N S-ay on Malthusian popuL8ion dynamics + th val-U of zer0 growth in 1 city of 1,000


10/4/22 | aNYCity > (cont.) 8 @ Pig + Khao (★★★★★) w/ L + MM (co-author of Residue) + got drinks in LES

Looking tward L.i.C. from L.E.S

10/5 > walked Bleecker 2 west side, up 2 Printer Matter, then met BroLo (author of Part of World) @ Tick Tock diner (★) > then up the river to 74th st met R bedder-½ + walked across Central Park + str8 down 6th Ave 2 Bdwy, ducked out of th rain @ Strand books then back 2 hotel > 8 @ Rosie's (★★★★★) Mexican > toetill walking 4 th day = 12 miles

Warhol's loft on Gr8 Jones ware Basquiat died



10/6 > finally good whether (mid-70°s + sun5hine) > walked up 2 Columbia, thru Central + Riverside parks, talked 2 Columbia housing ppl + viewed a few apartments 2 set expect8ions > Citibiked back down along th Hudson > then Citibiked across bridge 2 Brooklyn + walked thru Bklyn/Park 5lope > 8 @ Fonda w/ L + MM then 2 Community bar > toetill mileage on th day = 16, mileage 4 last 4 dayz = almost 60 ... s0 ~15 miles per day wile in NYC





> iT occurred 2 U/i th other day (when R 5¢ense popuL8ion counter rolled over to 8,000,000,000) dat U/i had nvr actually red An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus ... U/i imagine very few do, just ≈ very few actually read Origin of Species > s0 we set out 2 read it > th language = a bit antiq8ed + hard 2 digest + Malthus wrote iT az rebuttal/remarks in response 2 other writings by Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, + others whom U/i've nvr even herd of, s0 sorta akin 2 reading movie review 4 movie U nvr saw > iF U/i remade th movie now U'd title iT We're Fucked, but Malthus lived b4 Victorian times even s0 obliged 2 B polite + apologetic in his pessimistic doom + gloom + Uses words ≈ love, passion, happiness, vice, etc. + drops th G-word 2 much > 4 eggsample, Malthus wd transL8 R 2-word solution 2 We're Fucked—«stop fucking»—az «we must temper our passions with intellectual pursuits to achieve happiness»

> naught onely did Malthus live in more prim + proper times, but th popuL8ion in 1798 ≈ 1,000,000,000 ... witch got us 2 wondering when th whirled B-came self-aware of iT's one popuL8ion? Malthus knew th popuL8tion of towns + st8s in Europe + Amerika, but did they halve accur8 #s 4 Africa ⊕ China? we n0 now in retrospect, but did they them5elves have an accur8 idea @ th time?

> we als0 must give th dude a brake 5in¢e his S-ay on popuL8ion = written 50 yrs b4 The Origin of Species, th0 Malthus 5till makes st8ments 5uch az:

It cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of the offspring will possess the desirable qualities of the parents in a greater degree, or that animals are indefinitely perfectible.

> Malthus 5tarts by postuL8ing dat 1). ppl need food + 2). ppl = horny ... ⊕ in his words:

First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.
Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.

> he goes on 2 say dat th humun popuL8ion will increase faster than th planit can produce food 2 feed it, ⊕ in Malthusian landgauge:

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.
Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.

> lit-L did Malthus know, iT's worse than geometric, th popuL8ion is eXponential! he shd of none bedder az Leonardo de Pisa already came up w/ Fibbingnacho #s 2 illustr8 how fast rabbits fucked in 1170 > Malthus overestim8ed growth in his lifetime, but then underestim8ed iT 4 th next century > he assumed popuL8ion dub'Led every 25 yrs... but iT didn't dub-L 2 2 billion til 1900, but by 2000 had tripled to 6 billion > granted iT's now tapering off a bit, but when taken in historical per5pective, thi5 graph shd 5care th B-G-zus out of N-E sentient bean on thi5 planit:

