In the past century the earth's human population has quadrupled, growing from 1.5 billion in 1900 to about 6 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 9 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. So just how worried should we be? Is population growth a problem or not? And if so, what should we do about it?
Paul Ehrlich could not foresee technological advances that came later than his book, nevertheless, his predictions should still come true. He just seems to have been about 50 to 80 years too early in his predictions.

I guess I should go and build a moai statue in my back yard now before the materials start getting scarce.

I'm thinking humans should invest heavily into space travel/colonization of other worlds. It will solve the problem permanently.

Is population growth a problem or not? And if so, what should we do about it?

First, Who is WE???

If this refers to north america, I would say the first thing we have to do is re-program our politicians to get the word GROWTH out of their heads.

The population should not be growing, therefore there is no need for any more immigration. Let the population decrease with thats what women want to do with their lives...it will be good for us in the long run.

I guess I should go and build a moai statue in my back yard now before the materials start getting scarce.

I'm thinking humans should invest heavily into space travel/colonization of other worlds. It will solve the problem permanently.

Permanently? No, the only way to solve the problem - if indeed there is a problem - is for the death rate to increase or the birth rate to decrease. It's that simple. Even if space travel was cheap and available to all, how long before we reached the carrying capacity of the solar system? The galaxy? (Bear in mind I'm interpreting the word 'permanently' in its most literal sense.)

http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/articles/hispanics/hispanic.population.gif

Permanently? No, the only way to solve the problem - if indeed there is a problem - is for the death rate to increase or the birth rate to decrease. It's that simple. Even if space travel was cheap and available to all, how long before we reached the carrying capacity of the solar system? The galaxy? (Bear in mind I'm interpreting the word 'permanently' in its most literal sense.)

The milky way is huge to the point where it would take even the most viral level of human birthrate billions of years to fill it to capacity. Also, humans aren't limited to colonizing systems.

The myth of the planet crumbling under the weight of an exponentially increasing human race faded away about ten years ago. Current models show the population peaking at less than ten billion before the end of this century, and then falling.

The key is prosperity. As the per capita GDP rises almost consistently worldwide, the reasons for large families weaken. Better education releases the hold of Stone Age traditions. Modern medicine reduces child mortality, so not so many are needed to ensure the propagation of family lines. Post-agricultural societies don't need lots of children to bring in the crops. Modern economies don't require lots of children to share the support of their aging parents. The list is endless.

In regions where the average family size used to be twelve, it's now eight. Eight becomes five, five becomes three. In the "Western" nations the birthrate has dropped below replacement level and we're at the mercy of immigration to prop up our Ponzi-scheme social security systems.

The myth of the planet crumbling under the weight of an exponentially increasing human race faded away about ten years ago. Current models show the population peaking at less than ten billion before the end of this century, and then falling.

The key is prosperity. As the per capita GDP rises almost consistently worldwide, the reasons for large families weaken. Better education releases the hold of Stone Age traditions. Modern medicine reduces child mortality, so not so many are needed to ensure the propagation of family lines. Post-agricultural societies don't need lots of children to bring in the crops. Modern economies don't require lots of children to share the support of their aging parents. The list is endless.

In regions where the average family size used to be twelve, it's now eight. Eight becomes five, five becomes three. In the "Western" nations the birthrate has dropped below replacement level and we're at the mercy of immigration to prop up our Ponzi-scheme social security systems.

Yup. Current models show world population peaking around 2100, then slowly declining.

A handful of tangential issues:
Stone Age people most likely had lower population growth rates than their agricultural counterparts. Not only could agriculture support higher populations, but it also led to increased mortality rates. Hunter/Gatherer societies were more healthy than those who were tied to the land.

I have no resources to support the differences in birth rates, however.

There's a reproductive lag between when a country gains access to Western medicine and when they change their birth rates accordingly. Rapid decreases in infant mortality rates and a longer average life span lead to a population explosion, as their are many people being born, and many that should be dead or dying that are no longer doing so.

It's my contention that these sort of population booms can fuel industrial revolutions. It happened in Britain, most of Europe, China and India. The change to an industrial society allows for much greater accumulation of wealth and the need for much more education to accumulate such wealth.

