> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 1:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Thought Puzzle
>
>
> In a message dated Thu, 21 Jun 2001 4:27:28 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <<That's interesting, because I would imagine a dystopian
> future where the world would suffer from _under_population,
> extrapolating from what I see now that most fertile women
> chose not to have any babies.>>
>
> Hmm. A ghost town Earth. But is underpopulation really a
> serious threat compared to overpopulation -- taking into
> account the whole world, not just industrialized nations?
I would think so. Underpopulation will stifle innovation and scientific
progress. Overpopulation will provide extra resources for progress.
Considering that 1/3 of the world's population does not have access to
electricity, population is essential, since human power is the most
prevalent "engine" for work. While people may have more space and freedom
with underpopulation, they will have to work much harder then we do now or
in a future of overpopulation.
More People = more resources to solve the problems of More People.
Less People = Less resource to solve the problems of Less People.
Alberto,
Nice observation! I broke it down for you mathematically. Perhaps you can
augment or provide more symmetry to the equation.
Nerd From Hell
>
> Patrick Sweeney
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
