On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Randy Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can you elaborate on that a little (that denying Malthusian theory implies 
> denying Darwinian evolution)?

I'm glad you asked. I probably over-stated the strength of the
connection.  My apologies.

True, Darwin was aware of Malthus's theory when he was formulating his
theory, but the connection isn't completely solid.  If "A" is Darwin's
theory, and "B" is Malthus's theory, I don't think it is valid to say
either A -> B (A implies B) or B -> A.  In particular, the
contrapositive, not B -> not A is probably a dubious assertion.

OTOH, there is little doubt (in my mind at least) that both A and B
are true :-)  Clearly, B is true for all species with the *possible*
exception of humans, and B is very likely true of humans as well.
After all, humans are, first and foremost, members of the animal
kingdom.  So the only question in my mind is whether there are
circumstances for which Malthus's theory does *not* apply to humans.
The evidence is not at all reassuring.  We are being warned in myriad
ways that we humans are destroying the substrate of our existence.
Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is only the latest warning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)

In short, it was wrong of me to assert that Darwin's theory
necessarily entails Malthus's theory, but it would be equally wrong to
blithely dismiss Malthus's theory.

In fact, I am getting inklings that Don Beck's
http://www.spiraldynamics.net/ "yellow" (post modern,
still-to-be-evolved) civilization would necessarily have to be a
post-Malthusian world.  By that I mean a world that voluntarily
restrains itself short of Malthusian limits.  Less people, less
per-capital income and less resource usage.  The alternatives are the
truly grim to contemplate.  We are getting very close.

Unifying all these thoughts is the notion that "rates of change" are
somehow fundamental to our dilemma.  Meadows paper speaks of such
things.  Here is another example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/322/5901/532.pdf  Apparently
even students at MIT have trouble understanding "bathtub" (inflow and
outflow) processes.

Edward

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to