> Malthus = admittedly + apologetically unsighingtific, butt @ heart he B-leaves in sighence + rallies against th «old mode of philosophising» + making «facts bend to systems, instead of establishing systems upon facts.» > az U/i've st8ed b4 in post #999, growth = overr8ed > U/i eXagerr8 when U/i give th solution az «stop fucking» but iF every couple gener8ed 2 kids then we all cd just go on living in thi5 current st8, when/where rati0 of birth/death = 1 ... ? is, @ what point do we establi5h thi5 5tatus Quo eQuillibrium? 1800 ⊕ 1960 ⊕ now? (R vote = 1966, witch happens 2 = year U/i = born) ) > men-E of th eUropean countries halve achieved zer0 growth + iF taken az isoL8ed st8s cd perhaps B considered happy Utopias (4 eggsample, imagine iT-L-E w/ n0 2-rists ⊕ immigr8ion) ... but shd the5e countries be responsible 4 ab5orbing burgeoning popuL8ions elsewhere (e5pecially 1s dat colonized other countries) in this nu world order? per Malthus:

The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population.

> th other ? = how much of earth's L& must we dedic8 2 agriculture 4 humun consumption @ th Xpese of other flora/fauna dat has long 5ince lived in eQuilibrium in their one ec0systems? 30 yrs ag0 az N undergrad math 5tudent U/i wrote thi5 paper on popuL8ion dynamics, dat demonstr8ed dat 5table eQulibriums ebb + fl0w (unlike humuns who thu5 far have ballooned unchecked), u5ing thi5 simple predator-pray mod-L:

> i.e. az # of pray increase, predators increase, D-creasing th pray popuL8ion until predators in turn D-crease + # of pray increases again, etc. 5tarting th cycle over > in th humun situ8ion (applying Malthus), predator = humun + pray = food > happiness = when thi5 circ-L = 5mall, a dot even, w/ lit-L ebb + fl0w in either popuL8ion ⊕ food production, when few ⊕ n0 ppl 5tarve + live happily ever after > but ≈ Malthus considering onely r8s of 1). food + 2). fucking, thi5 = overly 5implified 2-party mod-L naught taking in2 a count rest of ec0system, weather iT B their home, their city, their st8 ± th N-tire whirled > folks w/ kids (hopefully 2 or less) shd think along these lines in terms of familial Units (or th replacement therapy kin dat Donna Haraway tocks of in Making Kin Not Population, witch U/i red @ biginning of thi5 trip), wear input = output ... az long az U = fed + clothed what more do U need? Y th need 2 accumuL8 consumer products + capital 2 become mill/billionaire? 5in¢e U/i don't halve kids, thi5 Unit = U/i + bedder-½ > but eveN on 5ingular/personal lvl U think of thi5 homeo5tasis, th balance B-tween eating + exorcizing > U/i reckon R set point = 155–160 lbs, but typically U hover above this w8 ... @ th biginning of thi5 year R w8 = 175 + 1 month ag0 U managed 2 stay B-low 160 for 1 week, b4 rebounding above > w/ all thi5 walking + hiking U/i did these past 3 weeks U figured may-B U mite of lost w8, but yesterday U/i wayed 163 ... a few pounds heavier then when we left ... granted U/i had less control over R food + perhaps overindulged naught onely food but alcohol, witch 1 cd als0 apply th above graph 2 ... what = perfect amount of hooch? 1 mite say zer0 drinks, but zer0 drinks = n0 fun + U cd say what = th point of B-ing on thi5 planit? s0 U halve 1–2 drinks + iT makes food tastes bedder + U feel bedder, but then sum nites U overdo iT + halve 4–5 drinks (≈ nite B4 we left, hanging w/ R friends in Bklyn) + don't 5leep well + iT triggers R meniere's/vestibular migraines (th0 U/i suspect dis pertickler time iT had more 2 do w/ dat piece of chocolate cake (2 celebr8 R bedder-½'s B-day early)) > intresting dat when Malthus tocks abt FX of dubling, he uses walking az eggsample:

The man who walks twenty miles with a motive that engrosses his soul does not attend to his slight fatigue of body when he comes in; but double his motive, and set him to walk another twenty miles, quadruple it, and let him start a third time, and so on; and the length of his walk will ultimately depend upon muscle and not mind.

