Feeding the World. Malthus wasn´t such a miserable old misanthrope apparently.Vaclav Smil, Albert Bartlett Energy Economics and no Alarmism.

parmesan-cheese_1_orig (1)
A very Good deal of progress made towards exploring Energy and Entropy in Economics and the Psossibilities of Political Economy without Debt Based Money and a presumption of scarcity.

VACLAV SMIL 273 How restrictive are natural factors? Photosynthetic productivity depends on the availability of solar radiation, atmospheric carbon dioxide, plant nutrients, land, water, and sufficient biodiversity. Crop yields are almost never limited by the incoming solar radiation. Similarly, the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 (about 350 parts per million) is adequate for sustained high biomass yields, and increasing concentrations of the gas will tend to enhance the photosynthetic efficiency of nearly all well-watered and well-fertilized crops.37 Thus the four critical natural determinants of future crop productivity are the availability of land, nutrients, and water, and the protection of adequate biodiversity.

Extreme carrying capacity estimates go far outside the broad, fourfold range bracketed by the estimates just cited. They have been defined by true believers in the antipodal camps of catastrophist and cornucopian futures. A generation ago Ehrlich (1968) wrote that “the battle to feed all humanity is over” and that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” during the 1970s.2 Ehrlich’s global population maximum would have to be well below the 1970 total of about 3.7 billion people. In contrast, Simon (1981) maintained that food has no long-run, physi-cal limit. These extremes leave us either with the prospect of eliminating about half of humanity in order to return the worldwide count to a sup-portable level or with visions of crop harvests surpassing the mass of the planet itself.3 As Sauvy (1990[1949]: 774) noted crisply, “Lack of precision in data and in method of analysis allows shortcuts toward reaching an ob-jective predetermined by prejudice, shaped largely either by faith in progress or by conservative skepticism.” Unfortunately, less extreme estimates have been hardly more impressive. Because the question of the ultimate support capacity cannot have a single correct answer, assessing the value of past estimates must be done by looking at their assumptions. Too many of them are overly simplistic, and even the more elaborate ones are usually difficult to defend. In general, the capacity predictions assume too much-as well as too little. Most notably, they almost completely ignore the demand side of the question. 

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:26:32 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsVACLAV SMIL 257
 
As Bennett (1949: 26) noted, “Pessimism about maintenance or im-provement of per capita food supply . .. is not intellectually necessary, not compelled on the basis of historical fact or logic.” Catastrophists might be surprised to learn that this was also the parting credo of the man who is still generally seen as the great patron of their cause. Thomas Robert Malthus-so well known for his observations that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” and that “this natural inequality . .. appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectability of society” -closed the sec-ond, and so curiously rarely read, 1803 edition of his great essay with an appraisal whose eminent sensibility makes it truly timeless: On the whole, therefore, though our future prospects respecting the mitiga-tion of the evils arising from the principle of population may not be so bright as we could wish, yet they are far from being entirely disheartening, and by no means preclude that gradual and progressive improvement in human so-ciety…. And although we cannot expect that the virtue and happiness of mankind will keep pace with the brilliant career of physical discovery; yet, if we are not wanting to ourselves, we may confidently indulge the hope that, to no unimportant extent, they will be influenced by its progress and will partake in its success. 
This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:26:32 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VACLAV SMIL 283 123
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

 

 

The Classic Albert Bartlet Talk on the Exponential Function. Even Cornucopians can accept and operate without denying the Exponential Function. Knowing it is empowering!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Feeding the World. Malthus wasn´t such a miserable old misanthrope apparently.Vaclav Smil, Albert Bartlett Energy Economics and no Alarmism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s