December 15, 2009

Kum. By. A.

James Pethokoukis agrees with "a greenie, Guardian op-ed (GGOE):"

Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits.

Count me in as well.

Philosophy Posted by John Kranz at December 15, 2009 11:56 AM

The universe itself is expanding so why the hell shouldn't humanity?

Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2009 3:25 PM

Sadly, JG, the Earth is not expanding as well. Once we learn how to harness the entirety of the Universe for human purposes, I will be happy to talk of unlimited human expansion. Until then....

Posted by: T. Greer at December 15, 2009 4:58 PM

Because we are so close to maxing out the inhabitory capacity of the earth?

Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2009 7:41 PM

Or as described here in numerical form, also addressing the myth of resource depletion.

Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2009 7:48 PM

But if you're still worried about the neighbors getting too close... Go up young man!

Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2009 7:55 PM

A Malthusian in our midst? Say it ain't so, tg!

Sorry to pile on, but this hits a huge nerve. I, too, agree with our Guardianista friend that this is a good way to bifurcate humanity -- and I agree with Jimmy P. that he, Brother jg, and I are on the right side of it.

I argued with a mutual friend of ours when the book "Human Scale" came out. Still in the shadow of Paul Erlich, resource limitations would limit humanity. I said "computer chips are made out of sand and we got a bunch left." It's been decades, but that's easily the smartest thing I ever said. Humans will make better and more efficient use of resources and space and anything that would limit our potential.

We are bounded only by our capacity to dream and avoid Congress.

Posted by: jk at December 15, 2009 8:26 PM

Nah, there is no need to drag out your charts guys. I am on your side. I go up against the limits of growth fellas with as much vigor as the rest of you. We escaped the Malthusian Loop 200 years ago, and I see nothing in the near future that will bring about its return.

On the other hand, I do happen to be a proponent of humility. Humanity is not the universe. We are great - but not that great. Not yet anyway. The comparison, I think, is superfluous.

So no worries - I am not about to mount a great Malthusian assault on the modern world. It is just a nitpick. Perhaps what you see is simply my conservative side breaking through -- I have a great distrust of the notion that man is ready, or even capable, of ruling the world, much less equating himself with the universe.

Posted by: T. Greer at December 15, 2009 11:49 PM

I think you read too much into my jocular yet indignant quip, tg. I'm merely pointing out that while so many entities are expanding - the universe, 11 of 13 polar bear populations, Al Gore's waistband - why should the human population shrink? (Other than the inability of China's communist regime to provide for more citizens than the impoverished hoardes they already have?)

After some reflection though I realized this is just another take on the age old tension between liberty and paternalism. The greenie's epiphany wasn't all that remarkable after all.

Posted by: johngalt at December 16, 2009 1:21 AM

Yeah, I probably did read too much into it. As I said, I was nitpicking. Sorry you had to bare the brunt of it. ^_~

Posted by: T. Greer at December 16, 2009 3:32 AM we end as we began: Kumbayas all around! The Brotherhood of Man!

Posted by: jk at December 16, 2009 9:52 AM | What do you think? [10]