|
Steve,
I don't think you can make a case for the accuracy
of this. Yes the U.S is the third largest population in the
world but Japan is the size of California and has a population density of 336
per KM while the US has a population density of 28 per
Km. There are other things as well. It is
cheaper to export oil and buy it somewhere else than to send it from Alaska to
the US. The same with most of the hardwoods. Which also
go to Japan (I am told). As for India it has a population
density of 273 Km while Bangladesh has 849 Km. There are
only five countries in Asia that have less per sq Kilometer than the
US. In Central America you have 2 with less density than the US, in
North and West Europe there are 4, while in Africa you have 19 with less
per Km but that is out of 48 countries.
When comparing North America, only Oceania has less
per square mile. Now my point is that in the US it has less to
do with population than with what it takes to sustain such a
small population density. The Artists and Architects
have said since the work of Louis Sullivan that population density with an
efficient architectural machine was the only way to conserve
resources. But that involves a much less wasteful form of both
market and government than we allow ourselves here.
I have my doubts that the people writing
most of the articles would be willing to cut their wealth, set a limit on how
long individuals could own land and other property before recycling it, or set
a community productivity level that had to be sustained in order to
continue ownership. How about limiting freedom of travel as
well as conserving a balanced cultural mix in all communities.
Instead we get wealthy folks in the US who own most of everything including 5 to
7 mansions around the world. They corner the market on culture and
reduce the density of cultural products to such a shallow level that even the
upper middle classes, as well as the middle and lower classes, are raised on
cultural McGarbage. The general population is sold the values
of what gives the wealthy the freedom to be irresponsible and party around the
world.
Spreading the wealth by diminishing the ability for
such a small population mix, as in North America, to sustain itself at current
levels is simply who thinks they deserve the most. IMHO it is
irrational. But we don't believe in the kind of structures
that would make logic and reason mandatory.
I could suggest a few alternate structures of
ownership that we had here prior to Columbus that worked fine, preserved
individual freedom, punished irresponsibility and valued family relations as a
basis for political efficiency. But I don't
think the folks around here would allow the women to own the
property, have lineage defined by the Mother, have the Mother's brother function
as the Teacher of the children and the extreme limits on relationship made by
adherance to a clan structure of lineage. The Law of Blood
with costs applied to criminality rather than cages was tried in Europe but
somehow didn't work as well as it did here. In Europe they didn't
have massive Clan systems as they did here. It wasn't the individual who
owed so much as the Clan who he/she came from and who was responsible for public
welfare.
But that is so off the wall in comparison to what
we usually speak of or allow ourselves to think as to be a useless
discussion. But then you guys are up against the wall with this
population issue and it is a cul-de-sac where you just keep going around in
circles or proposing genocide.
Did I get it wrong?
Ray
|
- The Future of Work Ray Evans Harrell
- Re: The Future of Work Steve Kurtz
- Re: The Future of Work (2) very brief Steve Kurtz
- Re: The Future of Work Harry Pollard
- Re: The Future of Work Ray Evans Harrell
- RE: The Future of Work Harry Pollard
- Ray Evans Harrell
