It is easier to imagine the end of the world then the end of feudalism.

I kind of like the story of how Malthus had his theory of societal collapse because he couldn’t imagine a better system then mercantilism. That societies would rather collapse then to end their colonial monopolies.

I see a similar theory today with around depopulation, that as society gets older and relatively fewer working age people there are, that society would rather collapse then we find a better system then Capitalism.

▲

jimbokun 3 days ago | parent [-]

What system works better when you have a very large number of elderly people who want to retire and very few young people to work?

▲

runarberg 3 days ago | parent [-]

Socialism, for one.

▲

jimbokun 3 days ago | parent [-]

You still have many people consuming and not producing, and much fewer people producing.

Capitalism or socialism doesn’t change that.

	▲	runarberg 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I am sure Malthusians could find similar reasons for why collapse was inevitable as the population grew. For example I can imagine a young Malthus debating with the elderly Adam Smith, and Smith saying something like: “When societies open up their markets, those big bulk carrying cargo ships will be able to ship the required food to the food scarce areas. And when they do, they will enrich them selves as well as the farmers whom they buy the crops from, as the price of the grain will be much higher in these over-populated regions”. The young Malthus, however, is not convinced and will reply: „Then the population will still grow, both in that ‘new market’ (as you call it), and among the farmers whom acquire that new wealth; and eventually those farmers will make wars or famine with the neighbors and those merchants over the scars resources. Societal collapse is inevitable.“