Keith wrote:
> It could be argued that, in 1750, the world population was already
> over-populated.
I think that might well be true.
> At that time, every possible square metre of the earth's surface
> that could be practically cultivated by manual and/or animal labour
> was already exploited for food production.
Er, um, that isn't even true today. Much of western America was being
"exploited for food production" but not for cultivation. It was
another century before the native population was cavalierly extirpated
and the plains, prairies and other native lands were exploited, first
for grazing and then for cultivation. I'm sure you'll hear from Ray
on this.
I, myself, own a few acres of presently uncultivated land that is
cultivatable by hand or animals -- our gardens are less than 1/4 acre
-- as do several of my friends. Of course, thse acres couldn't be
"practically" cultivated with a giant tractor and a 30-foot wide gang
plough but they supported two families in 1900.
I'm not so sure of your opening premise, either, that modern medicine
is the single factor creating the population explosion beginning in
the 1st half of the 18th c.. John Snow didn't remove the Broad
St. pump handle until 1854 and decades ensued before the medical
establishment accepted the significance of his success. I'm inclined
to agree that global over-population, compounded by the ravenous
resource consumption of (so-called western) industrial consumer
society,[1] will all too soon lead to disaster and chaos. But I think
your piece needs t go back to re-write for fact-checking and more
detailed clarification.
FWIW,
- Mike
[1] For relevant fictional diversion, see John Brunner, _The Sheep Look Up_.
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
