "cornucopianism" finds 410 articles. If I understand WT:COMMONNAME correctly, the move I propose is in keeping with it. "Cornucopianism" is a result of a move from 1 June 2022, the rationale being the analogy with "W:Malthusianism". Was the move per some kind of policy? What is best per policy? Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Late comment: What has "grammatically correct" to do with anything? Both titles "Cornucopian" and "Cornucopianism" are grammatically correct; one refers to an adherent, the other one refers to the view adhered to. I see 3 opposes based on incorrect arguments: two of them incorrectly invoke WP:NOUN and one invokes the irrelevant "grammatically correct". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 November 2022