Talking about the future and the current system.

 Through the 'population theory', Melders said, "While population growth increases exponentially, food growth increases exponentially.Hearing the claim, he warned that those who think of the future only as utopia were wrong and that mankind would eventually be destroyed. Of course, Melders' argument has been criticized for more than 200 years by many scholars. Beyond just emotional criticism, this criticism was also criticized as a theoretical flaw due to a theoretical error in "urgent generalization" that researchers should not do. 1. Melders' theory failed to predict the pace of development of production technology 2. They have been treated as a theory far from reality. In fact, as industrialization began in earnest, food production has developed remarkably. Countries that were unable to self-sufficiency in the past continued to achieve food self-sufficiency, and now countries with large populations such as China and India have achieved food self-sufficiency. In addition, there was an explosive increase in the population in the early industrialization era through the industrialization stage, but since then, the fertility rate has also decreased rapidly, and the population growth rate has stagnated. The arguments of researchers advocating a new Melders series theory for "resource depletion" beyond Melders' theory are also criticized for its fatal shortcomings in research. That is, due to the limitations of "partial equilibrium theory", their research is not considering any substitute goods. In other words, mankind develops alternative resources and alternative technologies according to market principles through the process of depletion of resources due to the use of resources and the resulting price rise, so it is only a tabletop theory to refer to humanity's regression. This rebuttal is also quite logical and empirically proven. However, the problem is that dynamic depletion of resources cannot be converted into substitutes and alternative technologies, and even in this case, efforts are made to correct the gap between private and social values such as the so-called "district tax" centered on the new institutional school. Looking at this series of trends, it is easy to think that the arguments of "non-perspective" led by Melders will simply end with "oldness" or "nightmare." But Sohae's thoughts are a little different. Criticism of Sohae's optimists can be seen in roughly two large frameworks, first of all, the skepticism about the central subject of optimists and second the skepticism about the central value of optimists. First of all, the subject of human development, which is the center of the optimists, is only "human." As resource depletion begins in earnest, it is reasonable not only to use substitutes according to economic principles but also to develop alternative technologies. However, economics only explains human economic life, where nature stays, not the subject. After all, nature, an object, is only a means for economic development, so it has only the value of use and does not hold any value in itself. In this case, nature cannot be established as an important factor influencing the optimal behavioral choice of economics. The use of nature is realized only by increasing utility (although some beings may affect utility), and existence becomes worthless. Due to these values, the extinct population after industrialization has reached the level of ignoring the laws of evolution, and the laws of nature's circulation have been destroyed, turning the living environment, which has been thought of as a fixed factor, into an unpredictable space. And what is even more problematic is that nature, which mankind does not define as a factor in behavioral selection, does not affect actual optimization, but is separated by limitations of perception. There is a problem arising from the inability to recognize that nature, which has been used to increase one's utility, is acting to reduce one's utility from a macro perspective. Second, there is a social contradiction arising from the "money" used as a measure of value. As is well known, Africa is a region where Melders' theory takes place. The problem here is economic poverty that comes from the lack of savings due to extremely low income, no investment is generated, and stable development is impossible due to political turmoil. In the end, since there is no room to solve the problem on its own, it is clear that financial resources for development, or even basic food support, should be provided. However, the market is driven by market prices, preventing this natural thing from happening. Major modernized countries around the world have become fully self-sufficient for the aforementioned reasons. However, in the free trade era, a food exporting country is formed through relative advantage, and it is the international grain price that determines the trade volume. That is, the export volume and profits of the food exporting country will come first depending on the international grain price. In the case of grain as a staple food, only a few countries have international competitiveness due to the production characteristics of the goods, which in turn results in grain exporters having monopoly power in the international market. Therefore, these countries have the ability to control either price or output in the market. Using this, countries such as the United States throw hundreds of thousands of tons of grain into the sea a year. This is the ethical contradiction of the market economy centered on money. Therefore, we think that we cannot only express optimism about the future due to the above two reasons. The modernization of mankind and the success of capitalism based on it have fixed the gap between humans and nature (I think a representative example is the separation of Western theology and other studies). For reference, the East, which failed to bring modernization to life, continued to have the idea of bringing nature together) This degenerated nature into a means, transforming humanity's behavior from a coexistent perspective in the past into a human development. Under these basic values, a certain period of human - it could be a long period of time, but it could be quite a short period of time unexpectedly - will continue to grow as a current concept, but natural anger is likely to strike at a moment we don't even recognize. In addition, under the current monetary-based system, humans will be eliminated, which will remain a great burden on mankind (because consumption of resources should be increased for development, but consumption ignoring natural resilience and life adaptability destroys humanity). Therefore, I think there should be a combination of new ideas for a paradigm shift in the perspective of nature and selection criteria.