Nature is self-correcting and resilient. like bikini atoll which
was the test site for many american nuclear bombs has regained 70%
of its coral reefs and marine life which were initially wiped
out.
you may suggest that one of the problems i suggested (hunger)
totally corrects another (population explosion). but hey, not that
simple. damage already done. let me explain:
You may not believe in climate change, so pardon me. It did not
happen overnight. was the result of two centuries of industrial
revolution. by the time we decide to do something about it ( which
is not even now cos some people dont believe that its bad or
believe its a myth), it will be strong enough to cause a "runaway"
effect.
other examples are, like u mentioned, exporting pollution to 3rd
world countries where they aren't handled properly ( bad air??).
the benefit to the exporter and importer seems obvious for the
moment, but quid pro quo, life will bite our children back where it
hurts
back to the context of population, we dont say that overfishing
cures itself (overfishing -> less fish -> less fishing ->
overfishing cures itself? no! extinction!).
by the time hunger actually kicks in on the global scale to
actually regulate or reduce the overall growth rate to negative,
earth and humankind will be on breaking point already.
quote you something from my mathematical modelling notes:
"so the mere fact that fish numbers are declining is not a
danger signal in itself. In fact, until you get to the point of
inflection, the graph might fool you into thinking that the
population will settle down eventually to some non-zero asymptotic
value! ......paradoxically at first overfishing may seem to benefit
the fish!! But not for long!"
ok a long winded path to say
that self correction isn't simple haha
and neither does it say that self-correction isn't happening
q:
unless of course you're talking about public goods (like
fishing) then we have market failure all together.
actually, when i said starvation is in itself self-correcting, i
was referring to hunger, not population explosion; if the hungry
starve to death then wouldn't there be less, if not none, world
hunger?
with reference of exporting pollution causing industries, i
think it's evident that the benefits more than make up for the
costs. but once you start going into the long run with "life will
bite our children back where it hurts", everything starts to go
sideways; assuming things don't change then yes perhaps that could
happen. but it would be erroneous to assume that any one variable
can remain constant in the long run.
in terms of population explosion, we can turn to technology
again for answers; sure it doesn't solve all the problems but it'll
elevate some of it.
as always a benefit here is a cost there and it all boils down
to how much people are willing to pay to have less benefit (for
less cost).
it's starting to look like a textbook war now that you quote
from your math notes.
haha