Along with this population growth and economic change comes a profoundly different reproduction strategy. As offspring begin to require 12 years, 16 years, 19 years of education, it becomes more and more expensive for parents to have many offspring. Imagine having to put 7 kids through college.

It's a simple case of an r-selected reproductive strategy changing to a k-selected one as a safer environment, counter-intuitively, becomes more energy intensive to raise offspring in.

The milky way is huge to the point where it would take even the most viral level of human birthrate billions of years to fill it to capacity. Also, humans aren't limited to colonizing systems.

I disagree. My potentially dodgy (admittedly) maths suggests to me that if the human population continued to grow at a rate similar to that which it has during the 20th century, then in only 10,000 years or so the mass of humanity would equal that of the Milky Way (an impossibility, obviously).

Assumptions:

Milky Way = 1 x 10^12 solar masses.
1 solar mass = 2 x 10^30 kg.
1 human = 100 kg.
Population doubling period = 100 years.

http://uwstudentweb.uwyo.edu/C/CLUFTIG/growth.jpg

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/webstuff/demographs/growth.gif

Indeed, from an optimistic standpoint, this is a very interesting time to live in.

The problem is not that the population is growing, but the population of worthless people are growing. The impoverished, the stupid, the anti-civilization idiots are breeding like rabbits, whilst our artists, scientists, philosophers, military leaders, et cetera, are producing maybe one or two children at most, if any at all.

We're breeding ourselves into a slave-caste future.

The problem is not that the population is growing, but the population of worthless people are growing. The impoverished, the stupid, the anti-civilization idiots are breeding like rabbits, whilst our artists, scientists, philosophers, military leaders, et cetera, are producing maybe one or two children at most, if any at all.

We're breeding ourselves into a slave-caste future.

The population of worthless people always grow at greater rates than those worth something. It's for the same reasons salmon spawn thousands while bears only have litters of two.
Besides, simply because America is falling behind in the arts, sciences and philosophies doesn't mean the world's doomed.

There is also little historical evidence for such fear becoming real. It will also be difficult for those who do not matter to do much. They do not control the means of production and few arms. They lack organization, and only become organized when a charismatic leader can pull them off each other and assemble their swords in the right direction. But this is a rare thing.

The problem is not that the population is growing, but the population of worthless people are growing. The impoverished, the stupid, the anti-civilization idiots are breeding like rabbitsWhitey's compassion for these uncivilized being's is the fault.

http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/articles/hispanics/hispanic.population.gif

Ever heard of immigration. This is typical propaganda that doesn't mention "growth = immigration + naturalized hispanics".

I thought we had a "going" problem, and now you guys tell me we have a "growing" problem?

The US is growing very fast - faster than Europe or China.

Imperialism and capitalism, rather than the population bomb, are responsible for the world's poverty.

Roman:

"The population of worthless people always grow at greater rates than those worth something. It's for the same reasons salmon spawn thousands while bears only have litters of two."

The problem is not so much that this is a continual trend, but that the trend has accelerated alongside egalatarian notions being forced upon the world. Perhaps if we still held to aristocratic forms of government and institutions, the influence of the savage would not be so pronounced, but when we don't, and the savage can do so much harm to this world...

If nothing else, the worthy must bear more human fruit.

"Besides, simply because America is falling behind in the arts, sciences and philosophies doesn't mean the world's doomed. "

Not America - the first world.

"There is also little historical evidence for such fear becoming real. It will also be difficult for those who do not matter to do much. They do not control the means of production and few arms. They lack organization, and only become organized when a charismatic leader can pull them off each other and assemble their swords in the right direction. But this is a rare thing. "

The anarchy and chaos they can cause is enough. Similarly, they invade the countries of the civilized and drag it down, then rob us of money for "aid" and other such nonsense.

D'ster:

"Whitey's compassion for these uncivilized being's is the fault. "

Yes. Whitey has sabotaged her future through accepting warped political idealogies, dismantling her over seas empires, and letting these people into our lands.

Facial:

"Imperialism and capitalism, rather than the population bomb, are responsible for the world's poverty. "

And that is why Communism caused the deaths of perhaps 200,000,000 people in the 20th century alone? That Communist practice has resulted only in failed regimes and miserable poverty? That the scientific, cultural, technological, economic, and all other progress of these communist nations are laughable at best? That practically every country which was once Communist is switching to a Capitalist society and seeing great strides forward?

I thought we had a "going" problem, and now you guys tell me we have a "growing" problem?

Yeah, damn that prostate. ;)

- N

I disagree. My potentially dodgy (admittedly) maths suggests to me that if the human population continued to grow at a rate similar to that which it has during the 20th century, then in only 10,000 years or so the mass of humanity would equal that of the Milky Way (an impossibility, obviously).

Assumptions:

Milky Way = 1 x 10^12 solar masses.
1 solar mass = 2 x 10^30 kg.
1 human = 100 kg.
Population doubling period = 100 years.

Point taken.

I think the facts are that our overall population will never reach a point at which it can exceed the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy simply because a virus would appear to wipe out most of us.

If you think of it from a biological point of view humans are meaingless, the planet rotates in space, if we become to big the planet's mass may fall apart and everyone would go flying out into space. I do see a few things that make me wonder what the future may hold though. For example if humans are ever to stop popping out children at evergrowing numbers we must assume we as a race are doomed. We simply cannot supply the needed income, food, and support required for many little shits running around fucking and making even younger little shits. The best solution is to control the populace through a mind-control/sterilzation program aimed at ridding us of everyone except the elite.

In the past century the earth's human population has quadrupled, growing from 1.5 billion in 1900 to about 6 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 9 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. So just how worried should we be? Is population growth a problem or not? And if so, what should we do about it?
Paul Ehrlich could not foresee technological advances that came later than his book, nevertheless, his predictions should still come true. He just seems to have been about 50 to 80 years too early in his predictions.


Read the tragedy of the commons. http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

Actually the tragedy of the commons is worthy of a thread in itself.

I think the facts are that our overall population will never reach a point at which it can exceed the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy simply because a virus would appear to wipe out most of us.

If you think of it from a biological point of view humans are meaingless, the planet rotates in space, if we become to big the planet's mass may fall apart and everyone would go flying out into space. I do see a few things that make me wonder what the future may hold though. For example if humans are ever to stop popping out children at evergrowing numbers we must assume we as a race are doomed. We simply cannot supply the needed income, food, and support required for many little shits running around fucking and making even younger little shits. The best solution is to control the populace through a mind-control/sterilzation program aimed at ridding us of everyone except the elite.


What prevents the elite from eliminating each other and leaving no humans? I mean, somehow people assume that population can be reduced in such a precise way as to not go all the way down to 0 in some freak accident.

In general, what if no human survives? What if we simply kill ourselves until theres no one left? Why would we ever stop?

What prevents the elite from eliminating each other and leaving no humans? I mean, somehow people assume that population can be reduced in such a precise way as to not go all the way down to 0 in some freak accident.

In general, what if no human survives? What if we simply kill ourselves until theres no one left? Why would we ever stop?

Because at some point the population would get too small to upkeep the infrastructure, and the genocide would come crashing to an end. When you got the world population down to a few million, you are going to have a hard time getting the manpower together to keep your little scheme going. Think it through a few different ways.

Oh, and check out a book called "Lucifer's Hammer". Great and realistic read on the survival of mankind after a major meteor impact. Gripping stuff co-wrote with a planetary astronomer for scientific accuracy.

Facial:

"Imperialism and capitalism, rather than the population bomb, are responsible for the world's poverty. "

And that is why Communism caused the deaths of perhaps 200,000,000 people in the 20th century alone? That Communist practice has resulted only in failed regimes and miserable poverty? That the scientific, cultural, technological, economic, and all other progress of these communist nations are laughable at best? That practically every country which was once Communist is switching to a Capitalist society and seeing great strides forward?

First: what is your ideology, and what do you think causes poverty?

Because at some point the population would get too small to upkeep the infrastructure, and the genocide would come crashing to an end. When you got the world population down to a few million, you are going to have a hard time getting the manpower together to keep your little scheme going. Think it through a few different ways.

Oh, and check out a book called "Lucifer's Hammer". Great and realistic read on the survival of mankind after a major meteor impact. Gripping stuff co-wrote with a planetary astronomer for scientific accuracy.


You make the mistake of assuming genocide is rational and not emotional.

Why would hatred ever end? You think people will wake up one day and start loving themselves? If there are less people to destroy and hate, why would that stop it?

