The world holds four times as many people as it did a century ago and a fraction of the poverty. That inverts the Malthusian prediction exactly — and the reason is the one variable Malthus left out.
"They do not settle whether the planet’s sinks — the climate, the oceans, biodiversity — can absorb what eight billion increasingly rich people do to them. That is a real constraint, and it is a different argument from the one Malthus lost."
You seem to be at least trying to give a fair shake to the idea that there are real risks associated with growth, but I don't think it's right. One, I'm not sure 'sinks' is the right term for those three, definitely not biodiversity, which is a stock. Also, you say the charts do not settle this particular question. You're right, they do not. But we have enormous evidence that this question is essentially settled, and the answer is not good. Innovation has enabled massive gains in food production and energy (which is another strange omission from your analysis). Whether new innovations can reverse these other biophysical limits is an open question, and not one with a lot of precedent. Right now it's not looking very good. Entropy is not on our side here. It's much easier to extinct species than it is to resurrect them. It's much easier to carbonize than to extract, or to acidify than de-acidify. And all of this completely ignores animal welfare as well.
And finally, you say Malthus lost this argument, as if these boundaries are completely unrelated to the core argument. If you want to be really narrow and limit the argument to food and water, sure. But in general it's about carrying capacity based on population and behavior bumping up against biophysical constraints, and these that you mention are just different constraints in the same general vein.
Fair hits. "Sinks" was sloppy, and leaving out energy was a real gap.
Your strongest point is irreversibility, and I grant it. The resource escape worked because prices bought substitutes — you can engineer around copper. You can't un-extinct a species or de-acidify an ocean. That asymmetry is real, and it makes this case harder than minerals ever were.
But I hold the line on "settled." That the damage is real — settled. That it becomes a binding limit on welfare — a forecast, and "collapse is settled" has a poor record.
Same family as Malthus, different engine: his binding variable was population, self-correcting through misery. Here it's consumption and the energy mix, while population plateaus on its own. That's why I split them.
"They do not settle whether the planet’s sinks — the climate, the oceans, biodiversity — can absorb what eight billion increasingly rich people do to them. That is a real constraint, and it is a different argument from the one Malthus lost."
You seem to be at least trying to give a fair shake to the idea that there are real risks associated with growth, but I don't think it's right. One, I'm not sure 'sinks' is the right term for those three, definitely not biodiversity, which is a stock. Also, you say the charts do not settle this particular question. You're right, they do not. But we have enormous evidence that this question is essentially settled, and the answer is not good. Innovation has enabled massive gains in food production and energy (which is another strange omission from your analysis). Whether new innovations can reverse these other biophysical limits is an open question, and not one with a lot of precedent. Right now it's not looking very good. Entropy is not on our side here. It's much easier to extinct species than it is to resurrect them. It's much easier to carbonize than to extract, or to acidify than de-acidify. And all of this completely ignores animal welfare as well.
And finally, you say Malthus lost this argument, as if these boundaries are completely unrelated to the core argument. If you want to be really narrow and limit the argument to food and water, sure. But in general it's about carrying capacity based on population and behavior bumping up against biophysical constraints, and these that you mention are just different constraints in the same general vein.
Fair hits. "Sinks" was sloppy, and leaving out energy was a real gap.
Your strongest point is irreversibility, and I grant it. The resource escape worked because prices bought substitutes — you can engineer around copper. You can't un-extinct a species or de-acidify an ocean. That asymmetry is real, and it makes this case harder than minerals ever were.
But I hold the line on "settled." That the damage is real — settled. That it becomes a binding limit on welfare — a forecast, and "collapse is settled" has a poor record.
Same family as Malthus, different engine: his binding variable was population, self-correcting through misery. Here it's consumption and the energy mix, while population plateaus on its own. That's why I split them.