http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=julian+simon
Quotes:
http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Julian-Simon/1/index.html
It is your mind that matters economically, as much or more than your mouth or hands. In the long run, the most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge. And this contribution is large enough in the long run to overcome all the costs of population growth.
Topic: Finance and Economics
Source: None
Not understanding the process of a spontaneously-ordered economy goes hand-in-hand with not understanding the creation of resources and wealth. And when a person does not understand the creation of resources and wealth, the only intellectual alternative is to believe that increasing wealth must be at the cost of someone else. This belief that our good fortune must be an exploitation of others may be the taproot of false prophecy about doom that our evil ways must bring upon us.
Topic: Finance and Economics
Source: None
Our supplies of natural resources are not finite in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.
Topic: Finance and Economics
Source: None
The increase in the world's population represents our victory against death...
Topic: Finance and Economics
Source: None
The standard of living has risen along with the size of the world's population since the beginning of recorded time. There is no convincing economic reason why these trends toward a better life should not continue indefinitely.
Topic: Finance and Economics
"The standard of living has risen along with the size of the world's population since the beginning of recorded time. There is no convincing economic reason why these trends toward a better life should not continue indefinitely"
Yep. It'll just go on forever, till we're bunched up shoulder to shoulder.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou mean the people in their luxury high-rise apartments in new york city are living worse off than the small-farm owners in Iowa?
"The standard of living has risen along with the size of the world's population since the beginning of recorded time. There is no convincing economic reason why these trends toward a better life should not continue indefinitely"
Yep. It'll just go on forever, till we're bunched up shoulder to shoulder.
I was not aware of this.
"It is we who create the space"
Originally posted by eljefejesusThe earth and it's resources are finite, please educate yourself about population control.
You mean the people in their luxury high-rise apartments in new york city are living worse off than the small-farm owners in Iowa?
I was not aware of this.
"It is we who create the space"
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe zero-population fanatics (who argued malthusian principles) lost the debate over resource scarcity in the 1970's against the cornucopian economists such as Julian Simon. Please educate yourself... period.
The earth and it's resources are finite, please educate yourself about population control.
Originally posted by eljefejesusOK you tell me where population growth should end. Infinity and beyond?
The zero-population fanatics (who argued malthusian principles) lost the debate over resource scarcity in the 1970's against the cornucopian economists such as Julian Simon. Please educate yourself... period.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamAnd humanity's victory over death would be so bad because....?
OK you tell me where population growth should end. Infinity and beyond?
At what point wouldn't we be able to adapt and learn new ways to improve the lives of more people? At what point in history do you think we had too many people?... or were people proven wrong to be so short-sighted before and think that just over that barrier and within our own minds there was not a new solution?
Originally posted by eljefejesusYou really need to get your infinity-fetishism into perspective dude...
And humanity's victory over death would be so bad because....?
At what point wouldn't we be able to adapt and learn new ways to improve the lives of more people? At what point in history do you think we had too many people?... or were people proven wrong to be so short-sighted before and think that just over that barrier and within our own minds there was not a new solution?
Originally posted by shavixmirJust trying to share the knowledge and debate the idea. I see no convincing counterargument.
You really need to get your infinity-fetishism into perspective dude...
Didn't see one against my definition of numbers, but you did say 2+2=4 regarless. I would say that the idea would remain true, but the numbers themselves that refer to these ideas are human inventions. Know what I mean?
Originally posted by TastyGlamGirlThey also invent ways to use their resources more efficiently (like cars that have higher gas mileage at 30 mpg rather than 15)... electric cars too.
Population is always destroyed through wars. When resources are scarce, the country without them goes to war and either acquires the needed resources or has enough deaths to not need them anymore.
Or of course, if they can, they run a Ponzi scheme like the US government. lol
Or they find substitutes... like the iron age, copper age, steel age...
New inventions (information age), substitutes, and efficiencies.
I think wars are largely political and diplomatic issues only partially influenced by resources but also influenced by perceived threats of the millitary power type... with security and superiority up for grabs.