Discussion Central

Expand all | Collapse all

In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

  • 1.  In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    SENIOR MEMBER
    Posted 16 days ago
    Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

    The Elements of Optimism | Dan Putt | TEDxDetroit
    YouTube remove preview
    The Elements of Optimism | Dan Putt | TEDxDetroit
    In the 1800s, the economist Thomas Malthus predicted that the growing population would outstrip the food supply. Why didn't this happen? This story is told through the lens of three elements, whose history is one of moving from scarcity to abundance. Dan Putt is a licensed professional chemical engineer.
    View this on YouTube >


    ------------------------------
    Daniel Putt
    Refining Engineer
    Marathon Petroleum Company
    Detroit MI
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    SENIOR MEMBER
    Posted 16 days ago
    Very good presentation. Indeed Malthus was wrong. I also liked the way you linked human molar composition to the way technology helped providing N , P and S.
    Which are in your view the next challenges we are facing today, that will require a positive attitude from the scientific community? Could it be the environment and how to make the planet sustain eleven billion people at first world living standards?
    Gus Dassori
    Champaign, IL


    Sent from my iPhone




  • 3.  RE: In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    SENIOR MEMBER
    Posted 15 days ago
    Well this is OK ; Malthus is proved wrong during the last two hundred years . What about the pollution of air and water ? We are destroying the elements . What would happen to mankind in the next two hundred years?  

    --
    M.M.Gadre
    No 4, .4 th Cross, 6 th Street,
    Surendranagar,
    Adambakkam,
    Chennai 600088
    Mob#09841057871 






  • 4.  RE: In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    FELLOW
    Posted 14 days ago
    Re November 29 post by Gus Dassori:

    Neil Yeoman, PE,  FAIChE





  • 5.  RE: In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    SENIOR MEMBER
    Posted 14 days ago
    Partly Agree with Daniel. Ammonia reaction invention fed lot of people. But even today proven technologies in Ammonia progress consume lot of energy. Daniel optimism can not be ignored.






  • 6.  RE: In the early 1800s, population was growing more quickly than the food supply. Why didn't we starve? A TEDx Detroit talk on the chemical engineering behind "The Elements of Optimism

    FELLOW
    Posted 14 days ago
    Re November 28 post by Dan Putt:

    Malthus was quantitatively wrong, but not necessarily qualitatively wrong.  Now, two centuries later, we know a lot more and can more accurately predict some aspects of the future.   Malthus had no way of foreseeing the advances in agricultural chemistry but he also had no way of foreseeing the effects of global warming, among other things. 

    Neil Yeoman, PE, FAIChE