If you hate cats for example, and decide to kill them, by hunting them for fur or whatever, why wouldn't you hunt them down to extinction? We have done it before with many many other animals, so I don't see why we couldn't hunt ourselves into extinction. Who exactly will be there to say "stop"? If compassion is removed?

I know how people are internally, if people hate people, they aren't going to stop hating people just because there are less people. Only a few things could happen if there are millions of people left, and none of them would actually be utopia.

1. A group of thousands could enslave the world using technology, money and robots, then force the people to build robots to make their lives less valueable.

2. A group of millions could enslave a few billion people militarily, and financially, very much like how things are now, but with less people, lower wages, and longer working hours until the point where people work 24/7 for a penny an hour.

3. People will crash down from the billions into the millions or hundreds of thousands, and then kill each other off fighting for control of the remaining few. (Men will fight and kill over women when there's only millions of them, and people will still hate each other).

In any of these 3 situations that could happen, I don't see the consumer/worker winning. The worker will either be a slave, or dead. This really has nothing to do with workers and consumers, as they just exist to do the work. Less workers does not mean more or faster progress, it means slower progress.

I don't think humans are ready to go into space, not because there are too many humans, but because humans aren't ready to stop fighting each other.

You have to explain to me why you are sure humans will stop hunting each other, ever. The workers might not hunt each other but workers don't matter, the nobility, the wealthy, and people of that sort will be the people who matter. The question is, with less workers, who exactly will do the work? I'm guessing whoever survives will have to work even harder. I suppose there will be less competition for jobs, but there will be longer hours, and a much more brutal environment, it will will be survival of the fittest and I'm not sure any human will survive if humans hate each other.

In the past century the earth's human population has quadrupled, growing from 1.5 billion in 1900 to about 6 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 9 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb,
Paul Ehrlich was an idiot. Among his predictions:
* "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968)
* "Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
* "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
* "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)
"All of the former's [Ehrlich's] grim predictions had been decisively overturned by events. Ehrlich was wrong about higher natural resource prices, about "famines of unbelievable proportions" occurring by 1975, about "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" in the 1970s and '80s, about the world "entering a genuine age of scarcity."
Of course the most famous evidence of Ehrlich's idiocy, is his bet. He, being an idiot, believed that the scarcity of natural resources would cause prices to rise as we ran out of them. Here's what happened when an economist asked him to put his money where his mouth is:
"The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" - a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with - Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.

You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted - copper, tin, whatever - and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager." ... Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon. ... Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later. [1]

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet
We will never run out of anything. Why not?

Simon's cornucopian theory.
"More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred."

Paul Ehrlich was an idiot. Among his predictions:


Of course the most famous evidence of Ehrlich's idiocy, is his bet. He, being an idiot, believed that the scarcity of natural resources would cause prices to rise as we ran out of them. Here's what happened when an economist asked him to put his money where his mouth is:

We will never run out of anything. Why not?

As I said in my original post: He could not foresee technoligical advancements that came after his book. Those advancements pushed his predictions into the future, but they will still happen.
Too much human population will disable the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. It is a finite world and will only support a finite number of humans. The increasing population is going to put many millions of people in poverty and misery, and slow starvation. -- this is already happening in many third world countries. Millions are living in malnutrition and misery. As the population increases it will get worse with larger numbers of people in that condition. The predictions of the population leveling off and decreasing in the future is probably because of worlwide starvation and disease causing it to level off by reason of death.
His predictions will come true, they just seem to have been about 50 to 80 years too early.

Madathnoywayne, there is a difference between running out of something and substituting something that does a roughly similar function for it when it becomes scarce. Some things are not readily substitutable, such as good farmland, oil, gas, helium, and some rare minerals.

The problem is not so much that this is a continual trend, but that the trend has accelerated alongside egalatarian notions being forced upon the world. Perhaps if we still held to aristocratic forms of government and institutions, the influence of the savage would not be so pronounced, but when we don't, and the savage can do so much harm to this world...

If nothing else, the worthy must bear more human fruit.

Economically, higher population growth means less wealth. While many bodies can produce many goods, there are fewer goods per person.

Biologically, you can either have a high population rate, or a high investment in your offspring, but not both.

You may have it one way or the other– wealthy individuals with a few offspring, or many offspring, less wealth, and lower levels of education, etc.

Not America - the first world.

Uhhh....?

The anarchy and chaos they can cause is enough. Similarly, they invade the countries of the civilized and drag it down, then rob us of money for "aid" and other such nonsense.

Nonsense.
Are there any cases of immigrants actually destroying countries?
Tesla was an immigrant, from eastern europe, no less. There is much to gain from immigration.

france?

is as simple a question of: the quantity of children raised, versus the quality of their upbringing?

Parents have limited resources with which to raise children.
So those resources can be invested in a combination of the quantity of children they raise, or the quality of upbringing they give to their children (e.g, love, patience, time, care, energy, money, education, etc)

Roman:

"The population of worthless people always grow at greater rates than those worth something. It's for the same reasons salmon spawn thousands while bears only have litters of two."

The problem is not so much that this is a continual trend, but that the trend has accelerated alongside egalatarian notions being forced upon the world. Perhaps if we still held to aristocratic forms of government and institutions, the influence of the savage would not be so pronounced, but when we don't, and the savage can do so much harm to this world...

If nothing else, the worthy must bear more human fruit.

"Besides, simply because America is falling behind in the arts, sciences and philosophies doesn't mean the world's doomed. "

Not America - the first world.

"There is also little historical evidence for such fear becoming real. It will also be difficult for those who do not matter to do much. They do not control the means of production and few arms. They lack organization, and only become organized when a charismatic leader can pull them off each other and assemble their swords in the right direction. But this is a rare thing. "

The anarchy and chaos they can cause is enough. Similarly, they invade the countries of the civilized and drag it down, then rob us of money for "aid" and other such nonsense.

D'ster:

"Whitey's compassion for these uncivilized being's is the fault. "

Yes. Whitey has sabotaged her future through accepting warped political idealogies, dismantling her over seas empires, and letting these people into our lands.

Facial:

"Imperialism and capitalism, rather than the population bomb, are responsible for the world's poverty. "

And that is why Communism caused the deaths of perhaps 200,000,000 people in the 20th century alone? That Communist practice has resulted only in failed regimes and miserable poverty? That the scientific, cultural, technological, economic, and all other progress of these communist nations are laughable at best? That practically every country which was once Communist is switching to a Capitalist society and seeing great strides forward?


I'm not understanding your arguement. Why would you believe any human has worth over say, a tiger? How exactly do you judge the worth of a life? Do you roll a dice? OR do you rate based on sperm quality? What do you use to rate?

is as simple a question of: the quantity of children raised, versus the quality of their upbringing?

Parents have limited resources with which to raise children.
So those resources can be invested in a combination of the quantity of children they raise, or the quality of upbringing they give to their children (e.g, love, patience, time, care, energy, money, education, etc)


I don't think it matters because even with infinite resources humans would still think the same. Don't you see?

So no, resources have nothing to do with anything. The real question is, why does the earth need humans at all?

As I said in my original post: He could not foresee technoligical advancements that came after his book. Those advancements pushed his predictions into the future, but they will still happen.
Too much human population will disable the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. It is a finite world and will only support a finite number of humans. The increasing population is going to put many millions of people in poverty and misery, and slow starvation. -- this is already happening in many third world countries. Millions are living in malnutrition and misery. As the population increases it will get worse with larger numbers of people in that condition. The predictions of the population leveling off and decreasing in the future is probably because of worlwide starvation and disease causing it to level off by reason of death.
His predictions will come true, they just seem to have been about 50 to 80 years too early.


Less population won't solve it either, because it's not as simple as "too much" or "too little", it's inefficiency which caused these problems in the first place. I'd blame it on the industrial age, we grew faster than we knew how to use our people, basically our minds arent evolving at a fast enough rate to deal with the moving speed of technological change, and the result is that we are being destroyed by our technology. Less people may slow the process down slightly.

Also I see population dropping as we speak, there will be plenty of avian flus, plagues, wars to drop the population down. All that matters is that the species survive, not the numbers of survivors, although I admit you do need enough survivors, or at least a huge sperm bank.

As I said in my original post: He could not foresee technoligical advancements that came after his book. Those advancements pushed his predictions into the future, but they will still happen.

If Mr. Erlich could not foresee technological advancements that would come in the seventies and eighties, what makes you so sure there won't be further improvements in this century?