> U/i think th 5weet 5pot 4 walking/running = 10k/6 miles, perhaps more 4 walking but time B-comes consder8ion ... iF we walked ~15 miles per day ≈ U/i halve th last 4 dayz in aNYCity, dat's 4 hours U cd B doing sumping else, so yr overall «production»/output D-creases > + @ ∫um point U do more damage than good iF U run/walk 2 much, az U/i can attest 2 in training 4 marathons

> on a household lvl U/i think uv thi5 zer0 growth i-D-a daily, minimizing R input + output 2 th smallest steady 5tream, w/ minimal impact on th planit > in R evaL8ing R next move + continuing 2 con5ider iT-L-E vs. aNYCity, th afishinsea of a city/st8 plays a fundamental part, ware U/i + R bedder-½ can live w/ best food/eXorcise + minimal impact on planet ... az U/i st8ed in post #1037, th whirled wd B bedder/more su5tainable place iF iT con5isted of 1000 cities ≈ aNYCity

> thi5 NY Times article thi5 morning = timely ... th0 wile iT's true NYC loves 2 make 5pectacle of iTself, th popuL8ion ≠ increasing az they say:

What Is New York aims for laughs, but it chronicles a population that is stretched and stressed. The caption on the cockroach video is a quip about hard times: “You try having a family of 10,000 in this economy.”

> during th p&emic, aNYCity lost 300,000 ppl + D-spite claims of a rebound, especially in Manhattan th popuL8ion = D-creasing 5till > aNYCity almost reached ~8,000,000 in 1950s + 5ince then has ebbed + fl0wed:

> 5ince 2000 iT has increased a bit, but again, iT ebbs + flows + currently = on th D-cline (+ 300,000 less since 2019):

> s0 iT goes in cycles ≈ predator-pray graph above + probly similar 4 rats + cockroaches > th article als0 st8s dat

Individually, [rat + cockroach memes] are curiosities; collectively, they seem like portents of collapse, telling a foreboding story about out-of-whack ecosystems or a city gone feral.

> whoever wrote th (typically sens8ionalized) article als0 = viewing aNYCity thru lens of 5ocial media, witch has 5kewed th eNtire world (in R opinion less-s0 in NYC then aNYwhere else ... but then again, U/i ain't on social media so U/i wouldn't n0), sounds ≈ th author doe5n't actually 5pend much time walking th 5treets > sure NYers = wack0, but n0 stranger then they were 20 yrs ag0 (in R opinion 5in¢e moving there in 2000, probly less s0)

Most humans reside elsewhere, and many would look at images like these and draw the reasonable conclusion that New Yorkers are insane. To live here by choice, paying unfathomable sums to endure constant assaults on peace of mind and personal space, is to hold the conviction that quality of life is less important than quantity of it, the sheer volume and variety of sensations New York hurls at you, minute by minute, block after block.

> they halve th eMphasis backwoods, in regards 2 what NYers val-U ... iT all = about quality, not quantity, specially iF U = tocking abt popuL8ion

sunrise over solar paneled roofs

10/7 > woke up + walked 2 whatever they call Penn st8ion now, Amtracked baɔk 2 D.C. ... good 2 B home after 3+ weeks of travelling

1044 <(current)> 1046 > 5hedding N inkLing of 5kin 2 innerface w/ U/X cogs, ∀ll 2 blow up on dub-L dots of «möbius 5trip»
[  (ɔ)om.posted 2022  a/non User  |  calamari archive   ]