[extropy-chat] Human Machinations

[Keith Henson]

At 01:52 AM 2/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>On 2/16/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>Points d and e are closer.  The reason both parts of Ireland became an
>>economic success story is that a generation ago there was a large drop over
>>a few years in the birth rate.
>
>This turns out not to be the case - the economic growth and shift away 
>from rabid theocracy were linked in a causal web to more open trade, 
>increased communication and the shift away from banana-republic style 
>socialism. The birth rate falling below extinction level was a consequence 
>of these factors, not a cause.
>
>>I don't know if that was effect or cause of
>>the shift away from a rabid theocracy.  Same thing happened in other
>>places.  But in any case, with population growth below economic growth,
>>what happens?
>
>The model of economic productivity as "cargo" - something delivered from 
>outside, with a fixed supply to be divided among a population - works well 
>for a hunter-gatherer economy where wealth is collected largely as-is from 
>the environment, but not for an industrial one where wealth is largely 
>produced by people.

Jeeze, guys, you would think am asking a trick question.  The income per 
capital goes UP.

>>PS.  Warning, I am leading you into a model that is incredibly simple,
>>logical and miserably depressing.
>
>Having read your model before, I think the approach is a reasonable one, 
>but at the end of the day it doesn't really match the historical facts. 
>That's another matter, though; I'll confine myself in this post to 
>providing corrected data on Ireland :)

Well, do you know of a population that supported war with a rising income 
per capita and bright looking future prospects?  (One that was not attacked 
of course.)  Examples will refute the model.

This maps back to the stone age where such conditions shut off war.

Keith Henson