![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 21 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Cornucopian. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I dont understand "Furthermore, it always has in the past, even when population was increasing at a far faster rate of growth." What does the "it" refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.155.19 ( talk) 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Heavy metals may be 'finite' in terms of the amount currently existing on Earth, but they are all 100% recyclable nearly by definition. The only way we're ever going to 'run out' of them is to launch them clear out of our solar system forevermore. Even today much of our heavy metals come directly from recycled materials (ie - lead from old car batteries).
Sorry to say, doomers, but oil and gas aren't 'finite' either, in the long term. Dead plant-life is responsible for the coal reserves we currently mine, dead animal life, the oil we pump. As long as life exists on this planet, it will die, hence these fossil fuels cannot be considered 'finite' in an ultimate sense.
Sure, we won't live to see any of our fossil fuel reserves replete, but that doesn't mean they won't. As for an age without oil, frankly, it's long overdue, and in stark contrast to every doomer rant out there, humans, by their very nature, adapt to their environments, and frankly, we're *really* $*!#ing good at it (despite the fat, lazy, want-for-nothing culture we find ourselves immersed in at present). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.176.66 ( talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This section reads like it was written by a child. 128.101.53.240 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "Fundamentally they believe that there is enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the estimated peak population of about 9.22 billion in 2075" is misleading. Simon clearly stated the belief that continued population growth was not just feasible but desirable: "“We now have in our hands — in our libraries, really — the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years”.
On the other hand, many experts who believe that the earth could provide for 9 billion people are not cornucopians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.81.18 ( talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Was it him or another economist that said 'who knows if the second law of thermodynamics will still hold in a hundred years'?
--
Lee Wells
11:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
He was prone to making such scientifically ignorant remarks, so I wouldn't be surpised if he said that. He also said if we ran out of copper, we will simply turn iron into copper, or something equally as bizarre and unscientific as that. -- Valwen 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry thats Plain BS and does not take Simons points into account. Quantum mechanics is not relevant fpr providing you an overspeed ticket, you can stay within a newtonian world and the second law of Thermodynamics is merely irrelevant for economic thought as long earth is not a closed system but an open one with an incredible dynamic crust and - in human dimensions - endless delivery of energy. While doomsters as meadows predicted we already ran out of copper ten years ago, Simon predicted technological change would make copper less needed for communications. He was right, as far as fiber optics work. -- Polentario ( talk) 07:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this paragraph:
Yes, you can't create copper out of other elements using chemistry, but it is - at least in principle - possible to do so using nuclear processes. I'm not for a moment suggesting that it will ever be possible to do this efficiently, but it is simply wrong to criticise Simon's "lack of understanding" of chemistry for his statement. Lacking an actual citation (I can only see the abstract), we don't know that he was talking about purely chemical means. And then, even if he was, his point is still coherent; regardless of whether he knew about nuclear manipulation, it's still possible. Again, I'm not saying that Simon was right in his argument that humans could manufacture copper as an acceptable replacement for 'natural' copper. I'm just saying that it's a stretch to say he didn't understand science based on this statement. -- DudeGalea 08:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Then the sentence should be re-worded, not removed entirely. He made this claim. This is at the heart of his Cornucopian argument. I agree "showing an apparent lack of understanding" is perhaps not the most neutral POV. -- Valwen 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I edited the phrase that declared Simon to be a cornucopian. He denies being a cornucopian theorist in his book 'The Ultimate Resource'.
Just because he denies it doesn't mean he is not the flag-bearer and most frequently-cited source for Cornucopian theorists. He is one and this needs to be corrected. -- Valwen 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence is thus **A cornucopian is someone who posits that there are few intractable natural limits to growth, and believes the planet can provide a practically limitless abundance of natural resources** , though a cornucopian view would be THE WORLD not THE PLANET, nobody denies that we may well have to go off planet to fulfill the cornucopian ideal. I have changed PLANET to WORLD.
Which is an good segue into Asteroid Mining and Space Colonization. The proponents of which would surely be classed as cornucopian and so should maybe be linked here? See Mining the Sky for example, which specifically addresses issue of resource and population limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.131 ( talk) 01:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone think this guy's concept of Ephemeralization falls under this? It's a solo stub, and I was hoping to give it some links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaong ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a purely subjective viewpoint, but it seems like the article is biased in support of Cornucopians. Contrary to this, it seems that the further reading is all biased against Cornucopians (It consists only to links dismissing the ideology, and does not provide examples of actual cornucopian writings). 2600:8807:4401:6000:4CC7:B69C:39FC:DA4D ( talk) 05:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 01:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Cornucopianism → Cornucopian – In Google Ngram Viewer, "cornucopian" is much more common than "cornucopianism" [2]. Furthermore, Britannica chose "cornucopian" as its article title. Both titles are workable, but I find "cornucopian" preferable. The start of the article can say something like this: "A cornucopian is someone who X. The views of cornucopians are called cornucopianism." In Google Scholar, "cornucopian" finds 6,630 articles while "cornucopianism" finds 410 articles. If I understand WT:COMMONNAME correctly, the move I propose is in keeping with it. "Cornucopianism" is a result of a move from 1 June 2022, the rationale being the analogy with " W:Malthusianism". Was the move per some kind of policy? What is best per policy? Dan Polansky ( talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
17:45, 1 June 2022 NewsAndEventsGuy talk contribs block 75 bytes +75 NewsAndEventsGuy moved page Cornucopian to Cornucopianism: Its about the philosophy itself. Also the analog article is "Malthusianism"
which was apparently bold. But better still, merge to cornucopia which would make this moot. Andrewa ( talk) 06:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)