Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ozzy123

What is Malthus

Recommended Posts

I would like to know more about this guy and how it relates to debate. I serched for a while, but i couldnt get a good understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

each person alive consumes enough resources for 7.6(?) people in the resource crunch. Thus, dead people now prevent more later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a critique. Moved.

 

shows you how much i know lol

 

each person alive consumes enough resources for 7.6(?) people in the resource crunch. Thus, dead people now prevent more later.

 

could you explain this more please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malthus claimed that the planet had a finite carrying capacity. That is, there are only X number of persons that the planet can reasonably contain. Too many people kills everyone. It's exactly the same argument people use to justify hunting deer. tHe forest has enough food to feed some amount of deer, and if the number isn't kept below that level by hunting, then they will all starve to death. There are two schools of Malthusian thought. One thinks that there is nothing we can do except stop making so many people. The other thnks that technology has the ability to increase the planet's functional carrying capacity. The argument is based on this 1798 essay that Dr. Malthus wrote about population: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

 

There's also an argument called Rights Malthus, but that is a different ball of wax.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are, of course, many variations on the argument, but dan has it pretty well put. One popular variation is the "US is worse" thread: people in the US consume disproportionately MORE resources than people in any other country, so any plan that claims to save lives here in the US will link even HARDER to the disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malthus: extending the live spans of certain people now will cause much, much worse death and suffering later because of population growth. Whether it's 200% more death and suffering or 2000% more death and suffering depends on the specifics of the evidence you find/cite.

 

Hint: Just check the growth in world population from 1980 to date. That's approximately a quarter of a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when people say Malthus, they mean some kind of population advantage/disadvantage. But there are some more critique-ish arguments along the same Malthusian lines that come from the Deep Ecology crowd. Do a search for "deep eco" on cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also Rights Malthus, or RiMal, which is a more critical argument most of the time. There have been lots of threads on that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malthus claimed that the planet had a finite carrying capacity.

 

His argument was that while food supply grows linearly, population growth is exponential.

 

His arguments have been largely discredited by the twentieth century and other arguments; few in academia still consider his views valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rights malthus is basiclly this but with a twist, that totalitatrian statism is key to take us through the crunch, and unless tehy are able to take away liberties they cant save us all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument can be run a few different ways. It could be a turn to disads. This will only work if you have pretty much an environment case that claims extinction as its terminal impacts, and no nuclear war impacts. When the Neg gets up in the 1nc and reads some disads with nuclear war as the terminal, then just group them and read a 5 minute Caldwell shell.

 

It can also be sort of a disad to an affirmative that claims nuke war as an impact.

In these debates you have to win that nuke war will not cause extinction. Everyone is going to go extinct soon if we dont kill off half the population. And that utilitarianism rocks the judges socks off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, chill out there killer. I've read a fair bit for each side and my intent was not to get into a debate with you. I was just pointing out that there is ample evidence on each side. And offering a sweet website for anyone doing research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there are several Elliot and Lamm articles on thesocialcontract.com in case people are looking into doing research on the environment issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far this is what i have gotten (mostly from synergy's awsome website)

Malthus is wrong - basic economical concepts are overlooked, etc, BUT, if his arguments were infused with acreage, global warming, and peak oil arguments, it could be useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, it's called the crunch/peak oil DA.. I wouldn't say it's much more legitimate...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

 

 

I'd go for the turn that hitting peak oil good, the sooner the better, because it forces us to have a real mindset shift to renewables and the sooner we do this the less environment we'll sell to oil companies, etc

So basically:

1AC

1NC - DA with econ colapse -

1) link your plan increases amount of people

2) people use more money, resources, etc

3) economy spins out of control

2AC - Impact turn - econ colapse good, peak oil leads to more envirnmental mindset and renewable reasources, get out deep eco files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love running malthus, but then i dont because it kills most other DA ground and K. By saying death good.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically:

1AC

1NC - DA with econ colapse -

1) link your plan increases amount of people

2) people use more money, resources, etc

3) economy spins out of control

2AC - Impact turn - econ colapse good, peak oil leads to more envirnmental mindset and renewable reasources, get out deep eco files.

 

No that turn is backwards. A collapse of economic growth would prevent us from hitting peak oil. Thats just a traditional "dedev" debate with "collapse => mindset shift." But the collapse wouldn't be the result of peak oil. You could just say peak oil makes collapse inevitable so its better now than later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CNN today:

 

Climatologist: World is no longer 'normal'

When a climatologist tells you the only thing that's going to reverse the effects of global warming is a "good old-fashioned pandemic that wipes out millions" your ears perk up. Mine sure did when climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory told me that.

 

We came to California to see what is making this state so darn hot and to take a look at what the summer may bring. It's not good.

 

Patzert got a rare glimpse into the future by studying the past. He found that in the last 100 years the average daily temperature in this state jumped 5 degrees; average nightly temperature jumped 7 degrees; and the annual number of extreme heat days, those over 90 degrees farenheit, multiplied by 12. Even heat waves are up, he said. They are three-to-five times more likely with each passing summer.

 

"Now I realize normal is just a cycle on a washing machine. We're no longer living in a normal world. We're living in a warmer world," he said.

 

So what does all that mean for Californians? It could mean a steamy, smoggy, hot, fiery summer is around the corner, with myriad consequences.

 

The Los Angeles County Fire Chief for the Forestry Division John Todd told me that with the ground so hot, brush fires no longer occur just a few months a year, but all year long.

 

A heightened demand for electricity could tax power companies and their ability to deliver a consistent flow of energy. Last year, when temperatures soared well over 100 degrees, more than one million Californians lost power for more than a week. But Southern California Edison's Pedro Pizaro tells us the company is prepared with extra power generating capacity on standby.

 

We were the first TV crew invited to take video inside the company's "war room." It is packed with monitors that are tracked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They show how much electricity is actually being used by the company's 13 million customers as compared to what had been predicted for the day. The goal is to avoid blackouts.

 

The problem is that megawatts don't go as far as they once did. Before it got so hot in California, one megawatt could power 750 homes. Now it only powers 650 homes. And people are building bigger and bigger homes, megahomes if you will, in inland areas like San Bernardino Valley, which are hotter. Many here say urban sprawl should get some of the blame for the extreme heat.

 

"All this population urban/suburban development has definitely done an extreme makeover on the surface of Southern California," Patzert told me.

 

It's getting so bad that California Attorney General Jerry Brown has sued San Bernardino County, one of the fastest growing inland areas in the United States, for failing to account for greenhouse gases when updating its 25-year blueprint for growth.

 

Infectious disease experts, such as William K. Reisen at University California Davis and Microbiologist Stephen Morse at Columbia University, suggest extreme heat this summer may even bring tropical diseases to southern California. The flu, which circulates year round in the tropics, could do the same here. And the mosquitoes -- look out! They bite more often at night, so the warmer nights are sure to keep them busy.

 

This isn't how I pictured Southern California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...