Skip to main content

View Diary: Debating the fall of civilization:  is it nonsense? (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are really making me laugh so thanks! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:02:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you'd take the time to see what I replied to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth

      I never misquoted you. My original comment was directed at the comment (I do think this site is threaded, so it should be simple to verify) that 'we as a species are toast'. I never quoted you, or even implied that I quoted you.

      Again, I will say I disagree but you aren't being silly, just malthusean. Nothing wrong with that per se, just a position I disagree with.

      •  Again misrepresenting me. Why is anything I said (0+ / 0-)

        even remotely "Malthusian"?  That is off the wall.
        I never got into population in any way.  Try reading the diary PLEASE!

        An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

        by don mikulecky on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:11:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mathusean is used in modern discourse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kalmoth

          to include more than simple over population; it's often used to describe a class of futurism that predicts civilizational collapse (and the die off that would follow). Malthus's predicted an inability to grow enough food for a geometrically growing population leading to starvation and population die off. Your claim is that industrial society will collapse due to lack of resources.

          the horizontal axis of each represents the years 1750 to 2000. The graphs show, variously, population levels, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, exploitation of fisheries, destruction of tropical forests, paper consumption, number of motor vehicles, water use, the rate of species extinction and the totality of the human economy's gross domestic product...The root cause of all these trends is the same: a rapacious human economy bringing the world swiftly to the brink of chaos.

          If that ain't Malthusean, I'll eat my hat.

          Clearly we don't want the horrors a collapse will bring.

          This I took to mean a substantial die off, since a true collapse would result in widespread death simply because we couldn't get the food from there to here.
          I do claim the right to follow the implications of your words. I wouldn't call that putting them in your mouth.

          •  Want ketchup? Malthus talked about (0+ / 0-)

            population.  Nice try though.  You still did not make yourself understood until just now.  Had you been clear at the beginning none of this would have been necessary.  It was like pulling teeth to get you to give your meaning to an old population notion.  You are still whistling in the dark by the way.  The stuff we mentioned here has a lot behind it.  You won't talk your way past that.

            An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

            by don mikulecky on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:49:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't need to whistle. Every single prediction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kalmoth

              of societal collapse based on resource depletion has failed. The onus is on the predictors.

              Lack of civility a predictor? Don't make me laugh. People have been beaten in the Senate, shot on campus, bombed in churches, murdered during strikes, and killed by the hundreds of thousands in a civil war and society didn't collapse.

              If you would read context, and not assume every slight is directed at you you would have had a much simpler time understanding what I was saying. The other respondents seemed to do just fine. I was simply calling out a poster for a silly extrapolation from your diary.

              Which I will repeat, again, is not silly. Wrong in my opinion but not silly. Is this third repetition of that clarification getting through?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site