Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Domes Dei And Malthus


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:50 AM

Food increases in arithmetic progression 1,2,4,8 .....
Population increases in geometric progression 1,2,4,16 .....
Mankind is facing a resource crunch involving non-renewable energy resources.
Will this bring about a "domes dei" type scenario with ramifications akin to it's divinely inspired namesake ? (through conflict for resources).  :irked: 


#2 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 11:30 AM

Historically food has kept pace with population. If it had not, mankind--and quite frankly, every species--would have died out immediately.

 

And you may have heard of this thing "renewable resources"...

 

 

And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away, in the tidal destruction the moral melee, :phones:
Buffy


#3 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 10:27 PM

 

Historically food has kept pace with population. If it had not, mankind--and quite frankly, every species--would have died out immediately.

 

And you may have heard of this thing "renewable resources"...

 

 

And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away, in the tidal destruction the moral melee, :phones:
Buffy

 

 

1101871221_400.jpg



#4 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 801 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:52 PM

Our food problem is not one of production, but one of economics and politics.

 

What I know of food production as a producer in the dairy industry, is that in our own herd, we have doubled production per cow since my parents started in 1959, and we use less labor, electricity, and fuel to maintain that higher level of production.  

 

Over that same time period, the processing and retailing of dairy has become greatly consolidated, so we producers have fewer options for marketing our product, and consumers have fewer options as to where to purchase their food, especially low income consumers.

 

As the markets consolidated, processing plants were closed, so in some areas of the U.S.A. there just is not enough processing capacity for the volume of milk being produced, so a not insignificant amount ends up being applied to land as fertilizer.

 

Of course in the marketplace, the processors and retailers want to move the food to markets where they will make the most profit.  

 

Do not forget that much starvation occurs in locations that face political instability and violence.



#5 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 07:00 PM

Our food problem is not one of production, but one of economics and politics.

 

....Over that same time period, the processing and retailing of dairy has become greatly consolidated, so we producers have fewer options for marketing our product, and consumers have fewer options as to where to purchase their food, especially low income consumers.

 

As the markets consolidated, processing plants were closed, so in some areas of the U.S.A. there just is not enough processing capacity for the volume of milk being produced, so a not insignificant amount ends up being applied to land as fertilizer.

 

Of course in the marketplace, the processors and retailers want to move the food to markets where they will make the most profit.  

 

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the problems that occur when government (the politics) abdicates its role of setting market rules that ensure competitive and efficient markets (the economics) by non-enforcement of anti-trust laws and letting markets consolidate to the point where the few remaining entrants can limit themselves only to the most profitable market segments while amassing the market power to keep new entrants from even serving the market segments that they no longer target.

 

A reminder that markets with no rules devolve into inefficient oligopolies where consumers are the losers, and without government regulation you have no rules.

 

 

We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth, :phones:

Buffy



#6 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 08:36 PM

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the problems that occur when government (the politics) abdicates its role of setting market rules that ensure competitive and efficient markets (the economics) by non-enforcement of anti-trust laws and letting markets consolidate to the point where the few remaining entrants can limit themselves only to the most profitable market segments while amassing the market power to keep new entrants from even serving the market segments that they no longer target.

 

A reminder that markets with no rules devolve into inefficient oligopolies  / monopolies  where consumers are the losers, and without government regulation you have no rules.

 

 

We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth, :phones:

Buffy

 

My opinion .....  :sherlock:



#7 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:03 PM

My opinion .....  :sherlock:

 

Monopolies are rare because they're much more obvious than oligopolies and it makes you a target even in situations where there is corporate capture of the legal system. In fact, oligopolies provide monopolistic power to the few entrants in the market who then engage in "co-opetition" wherein practices such as price fixing can be made to occur even without explicit collusion.

 

 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant, :phones:

Buffy



#8 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 801 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 05:16 PM

Monopolies are rare because they're much more obvious than oligopolies and it makes you a target even in situations where there is corporate capture of the legal system. In fact, oligopolies provide monopolistic power to the few entrants in the market who then engage in "co-opetition" wherein practices such as price fixing can be made to occur even without explicit collusion.

 

 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant, :phones:

Buffy

Exactly!

