The math is pretty simple: all advances in energy conversion (consumption) must be offset not by Malthusian reproduction (dysgenia) but by soft eugenic limits on reproduction, thereby continuing natural selection.
4/4
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-20 16:04:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616466822471225344
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616466820898213891
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
So is Carlyleism right? Aesthetically, Culturally, and institutionally he’s correct. But his economics isn’t – he was amidst a storm of change. And we can’t blame him for it, because while he was visionary, he was a bit early, and lacked our present understanding.
3/4
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1616466820898213891
Leave a Reply