Lawrence, I enjoyed your essay in another post. Good luck with it.
However, I take issue with so many people's easy assumption that the world is overpopulated. The world is empty. It looks full because we make such poor use of it. This from a piece by James L. Phelan about Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz. ==================================================== So what would Stiglitz recommend in place of the usual WB/IMF fare? "Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of 'landlordism', on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops." This is, alas, a more delicate subject. It's easier to simply have faith that constant economic growth will deliver us from the difficult issues of land tenure and access to income-bearing assets. This very political program is understandably not on the WB/IMF's list of chores, since as Stiglitz reminds us, "If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." ================================================= When a peasant receives half of his production, it doesn't exactly make him a happy camper. He knows that if he produces more, it will disappear into increased rack-rent. So, he does what he has to - hides what he can - and remains at about subsistence level - which of course proves there are just too many people for the earth to support so we pass out the condoms. Yet, there is a better way. Taiwan introduced Georgist land reform in the late 40's - early 50's. It got to Taiwan via Tolstoy, Sun Yat Sen, and the Chinese generals. The peasants lost 50% of their production to Rent - usual, though in the Mekong it was as high as 90%. (We won the "hearts and minds of the people" by clearing out the Viet Cong, so the cousins of the landlords could safely arrive to take 90% of the peasants' crop. In Taiwan, the peasants were given ownership of 5 hectares of land, for which they paid rent (rather than rack-rent). All taxes on their production were removed. The rent calculation was based on "the expected yield of the main crop". If they worked harder, or more efficiently, it didn't affect the Rent. If they bought a little tractor and doubled their production - it didn't affect the rent. Most of all, because the rent collected was based on the main crop, other crops could be grown without affecting their rent payment. So, while the rice was maturing, they grew another crop in the paddy fields. They imported fish from Indonesia and made "fish farms" out of the flooded fields. Mushrooms were grown - maybe under the house. Eventually, many of he peasants were growing as many as five different crops. With a population well on the way to 1,400 to the square mile, Taiwan produced a net export of food. In describing the "Miracle of Taiwan", the Economist much later was to write "Based on a highly successful land reform . . . . . . ". Thus. the actual reason for the marvel of Taiwan's industrial expansion was dismissed in 7 words. What would happen if the teeming billions could not only produce for themselves, but could produce surpluses for sale? What would happen if just one change was made - electric lighting in every home? (What the heck do you do at home when the sun goes down and the children are asleep? Wait for Planned Parenthood to arrive with the definitive solution?) Just getting light into the huts is too difficult for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, Europe, the US, Japan, China - but it can be done by billions of serfs raised to where they work for themselves on their own land. Meantime, what has happened in Taiwan? Many of the farmers work their farms part-time and take jobs in the high-wage city factories. Taiwan doesn't need their food any more. So, there's the goal - to change billions of peasants from serfs to self-employed producers of food on their own land - farmers who cut back on food production because it isn't needed. There's a thought! At that point, the nonsense of an "over-populated world" can be dispensed with for ever. But, as Phelan says "This is, alas, a more delicate subject." Harry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lawrence wrote: >Even if medical challenges are overcome (and there is no reason to think >that they can't be), the numbers of people who could be lifted into space is >trivial compared to the numbers involved in 'over population.' But the >relatively small number of people who could be lifted might their begin >their own population growth future, this time with enough 'space' to >accomodate all, unlike our own planet. > >Lawrence de Bivort ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
