http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth...
We don't have to say disproven* I guess, but maybe overshadowed? ie, I want a theory that explains not only population collapse, but also natural decreases in population growth (or sharp decreases not motivated by war or famine) that we're currently witnessing throughout the developed world.
Malthus simply can't explain it and Rosling can. I'm going with the theory with more explanatory power, because that's how empiricism generally works.
* Unless you're talking about the predictions Ehrlich made about things that didn't ultimately happen. Yeah, maybe "disproven" works.
All these predictions are wrong. They are all wrong because of an unexpected development. The OP says Malthus was right, but for the discovery of cheap energy. Maybe an Ehrlich supporter was right, but for the development of better crop yields.
The point is these 'buts' are the fatal flaw. An unknown unknown comes along and destroys the premise. (At this point we can safely classify it as a known unknown) As these are unpredictable, and down to a known factor - human ingenuity - it's safer to say things will be all right. The human genome is a successful critter because it selects for intelligence and ingenuity.
The numbers might look bleak because they're based on current assumptions, which will prove to be false. We know they will be false, the assumptions always prove to be false. It's the one thing we can rely on being constant. At the turn of the 20th century, New Yorkers were convinced the city would be rendered completely unliveable because of the amount of horse shit in the streets. The numbers were depressing. Everyone assumed that horse use was going to continue to go up in a straight line. Someone was probably looking for government grants to design a shitless horse. The assumption was wrong. its always wrong
But hey, if the inventors of cars didn't think the horses can be improved upon there would have been less incentive to invent the cars. The problems still have to be recognised somehow.
Until it isn't.
Presumably you haven't read 'collapse' by Jared Diamond. Even if you disagree with his argument, you can't disagree with his facts - which are that all prior human civilizations have failed catastrophically, typically with environmental collapse.
Why should we believe that ingenuity will prevail this time, when it has never done before?
No one ever comes back and says they're glad they convinced someone - they just switch targets and find new people to call doomsday prophets and bloviating windbags.
Thank you for your prejudice and have a nice day.
I'm all for optimism, but optimism and ignoring problems are very different things.
Can we stop saying this as though it's some kind of argument. It's not.
Many people are diagnosed with a fatal disease in the prime of their lives. The fact that they were doing well before they received the diagnosis doesn't mean they aren't sick.
This is inescapable fact. Peoples lives in aggregate are getting better. That it is irritating to people pushing the opposite view is understandable, but doesn't invalidate the data. You can't just hand-wave it way and say 'doesn't matter'. You can't say it's not a valid argument because it 'might end' - which is in itself a poor argument.
It does matter. Life is getting better for a very large group of people, and that's good.
The concern is not that the good outcomes don't currently exist.
The concern is that the good outcomes are unsustainable because we are an increasing population consuming finite resources and generating serious new problems.
Do you have an argument that the current level of development is sustainable, or do you simply not know?
Ah, yes he has, and so has Ehrlich and every other 'the world is ending' doomsayer that ever walked.
Does the human race have problems? Well, obviously. deep seated religion and superstitious unreason remains a key problem.
Has there never, ever been a better time to be alive as a human? Self evidently, yes. It's the best time to be alive right now.