Things everybody knows that are actually wrong

[Verily]

Jews are the richest ethnic group in the United States

Which is? I would guess English, except that then you're encompassing almost all Mormons and also a lot of low-income rural residents in New England. Indians (as in South Asians, but Indians specifically) would be another possibility, maybe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is clearly debatable. Certainly easily reloaded weaponry played a big part, and it's not clear that the devastation of the native populations by disease would have been sufficient for complete takeover.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, depends where. In southern New Jersey there was a lot of heavy farming with slaves until the early 19th century (New Jersey being the last Northern state to abolish slavery). Outside of New Jersey, it was never common, although certainly there were a few house slaves in the rich households elsewhere in the North.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too many other factors at play to say whether this is actually true or false, although I certainly agree that it is extremely overhyped.

[12th Doctor]

But Malthus attempted to apply his theories to the world as a whole, and used them to predict a population crash.  He maintained that food supplies would never match population growth rates, among other things.  His contention concerning other resources has also proven incorrect.

As Julian Simon pointed out, Malthus' primary contentions were based on the notion that technology stands still, which admittedly, humanity really had not advanced that much technologically in the last 1500 years when he was writing.

This is like a defense I once read of why Marx is still relevant today, which was printed in the forward of the 150th anniversary edition of the Communist Manifesto.  Marx, it said, had predicted globalism!

Yes, Malthus' theories apply in certain places at certain times.  But he used his theories to predict global problem brought on by population increase (and he was talking 1 billion people, not 10 billion).  This simply has not panned out, because of the previously mentioned basic flaws in his assumptions.

Being correct with part of his theory does not mean he has been redeemed.  In fact, while it is not his fault, people have stretch his theories into the present day to support positions that are ridiculous and horrible.

Malthus' only concern was material resources.  As Simon pointed out, Malthus didn't see people themselves as resources, because he lived in a time when viewing the lower class as a growing, swarming, uneducated, uncouth burden on gentile society was quite fashionable, even though this too was starting to change in his age, and he failed to recognize it.

Simon's notions can be boiled down quite simply... the more people you have around, the more minds you have to think sh**t up and the faster technology has progressed as a result, essentially negating the assumptions of Malthusian population dynamics.  This too has limits, but to say that the presence of more people is going to lead to a crash, for certain, is just plain wrong.

[Torie]

What I am saying is that Malthus was right for the near entirety of human history until 1800 or so, and then wrong because the world finally changed fundamentally, which Malthus did not foresee. Just what those changes were is another topic. You might peruse the book, The Birth of Plenty, to read about this in more detail. That is all I am saying. And in some instances, in some places, he is still right.

[12th Doctor]

What I am saying is that Malthus was right for the near entirety of human history until 1800 or so, and then wrong because the world finally changed fundamentally, which Malthus did not foresee. Just what those changes were is another topic. You might peruse the book, The Birth of Plenty, to read about this in more detail. That is all I am saying. And in some instances, in some places, he is still right.

Malthus didn't print most of his work on the topic until after 1800.  Even if you start from the dat of his first work, 1798, two years is not a long shelf-life for an idea.

[Torie]

Jews are the richest ethnic group in the United States

Which is? I would guess English, except that then you're encompassing almost all Mormons and also a lot of low-income rural residents in New England. Indians (as in South Asians, but Indians specifically) would be another possibility, maybe.

[Scottish, Greek and Asian Indian. Granted with the Greeks, Duke's clan no doubt pushes up the average "unfairly."  ]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is clearly debatable. Certainly easily reloaded weaponry played a big part, and it's not clear that the devastation of the native populations by disease would have been sufficient for complete takeover.

[Without germs wiping out 95% of the native population, most of us on this forum would not be living in the New World - period]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, depends where. In southern New Jersey there was a lot of heavy farming with slaves until the early 19th century (New Jersey being the last Northern state to abolish slavery). Outside of New Jersey, it was never common, although certainly there were a few house slaves in the rich households elsewhere in the North.

[At one time, the highest slave population as a percentage of the population within what is now the United States was on Long Island. More than half the population were slaves]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too many other factors at play to say whether this is actually true or false, although I certainly agree that it is extremely overhyped.

Studies try to do regression analysis to "correct" for other factors. That is the game anyway.

[Torie]

What I am saying is that Malthus was right for the near entirety of human history until 1800 or so, and then wrong because the world finally changed fundamentally, which Malthus did not foresee. Just what those changes were is another topic. You might peruse the book, The Birth of Plenty, to read about this in more detail. That is all I am saying. And in some instances, in some places, he is still right.

Malthus didn't print most of his work on the topic until after 1800.  Even if you start from the dat of his first work, 1798, two years is not a long shelf-life for an idea.

Ya, I take your point. That assertion of mine could have been more carefully worded. But how many folks know Malthus was on the money until 1800 or so? Malthus at least got the past right, and how was he to know that trains were about to be invented, and ships about to get about 3 times as efficient as they were, etc? What happened was that resources grew so fast that population growth (even though it exploded as well given the additional resources) just could not keep up, and then, finally, as masses of folks actually broke out of subsistence living, fertility rates actually started to decline, and we were off to the races.

It also "helped" that medical technology basically stayed in the dark ages relatively speaking along with sanitation until about 1890 or so, keeping the death rate relatively high. Did you know that until 1890 or so, the death rate in American cities was higher than the birth rate?  I used to joke with my Dad that he was fortunate that he was born in Brooklyn in 1906.  It would have been dangerous for him to have been born there much earlier.

