World Conditions Continue to Improve
In today's world, as people get better off and better educated, they have less kids. So, if the world continues to improve, that would lead to population leveling off and dropping.
For production efficiency, it's hard to beat the factory. Applying that principle to your illustration, in that village, there could be diversification. For example, shoe supply could be taken by one person/family. The shoemaker may chose to cut back on his gardening. Or further, the different villages could go into various specialties, then trade w other villages. This develops naturally, of course.
"The current world population of 6.7 billion is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050, peaking soon afterward at 9.8 billion and then falling to 5.5 billion by 2100, according to the UN lower forecast. Scientific breakthroughs over the next 50 years are likely to change these forecasts, giving people longer and more productive lives than most would believe possible today. Nevertheless, global population is changing from high mortality and high fertility to low mortality and low fertility."
Justitia, I believe that these figures are extremly simplistic. I doubt they include the effects of Peak Oil (which effects the price of natural gas from which fertilizers are made of) as well as Climate Change. The world population is likely to go down well before 2050. The massive disruptions that would be caused by mass migration and warfare would nullify any hypothetical increases in the so called standard of living. Any such technological improvements would probably be kept by the elite.
"For production efficiency, it's hard to beat the factory. Applying that principle to your illustration, in that village, there could be diversification. For example, shoe supply could be taken by one person/family. The shoemaker may chose to cut back on his gardening. Or further, the different villages could go into various specialties, then trade w other villages. This develops naturally, of course."
In this economy, growing your own food will be essential but, because it would be advanced Permaculture and because some of the food from orchards can be best handled collectively, the total man hours spent on growing food would be very low. Let's say it averages out to one hour a day. I would refer to this food self sufficiency as the primary economy. Since there is no transportation of food involved it will be able to compete with somebody elses staple foods grown a hundred or more miles away. That doesn't mean that there will be no food bought and sold throughout the network of villages but it will be high value specialized food items like caper berries and seaweed rolls for sushi and other such odd items.
As far as your comment about inevitable specialization is concerned I have worked that into the very fabric of the Society I am advocating. With a population of 500 people, let's say half of them adults and some of their children learning their trade by performing light duties you can have a very advanced system of production going on (By the way, I am not a Primitivist in case somebody assumed that). The "villagers' would own, operate and manage their business without any of the gross inefficiencies and injustices of Hierarchical relationships. In other words this society would be partly Syndicalistic in nature. This I would call the secondary economy.
This secondary economy would be subject to some of the problems of our economy (in much milder form) such as market saturation, etc. That is why it is important for these communities to be self reliant in food in case there is a "Market Crash". Furthermore a several year supply of food like what the Mormons advocate would be wise. No need to worry about being evicted from your home because the land is free but the food is not.
:The massive disruptions that would be caused by mass migration and warfare would nullify any hypothetical increases in the so called standard of living.
Of course, your assertion that there will be mass migration AND warfare is NOT hypothetical? You are trying to nullify a hypothesis with another hypothesis.
Economically (free market, etc.) we are better off with steady population growth.
Agriculturally, we are better off with bio-diversity, natural-farming, permaculture principles being employed and population control.
Envvironmentally, we are better off returning to a much more primitive (limited) use of fossil-fuels and locavore principles of eating and farming. And population control.
IOW, we have a better chance of survival if we return to a pre-industrial culture. Population control and economic growth are at odds. And I doubt that we, as a global civilization, would ever agree on how to cooperate in order to survive. Hypothetically - sure - 100 pounds of potatoes, 5,000 square feet, etc. But we can't even agree on the most basic human survival strategies at this point.
:IOW, we have a better chance of survival if we return to a pre-industrial culture.
That was the solution by lots of people from my generation. You can still find that sort of life in places like Eugene, Oregon. There are a whole bunch of codger hippies up there still enjoying the pre-industrial culture. Idiots.
Well, theoretically. So far, we do not have a model that demonstrates the success of the infinite growth necessary to support the capitalist ponzi scheme that has brought the global economy to its knees.
:to support the capitalist ponzi scheme that has brought the global economy to its knees
That's a thought-stopping emotional statement that has no basis in fact. That "ponzi scheme" part, that is.
Look up ponzi scheme. You're sounding like a die-hard radical Marxist, by the way. Then again, maybe you are.
The current free-market debacle has oft been compared to a ponzi scheme - forever relying on new investors (suckers) in order to perpetuate itself. At some point it collapses - as we have seen. Ask Mr. Madoff.
BTW, I don't jump at the bait, so save your ill-informed "socialist, marxist, fascist, hippy" labels for someone who doesn't have access to a dictionary. Your labels say more about you than about me.
Farkel, here"s a "socialist/communist/marxist/fascist-should I throw in anarchist? report. It's about "hypothetical mass migrations and warfare" (based on common sense observations and deductions from facts. Not that I'm saying that things will be exactly like this report states but the mere fact that it's stated BY THE PENTAGON should say something: