Talk:Cornucopianism

Unclear Sentence

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)

Finite Resources

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)

Christian Cornucopian

This section reads like it was written by a child. 128.101.53.240 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Julian Simon?

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)

Economics vs Physics

I have removed this paragraph:

1. Frequently, cornucopians are economists, not physical scientists. For example, Simon once famously claimed[1] Earth would never run out of copper because humans would create it out of other elements, showing an apparent lack of understanding of the basics of chemistry. Despite this error, he correctly predicted an overall fall of precious metal prices worldwide.

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)

The trouble is that I can't actually read the article that the citation is pointing to, so I can't check what he said. I can only read the abstract, which doesn't include any claims about copper. I have no idea if he was saying something totally physically ridiculous (like being able to make copper from other elements chemically), or if he was just speculating about what we might be able to do one day (like synthesizing copper using nuclear means). I have no bias one way or the other; I just have no idea what he said.

It would be useful if we could find a citation that is generally readable. --DudeGalea 12:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this quote? If this is not the Cornucopian sophistry in a nutshell, then what is? "The length of a one-inch line is finite in the sense that it is bounded at both ends. But the line within the endpoints contains an infinite number of points; these points cannot be counted, because they have no defined size. Therefore, the number of points in a one-inch segment [of a line] is not finite. Similarly, the quantity of copper that will ever by available to us is not finite, because there is no method (even in principle) of making an appropriate count of it..." (Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource, Princeton, 1981, 47) --Valwen 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon a cornucopian?

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)

Change Planet to World

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)

Buckminster Fuller

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)

Possible bias in separate sections

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)

Requested move 21 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• We tend to use nouns and isms. Not people. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Opposed See WP:NOUN NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOUN, and to be more WP:CONSISTENT with the names of other political and philosophical beliefs. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Cornucopian, plural cornucopians, is a noun referring to a person, and therefore, this is not per WP:NOUN. The noun plural cornucopians is more common in Google Ngram Viewer than cornucopianism; the singular, which is ambiguous with adjective, is more common as well. The -ism name could be per WP:CONSISTENT, but it is not clear whether it takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME and why. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  The noun "cornucopian" does indeed exist, but I would argue that the spirit of WP:NOUN still applies in this case: namely, that we conventionally name articles after the term for an underlying concept, rather than after other forms of the term. (For another noun vs. noun example, consider running vs. runner.) In this case, cornucopianism is the underlying idea, whereas a cornucopian is an adherent of cornucopianism. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I see no "spirit" of WP:NOUN applying here, but rather, to me, WP:NOUN does not apply, whether in letter or spirit. WP:NOUN is clear to me: use nouns, not adjectives or verbs, and that makes sense. Britannica does not use adjectives or verbs either but it has article "cornucopian". The running vs. runner example tells us nothing in relation to WP:NOUN: both are nouns and in fact "runner" more clearly so while "running" can be claimed to be a gerund, a verb form that acts as a noun. There can be a meaningful talk about WP:CONSISTENT, but not WP:NOUN. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I note that this reverses

 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)

• Oppose, the bold move was grammatically correct. I think this is a different enough concept that a merge to cornucopia (a traditional object) would make that article too broad in its reach. BD2412 T 18:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Late comment: What has "grammatically correct" to do with anything? Both titles "Cornucopian" and "Cornucopianism" are grammatically correct; one refers to an adherent, the other one refers to the view adhered to. I see 3 opposes based on incorrect arguments: two of them incorrectly invoke WP:NOUN and one invokes the irrelevant "grammatically correct". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)