Folks sell Malthus way too short in my view.

[Gustaf]

Oh, I was more curious as to what you claim are the reasons for Western success. It's a pretty complex issue, imo, so how does one know whether a statement on it is righ or wrong?

[Torie]

Oh, I was more curious as to what you claim are the reasons for Western success. It's a pretty complex issue, imo, so how does one know whether a statement on it is righ or wrong?

Competition baby. So many states in such a small area (an area known as Europe), that one needed the best and the brightest to get that critical edge. The other potential player out there, China, lacked that critical component. One needed in all events to be on the Asian/European land mass. That is where the killer germs were bred from pigs and cattle, etc., and that is where the resistance to the same developed over the generations.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah

[The Mikado]

Oh, I was more curious as to what you claim are the reasons for Western success. It's a pretty complex issue, imo, so how does one know whether a statement on it is righ or wrong?

Competition baby. So many states in such a small area (an area known as Europe), that one needed the best and the brightest to get that critical edge. The other potential player out there, China, lacked that critical component. One needed in all events to be on the Asian/European land mass. That is where the killer germs were bred from pigs and cattle, etc., and that is where the resistance to the same developed over the generations.

You forgot one other crucial factor:

[Sensei]

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah

I was thinking of doing this. Except for with "God Exists". I didn't want to get anyone mad.

[The Mikado]

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah

I was thinking of doing this. Except for with "God Exists". I didn't want to get anyone mad.

This stops NOW.  No thread hijack here.  This thread is too interesting.

[Purple State]

This thread is too interesting.

[Sensei]

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah

I was thinking of doing this. Except for with "God Exists". I didn't want to get anyone mad.

This stops NOW.  No thread hijack here.  This thread is too interesting.

which is why I posted that with the disclaimer. As you were, fellow forumites.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's a big one:

That emo is an insanely retarded fashion style that was created around 2003, rather than a form of hardcore punk music that has existed since the mid-80s.

[Lunar]

Here's a big one:

That emo is an insanely retarded fashion style that was created around 2003, rather than a form of hardcore punk music that has existed since the mid-80s.

You're part of a 0.1% minority that even thinks where emo came from. 

[Lunar]

That Salem witch trials were burned instead of hanged [and there were a fair percentage of men too]

[Lunar]

-Jesus's birthday -- does that count?

-That Van Gogh cut off his whole ear [even more debate about him cutting off the lobe]

-Newton was hit by an apple -- we haven't done that one yet have we?

[Gustaf]

Oh, I was more curious as to what you claim are the reasons for Western success. It's a pretty complex issue, imo, so how does one know whether a statement on it is righ or wrong?

Competition baby. So many states in such a small area (an area known as Europe), that one needed the best and the brightest to get that critical edge. The other potential player out there, China, lacked that critical component. One needed in all events to be on the Asian/European land mass. That is where the killer germs were bred from pigs and cattle, etc., and that is where the resistance to the same developed over the generations.

You forgot one other crucial factor:

Oh, dear. I don't know how to break this to you, but that film is quite recent and can hardly have caused the rise of Western civilization, an event which occurred a long time ago.

[Gustaf]

Oh, and Torie, sure competition played a great part, I'm sure (one of the reasons the EU is such as poor idea; it removes Europe's key historical advantage). But I don't think it is solely responsible. The whole germ thing I don't really buy either. Europeans died from stuff they got on other continents too. I think it's more about being the stronger party that determines the outcome of disease-mixing. Sort of being the spreader as opposed to the spreadee, as well as having the advantage of better medical equipment.

And I would give the Greek a little credit too. They did come up with the idea of the city state, breeding the competition that you talk about.

[dead0man]

That Salem witch trials were burned instead of hanged [and there were a fair percentage of men too]

Or that it was an American phenomenon.  The Euros that stayed behind killed many MANY more innocents.   link

[dead0man]

That muscle cars in the 60s and 70s were faster than todays family cars.

[Gustaf]

That Salem witch trials were burned instead of hanged [and there were a fair percentage of men too]

Or that it was an American phenomenon.  The Euros that stayed behind killed many MANY more innocents.   link

Lol. That must be only Americans though. Most Swedes are more aware of the witch trials here than in the US, I think. I hope.

[Torie]

Oh, and Torie, sure competition played a great part, I'm sure (one of the reasons the EU is such as poor idea; it removes Europe's key historical advantage). But I don't think it is solely responsible. The whole germ thing I don't really buy either. Europeans died from stuff they got on other continents too. I think it's more about being the stronger party that determines the outcome of disease-mixing. Sort of being the spreader as opposed to the spreadee, as well as having the advantage of better medical equipment.

And I would give the Greek a little credit too. They did come up with the idea of the city state, breeding the competition that you talk about.

Hi Gustaf. On the germ thing, the 95% wipeout rate was real. Europeans had been trying to get a foothold for about 10-15 years prior to 1620, and the native americans showed them to the door. It was only when the population was wiped out within 20 miles of the coast due to a small pox contagion from the English fishermen, that Plymouth rock was able to happen and stick.

Regarding why it was the Europeans as opposed to someone else who filled the empty space after the germ kill off, what do you think in addition to competition was an important factor?  I'm curious.

Thanks! 

[minionofmidas]

That Salem witch trials were burned instead of hanged [and there were a fair percentage of men too]

Or that it was an American phenomenon.  The Euros that stayed behind killed many MANY more innocents.   link

I am proud to proclaim that the city of Frankfurt never executed a single witch since the beginning of complete records (late 14th century).