 

I have seen smaller dairy processors that were successful get bought out by larger companies that keep the plant running and continue the brand name for a while, then replace the brand name with their own, and finally shut down the purchased plant, and bring in the milk from farther away.  Since the producers are the ones who pay the freight, and the consumers have accepted the new brand, there is no incentive for them to keep the local plant running.

 

Whenever the state milk commission holds public hearings, the processing company management get front row seating, and seem quite chummy with each other.  Perhaps that is why the United States pricing structure grants the processors a "make allowance" when they set the prices for the marketing orders.

 

I would love to be able to sell fresh milk to my neighbors, but the cost of complying with regulations and the cost of liability insurance leaves little room for profit.



#9 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • 1080 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 12:15 AM

 

Food increases in arithmetic progression 1,2,4,8 .....
Population increases in geometric progression 1,2,4,16 .....

 

Citation needed.  I haven't found that food increases at all over time, instead it decreases as it spoils.  If you are meaning to claim that our ability to produce food increases arithmetically, then I would ask why you believe our food to not be a conglomeration of populations?

 

Fundamentally, while adequate food production for a growing human population is an important consideration, your opening assertion is an entire fabrication.

 

Malthusian predictions have consistently been incorrect.  Famine in human populations is almost always due to political conflict rather than technological failings.

 

Regardless, your opening claim is a fairy tale.


Edited by JMJones0424, 18 July 2017 - 12:22 AM.


#10 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 12:31 AM

Citation needed.  I haven't found that food increases at all over time, instead it decreases as it spoils.  If you are meaning to claim that our ability to produce food increases arithmetically, then I would ask why you believe our food to not be a conglomeration of populations?

....

Regardless, your opening claim is a fairy tale.

 

The claim of arithmetic progression appears to be based solely on faith, which I've assumed based on the fact that the original poster placed it in the Theology Forum.

 

So, yes, "fairy tale" is unfortunately quite accurate.

 

 

General note: we're a little more tolerant in the Theology forum of "bending the rules" but testing the limits is generally considered to be a bad idea.

 

 

Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find, :phones:

Buffy



#11 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:36 AM

Food growth as an Arithmetic Progression is a postulate of the Malthusian Theory of Population .....



#12 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:05 AM

Food growth as an Arithmetic Progression is a postulate of the Malthusian Theory of Population .....

 

...and Malthus has been proven to be an idiot...and thus anyone who quotes him without some sort of disclaimer or caveat is considered...well, you get the picture....

 

 

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid, :phones:
Buffy


#13 malform11

malform11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 27 July 2017 - 02:16 AM

 

Monopolies are rare because they're much more obvious than oligopolies and it makes you a target even in situations where there is corporate capture of the legal system. In fact, oligopolies provide monopolistic power to the few entrants in the market who then engage in "co-opetition" wherein practices such as price fixing can be made to occur even without explicit collusion.

 

 

I've heard this bull before, Everybody that does too much coke spews out like this.



#14 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8887 posts

Posted 27 July 2017 - 11:47 AM

I've heard this bull before, Everybody that does too much coke spews out like this.

 

Care to actually provide an actual logical argument? Or are you simply one of those willfully ignorant folk who insists you don't "believe in" economics?

 

 

Really don't mind if you sit this one out, :phones:

Buffy



#15 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 801 posts

Posted 27 July 2017 - 03:49 PM

I've heard this bull before, Everybody that does too much coke spews out like this.

As someone with bovine experience, I can tell you that all the bull you need fits in a 1/4 cc straw, and the post to which you refer has not even that amount.

 

The core lesson I took away from the board game Monopoly that I played with my siblings in childhood was that once someone achieves a monopoly, it's game over.



#16 malform11

malform11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 29 July 2017 - 02:58 AM

 

Or are you simply one of those willfully ignorant folk

I've heard this condescending crap before. When someone corrects you. you misrepresent them and bury them. You can't stand the fqct that you don't know what you are talking about. every ignorant person says the same things that you say, and throws the same fit when people don't agree with them.

you just want people to agree with you, you can't stand real revue.


Edited by malform11, 29 July 2017 - 02:59 AM.


#17 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 29 July 2017 - 03:32 AM

 

...and Malthus has been proven to be an idiot...

 

 

Hey - don't you think that is rather unfair? He was a man of his time, and his theories made sense 250 years ago.  The fact that it is all irrelevant these days does not make him an idiot, or am I missing something?