There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to addressing the problems of growth and the environment. Both are diametrically opposed. One bets on asceticism, the other, on the contrary.
Predicting the future is not easy. In 1798, Thomas Malthus He predicted that the human population would inevitably outstrip the food supply. This was not the case, mainly due to technological advances that Malthus could not foresee.
two visions
- The Malthusians (by Thomas Malthus): They predict that resources will be exhausted and that growth cannot be indefinite. In English this group is usually referred to as doomers.
- The cornucopians (for cornucopia, the horn of plenty): growth can be unlimited because science and technology will always find the solution to problems and the way to obtain and optimize resources. In English this group is usually referred to as boomers (explosion, or expansion).
Which of the two positions is correct? It is a difficult question, as summarized JM Mulet It's your book Real environmentalism:
Throughout the 20th century, various authors have subscribed to these currents. Among the Malthusians we have Jared Diamond (Collapse) or the aforementioned Paul Ehrlich, and among the Cornucopians we have Julian Simon or Amory Lovins. What is the best attitude? Is anyone right? Most likely not and it depends on each specific problem.
The solution may not be asceticism so much as new technologies that generate fewer emissions (i.e. Who has done more for trees, environmentalists or pendrives?). But perhaps we are heading towards a point of no return. Be that as it may, below you can explore a series where, for the first time, they bet on the Cornucopians instead of the Malthusians: Dr Stone.
–
The news
Cornucopians VS Malthusians: how to face a finite world in which there are more and more people?
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.