>
> 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.
>
"Overpopulatioln" - the very definition of the word is to say it is a bad
thing. Let's talk about "optimum populatioln," which allows progress, but
is sustainable! Do you really want to live on a horribly overcrowded
planet whose ecology is collapsing? I don't. Nor do I want to go back to
the cave men or middle ages either. (A very low population doesn't support
high tech. ALthough you have to define "progress" here I think. People
seem to practically worship "progress." What are they talking about?)
You know, I wonder if a lot of things that have been invented *really*
make life better, except in the sence of making the people who invented
them rich. Do cell phones make us better people? Do Beanie Babies
represent a big advance over the cave man?
well. I can't exactly be judgmental. I just paid thirty dollars (God, tell
me it wasn't made with child labor....it likely could have been a
sweatshop) at Safeway for a HUGE stuffed tiger I'm going to use as a big
pillow-cushion on the couch. It looks so real! And the only hard decision
was whether to get the tiger, lion or leopard! you'd need a king size bed
for them all! Doing my part for the evils of the world, buying silly
things.
Kristin
