The new scarcity?

Before joining the Stalinists & the Catholic Church in proclaiming that Malthus was (is) wrong, one should actually read what the man actually said. You can start at the free online Economics Library http://www.econlib.org/library/malthus... First read the first edition of the Essay. Then read the sixth edition, to learn the substance of the issues. You shuld also read Greg Clark's book, which has a clear and correct version of early edition Malthus. For deeper reading you could read "The evolution of Malthus's thought" by Nathan Keyfitz. 1983.

Don @ 11:27 AM PDT, May 9, 2008

Corn ethanol promises unending energy, yet some energy experts say that producing it consumes as much energy as burning it releases. Which side is right? Since ethanol in 2006 was 3% of fuel, gasoline should use decrease correspondingly. But consumption has increased 1.4%/yr for the past five years. If ethanol had replaced gasoline, we should have seen a 1.6% decrease. The discrepancy might be explained if demand had spiked, but miles driven increased only 1.2% from 2005 to 2006. The only explanation is that distilling corn into ethanol uses as much energy as it offers. About 9/10 of the energy used in growing corn comes from oil and gas.

Bruce Bridgeman @ 2:53 PM PDT, May 8, 2008

Yes, we need to use our skills to find solutions. the problem is that the vast bulk of humanity lacks the skills to find solutions. What we can do though is set up and support a social framework where one person with a solution can rent or sell the solution to the population at large. Imagine someone in a town that few Americans have heard of coming up with a brand new method for illumination and then selling it to the rest of the people.

Michael Ejercito @ 9:04 AM PDT, May 8, 2008

As I draw close to my fiftieth (ouch!) birthday, I can recall the early seventies when oil, copper, wheat and other basics were going through the roof, and there were shortages of everything from newsprint to bananas. The more things chnage the more they remain the same. I agree there are unavoidable problems if the population of the planet continues to grow at the current rate, but we need to use our skills to find solutions rather then worry if Malthus was right

James @ 10:59 AM PDT, May 6, 2008

Malthus was wrong with is predictions but we do need to protect our water. I have ever faith that some smart scientist will invent a cheaper energy source that doesn't depend on biofuels, the incentive is too high to ignore the profit such an invention would provide. However our current water policies are a crime against humanity and we need to radically change them if we expect to have clean water. There will be no quick fix for water, we require to much of it and large scale transportation and cleaning would be a huge drain on our economy

Rep. Mike @ 10:13 AM PDT, May 6, 2008

When more than 2 billion people become sudden consumers for energy dependent products and services, there has to be a major shock to the world supply of resources. The question is: How major? I see some very dark clouds on the horizon. Who has the power to stop Brasil from using corn for fuel, or stop China and India from polluting? Who can force GM and Ford to produce electric or gas-powered cars only? A new world organization is required, empowered to help the world to avert disasters. A major reallignment of the ways the world does business is a must, and on this will depend whether the world becomes darker or brighter.

Bohdan Szejner @ 12:22 AM PDT, May 6, 2008

Malthus always has been wrong and always will be wrong. Betting against human ingenuity is for suckers.

John @ 5:57 PM PDT, May 5, 2008