[Taxacom] Malthus: (was: Discovering Biodiversity: A decadal plan for taxonomy and biosystematics in Australia and New Zealand 2018-2027)

[Kenneth Kinman]

     I'm sure Malthus would be horrified that the world's population has reached 7.6 billion. He probably would have expected various wars (including World Wars I and II), and also the influenza pandemic of 1918.  What he couldn't have predicted was that the discovery of antibiotics would prevent even worse pandemics.

      The question is whether five gigadeaths (or more) might still happen due to the overuse of antibiotics and the resulting evolution of a "superbug from hell" killing billions of humans.  Or perhaps some superbug wiping out multiple grain crops (rice, wheat, corn, etc.) resulting in mass starvation (as with the potato blight in Ireland, but affecting far more crops and doing so worldwide). Either of those is probably more likely than a massive nuclear war (which was another factor that Malthus could not have predicted as a possibility).

      Can we prove Malthus wrong, or are we just lucky that we have been able to kick the can down the road?

                      -------------Ken


________________________________
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:21 PM
To: Peter Rauch
Cc: Taxacom Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Released Friday 27 April - Discovering Biodiversity: A decadal plan for taxonomy and biosystematics in Australia and New Zealand 2018-2027

Peter:

I'm afraid my sentence stumbled over itself. The end of the sentence coming after "prescriptive goal" is what the presciptive goals may feel is necessary. Sustaining even the 7.6 billion is ridiculous. We OWE five gigadeaths to reach a sustainable human population.


Richard


________________________________
From: Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 2:37 PM
To: Richard Zander
Cc: Jan Bosselaers; Stephen Thorpe; Taxacom Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Released Friday 27 April - Discovering Biodiversity: A decadal plan for taxonomy and biosystematics in Australia and New Zealand 2018-2027

Only one question, Richard...

You conclude, " We must try to help establish a new self-sustaining normal. This should be done without significant slowing of the evolutionary process by prescriptive goals of what that new normal must be in order to allow a sustaining of human populations at the present level of increase."

Really?  We should "allow" a sustaining at the present level of increase of human populations?

Why? Is this a statement of defeat (human pop. will increase indefinitely and we must always provide to sustain that)? Or of good public policy (obviously we don't wish to run out of food and healthy living, but can we sustain infinite human pop. growth)? Or of ...???  (Or perhaps I do not know what you meant by  "present level of increase" --Is it negative growth, i.e., leading to a shrinking human population, in which case I might better understand how this might lead to a "new self-sustaining normal", eventually being able to match available resources to demands --sustainability?)

Peter