More people means more production, more wealth, not less. It only seems like there will be less if you think in terms of a zero sum game. But it's not. Standard of living, in an absolute sense, have been rising for hundreds of years as populations have skyrocketed. Why should that trend change?
Too much human population will disable the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. It is a finite world and will only support a finite number of humans.
But it's an infinite universe. Why should we be bound to one planet? Why to one solar system? It's manifest destiny all over again.

More people means more production, more wealth, not less.

Correction.
A higher population growth rate will lead to more production, but lower wealth. The amount of money per individual, or GDP/capita, will actually decline.

I can draw you a graph if you like.

Correction.
A higher population growth rate will lead to more production, but lower wealth. The amount of money per individual, or GDP/capita, will actually decline.

I can draw you a graph if you like.
You can draw all the graphs you want, but how does it explain what actually happened during the last couple hundred years or so.

You can draw all the graphs you want, but how does it explain what actually happened during the last couple hundred years or so.

You mean economic growth?

Increases in total factor productivity, investment in human capital and investment in infrastructure that benefit a free market.

You have to be careful about the redefinition of "wealth" after a paradigm shift.

I'm sure many Mesolithic nomads could not envision the explosion of wealth that agriculture and the permanent settlements that sprang up to support it would bring. They had almost no "possessions" because they had to be able to carry them all with them. It would have been difficult for them to imagine living with a lot of "things and stuff" and that those things and stuff would "enrich" anyone, i.e. increase their wealth. Yet increase it they did, starting with the defining artifacts of a permanent settlement: permanent homes. They had real value because their size, strength and durability protected the inhabitants better from predators and weather, provided a place to heal illness or injury, and accommodated more children with lower infant mortality. The tangible wealth represented by furniture, superior cooking technology, musical instruments, etc. is obvious to us but no hunger-gatherer could have imagined these things, much less evalutated them.

The building of cities, the smelting and forging of metal, the creation of industry... the increase in the world's total and per capita wealth from each of these quantum leaps of progress could similarly not be imagined. People had to wait until they could see them, then add new words to their language, before they could even think and talk about them coherently, much less analyze them.

We are making the same mistake when we talk about the wealth that will be created by the new era--the Information Age, Post-Industrial Revolution, Third Wave, Age of Aquarius, whatever we struggle to name it.

One thing is obvious: Information will become a dominant form of wealth because it will confer power, comfort, safety, and more progress. And information has an attribute that none of the previous forms of wealth had: it can be reproduced and shared almost without limit, almost without cost, and almost without an expiration date.

Not only is this a new Paradigm Shift, it is a new kind of Paradigm Shift.

You have to be careful about the redefinition of "wealth" after a paradigm shift.

I'm sure many Mesolithic nomads could not envision the explosion of wealth that agriculture and the permanent settlements that sprang up to support it would bring. They had almost no "possessions" because they had to be able to carry them all with them. It would have been difficult for them to imagine living with a lot of "things and stuff" and that those things and stuff would "enrich" anyone, i.e. increase their wealth. Yet increase it they did, starting with the defining artifacts of a permanent settlement: permanent homes. They had real value because their size, strength and durability protected the inhabitants better from predators and weather, provided a place to heal illness or injury, and accommodated more children with lower infant mortality. The tangible wealth represented by furniture, superior cooking technology, musical instruments, etc. is obvious to us but no hunger-gatherer could have imagined these things, much less evalutated them.

The building of cities, the smelting and forging of metal, the creation of industry... the increase in the world's total and per capita wealth from each of these quantum leaps of progress could similarly not be imagined. People had to wait until they could see them, then add new words to their language, before they could even think and talk about them coherently, much less analyze them.

We are making the same mistake when we talk about the wealth that will be created by the new era--the Information Age, Post-Industrial Revolution, Third Wave, Age of Aquarius, whatever we struggle to name it.

One thing is obvious: Information will become a dominant form of wealth because it will confer power, comfort, safety, and more progress. And information has an attribute that none of the previous forms of wealth had: it can be reproduced and shared almost without limit, almost without cost, and almost without an expiration date.

Not only is this a new Paradigm Shift, it is a new kind of Paradigm Shift.

Stop complicating our models :mad: