I wonder if you are talking to me, since my quote is first. If you
are you are misunderstanding my points. I never said there was to
many people in the world, in fact if you read my other post you can
see very clearly that I am not saying that. Now the key word in my
post you quoted is could not would, maybe I should have used maybe
instead. I don't know that if people live to be over 300 there
would be to many people, I don't know what would be to many people,
maybe 1 trillion would not be to many people, maybe 15 billion would,
maybe 6 billion is. I suspect no one knows, I highly suspect no
central planning board could know either. My point was if there are
to many people the scaricty will show up to where rational people
can practice freedom of association,make adjustments to defend their
lifes, family, associates and property which would not include going
off and killing people or having mandated abortion laws, mandated
birth control or sterilization or mandated one child per couple or
one child per 1,000 couples.
Otherwise you make some very good points.--- In
[email protected], Mary Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is an ongoing source of frustration to listen to you, and to
Jaques
> Cousteau, and all the rest, and to your UNSHAKABLE conclusion that
there are too many people in the world:
>
> If you are on a chronically crowded highway, it proves that there
are more people wanteing to use a road in that area than there are
people willing and able to build a road in that area. That is all it
proves
>
> If you are in a crowded airport, it proves that there are more
people wanting to use an airport in that area than there are people
willing and able to build and manage an airport in that area. That
is all it proves.
>
> If you are near a lake that is chronically polluted and dying, it
proves that there is more motivation to throw trash into the lake (It
probably is more economical) than there is motivation to have clean
water in the lake.
>
> Nobody is producing or managing new modes of transportation, such
as one-person air transport. Nobody is producing or managing new
energy sources. Much-needed new business is not opening. Whoever is
reading this probably has the basic IQ to do such producing and
managing. Why are YOU not doing it? the answer is easy: Hardly
anyone would want such work. It is illegal, or almost illegal, to
begin such work, since, very often, you are competing with the
government when you begin it. The regulations and licenses to
conform to would number into the thousands. You would be sued daily,
or almost daily. You would stand an excellent chance of never making
a penny and losing grandly, while being blamed for greed and for
everything that is wrong in society. You would be held to be at
fault for any injury or misfortune to employees or to clients or to
anyone else connected with the work (and to many who are
unconnected). You would be regarded as someone just barely better
than a
> criminal.
>
> You and I think: "Thank God we can go to work in an office of the
Post Office or IRS or, if lucky, can ride around in a boat provided
by taxpayers, instead of that."
>
> Jaques Cousteau, et al., would say that new innovations are
impracticable, since there is great danger and risk (to employees and
to consumers) associated with new innovations. There has always been
great danger and risk associated with new innovations, but this has
not always rendered them impracticable. It took the Government to
make them impracticable.
>
> If the airplane were being invented today, under the government of
today, it would have to be developed by the government, who alone can
kill people in experiments and endanger the public and not be held
responsible. In other words, the invention of air transport would be
about where the invention of space transport now is.
>
> It is a fact well-known to lawyers that if a crime is heinous
enough, almost any suspect can be condemned for it, regardless of
the absence of evidence of his guilt. The jurors will say: "Why
(Gasp!), this crime is TERRIBLE! Oh (Huff-puff!), this crime is
INTOLERABLE! --So, of course I will return a vote of 'guilty',
whether the suspect is the right guy or not."
>
> You libertarian letter-writers are doing the same thing: Huffing
and gasping about how intolerable is the congestion. (And
unquestionably it IS). Still, finding out who is the REAL culprit is
worthwhile.
>
> Again: There could be only 50 people in the entire world. If for
some reason, those 50 people did not get the seeds planted in the
ground or get the animals slain, or gather enough coco nuts and
mushrooms and berries--if they were unable to get a fire built or a
roof over their heads--if they were unable to get the oil out of the
ground--if, in other words, they were unable to be productive enough
to sustain 50 people--they would die of exactly the same crowding
against each other for food, housing, energy, whatever, that today's
people die of and complain of. Would you call it overpopulation in
that case? Would you recommend they reduce their population count as
a remedy? Would you tell them that the earth just does not contain
enough resources for 50 people?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect when people start to live at 300 plus years old there
> could be a problem with over population but I suspect in a free
> market rational people would find voluntary ways of not increasing
> the population to much, I suspect the percentage of rational people
> will greatly increase in a free market. If most aren't rational
> enough then the rational people will just have to find ways to
> sucessfully defend their property.--- In
[email protected],
> Bob Dunbar wrote:
> >
> > Good point, Boyd....also not mentioned is an increase over time
in
> man's ability to locate and isolate and make available for our use
> these resources; nor is the development of substitutes. Like ALL
> arguments in favor of population control, a worse case scenario is
> used and no allowance is made for improved technology.... couple
> centuriess back, many folks in America struggled to get enough to
> eat...today with a 100 fold larger population..our
MidWest/California
> can feed the world (with Canada's help)
> >
> >
> > Incidently...BAD math on earlier post from Jon---
> > In [email protected], Jon Roland wrote:
> > > If 6.2 billion were moved to Texas, 261914 sq.mi, that would be
> 23672/sq.
> > > mi. That would give each person 116 sq. ft, or about the area
of
> a small room.
> > Jon...bad math....1 sq mile = 27 878 400 sq feet
> > 265 000 (sq mile) = 7.387776 × (10 to the 12th) sq
> feet
> > If EARTH had 7.38 billion (10 to 9th) there would be abt 1000 sq
> feet/person..(actual population is abt 6.3b and actual using your
> stats is 1160 sq ft/person
> > > The island of Manhattan is 33 sq. mi, with a population of
> 1,537,195, for a
> > > density of 46581/ sq. mi.
> > >
> > > However, if all those 6.2 billion people were moved to Texas,
the
> results
> > > would be:
> > >
> > > - People in the middle of the state would suffocate as the air
> flowing in
> > > from the sides would be depleted by the people breathing it
first.
> > Surely, you jest...are you a flat lander? Folks in Manhattan,
> Singapore, Taiwan, and those cramped into crowded enclosed
convention
> ctrs for hours don't display this phenomenon. I feel silly even
> responding to this.
> > > - The ones who didn't die of lack of air, would die from lack
of
> water,
> > > because there isn't enough water in Texas, or available from
> surrounding
> > > areas, for all of them.
> > Good point, I admit...Multinationals are buying up water rights
> world wide..and if you want to see something really scary about
land
> and government ownership...ck..
> > >
> > > - If that weren't enough, they would soon be drowning in their
> own wastes.
> > > - There would be no way to feed them, especially if only the
land
> of Texas
> > > could be used. It requires the entire cultivatable area of the
> planet to
> > > produce barely enough for the present population, and most of
> that takes
> > > intense local labor. There is a reason why the land of West
Texas
> takes 150
> > > acres to support a cow-calf unit.
> > >
> > > Overpopulation is not and never has been about space. Space is
> not a scarce
> > > resource. Other things are.
> > >
> > > If you like numbers, consider this one. If an economy is built
on
> an
> > > infrastructure consisting of some amount x of scarce material,
> 1/n of that
> > > material is lost to the surrounding environment each year,
there
> is no way
> > > to replenish the losses, and it can lose .37 of its
> infrastructure mass
> > > before the economy collapses, how many years until collapse?
The
> answer is n
> > > years. Now, what is the present value of 1/n, and how low can
1/n
> be made,
> > > using various strategies? The answer is the present value is
> about 1/50, so
> > > the economy would last only about 50 years if there were not a
> steady
> > > acquisition of additional material. Eventually, all the scarce
> materials
> > > will be depleted, after all the substitutes are made. At that
> point, it
> > > becomes a race to see how low 1/n can be made. In principle, it
> can be made
> > > very low, but only by housing humanity and its economic
activity
> in cities
> > > designed like multi-generation starships, sealed, probably
sited
> under
> > > ground, and using only a little energy. In principle, there
could
> be a
> > > million such cities, each housing a million persons, on the
> planet, and the
> > > entire surface returned to a natural state. That would be a
> trillion people.
> > > But not living like people do today. See
> http://www.pynthan.com/vri/3f4e_002.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > terry12622000 wrote:
> > > > I would have to go back to refiqure but I think if the whole
> world
> > > > moved to Texas or an area the size of Texas the population
> density
> > > > would be less than Manhathan Island, New York City.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > --- In [email protected],
> BWSwrote:This analysis completely ignore the use of the resources
> that are in near earth space and in the solar system in general.
> Also what is the effect of recycling on the above.
> > >
> > >
> > > <built on an infrastructure consisting of some amount x of
scarce
> material, 1/n of that
> > > material is lost to the surrounding environment each year,
there
> is no way to replenish the losses, and it can lose .37 of its
> infrastructure mass before the economy collapses, how many years
> until collapse? The answer is n years. Now, what is the present
value
> of 1/n, and how low can 1/n be made, using various strategies? The
> answer is the present value is about 1/50, so the economy would
last
> only about 50 years if there were not a steady acquisition of
> additional material. Eventually, all the scarce materials will be
> depleted, after all the substitutes are made. At that point, it
> becomes a race to see how low 1/n can be made. In principle, it can
> be made
> > > very low, but only by housing humanity and its economic
activity
> in cities designed like multi-generation starships, sealed,
probably
> sited under ground, and using only a little energy. In principle,
> there could be a million such cities, each housing a million
persons,
> on the planet, and the
> > > entire surface returned to a natural state. That would be a
> trillion people. But not living like people do today. See
> http://www.pynthan.com/vri/3f4e_002.htm<<
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good point, Boyd....also not mentioned is an increase over time
in
> man's ability to locate and isolate and make available for our use
> these resources; nor is the development of substitutes. Like ALL
> arguments in favor of population control, a worse case scenario is
> used and no allowance is made for improved technology.... couple
> centuriess back, folks in America's mid west struggled to get
enough
> to eat...today with a 100 fold larger population..can feed the
world
> (with Canada's help)
> > Incidently...BAD math on earlier post from Jon--- In
> [email protected], Jon Roland wrote:
> > > If 6.2 billion were moved to Texas, 261914 sq.mi, that would be
> 23672/sq.
> > > mi. That would give each person 116 sq. ft, or about the area
of
> a small room.
> > Jon...bad math....1 sq mile = 27 878 400 sq feet
> > 265 000 (sq mile) = 7.387776 × 1012 sq feet
> > If EARTH had 7.38 billion (10 to 9th) there would be abt 1000 sq
> feet/person..(actual population is abt 6.3b and actual using your
> stats is 1160 sq ft/person
> > > The island of Manhattan is 33 sq. mi, with a population of
> 1,537,195, for a
> > > density of 46581/ sq. mi.
> > >
> > > However, if all those 6.2 billion people were moved to Texas,
the
> results
> > > would be:
> > >
> > > - People in the middle of the state would suffocate as the air
> flowing in
> > > from the sides would be depleted by the people breathing it
first.
> > Surely, you jest...are you a flat lander? Folks in Manhattan,
> Singapore, Taiwan, and those cramped into crowded enclosed
convention
> ctrs for hours don't display this phenomenon.
> > > - The ones who didn't die of lack of air, would die from lack
of
> water,
> > > because there isn't enough water in Texas, or available from
> surrounding
> > > areas, for all of them.
> > Good point, I admit...Multinationals are buying up water rights
> world wide..and if you want to see something really scary about
land
> and government...ck..
> > >
> > > - If that weren't enough, they would soon be drowning in their
> own wastes.
> > > - There would be no way to feed them, especially if only the
land
> of Texas
> > > could be used. It requires the entire cultivatable area of the
> planet to
> > > produce barely enough for the present population, and most of
> that takes
> > > intense local labor. There is a reason why the land of West
Texas
> takes 150
> > > acres to support a cow-calf unit.
> > >
> > > Overpopulation is not and never has been about space. Space is
> not a scarce
> > > resource. Other things are.
> > >
> > > If you like numbers, consider this one. If an economy is built
on
> an
> > > infrastructure consisting of some amount x of scarce material,
> 1/n of that
> > > material is lost to the surrounding environment each year,
there
> is no way
> > > to replenish the losses, and it can lose .37 of its
> infrastructure mass
> > > before the economy collapses, how many years until collapse?
The
> answer is n
> > > years. Now, what is the present value of 1/n, and how low can
1/n
> be made,
> > > using various strategies? The answer is the present value is
> about 1/50, so
> > > the economy would last only about 50 years if there were not a
> steady
> > > acquisition of additional material. Eventually, all the scarce
> materials
> > > will be depleted, after all the substitutes are made. At that
> point, it
> > > becomes a race to see how low 1/n can be made. In principle, it
> can be made
> > > very low, but only by housing humanity and its economic
activity
> in cities
> > > designed like multi-generation starships, sealed, probably
sited
> under
> > > ground, and using only a little energy. In principle, there
could
> be a
> > > million such cities, each housing a million persons, on the
> planet, and the
> > > entire surface returned to a natural state. That would be a
> trillion people.
> > > But not living like people do today. See
> http://www.pynthan.com/vri/3f4e_002.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > terry12622000 wrote:
> > > > I would have to go back to refiqure but I think if the whole
> world
> > > > moved to Texas or an area the size of Texas the population
> density
> > > > would be less than Manhathan Island, New York City.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > --- In [email protected],
> BWSwrote:This analysis completely ignore the use of the resources
> that are in near earth space and in the solar system in general.
> Also what is the effect of recycling on the above.
> > >
> > >
> > > <built on an infrastructure consisting of some amount x of
scarce
> material, 1/n of that
> > > material is lost to the surrounding environment each year,
there
> is no way to replenish the losses, and it can lose .37 of its
> infrastructure mass before the economy collapses, how many years
> until collapse? The answer is n years. Now, what is the present
value
> of 1/n, and how low can 1/n be made, using various strategies? The
> answer is the present value is about 1/50, so the economy would
last
> only about 50 years if there were not a steady acquisition of
> additional material. Eventually, all the scarce materials will be
> depleted, after all the substitutes are made. At that point, it
> becomes a race to see how low 1/n can be made. In principle, it can
> be made
> > > very low, but only by housing humanity and its economic
activity
> in cities designed like multi-generation starships, sealed,
probably
> sited under ground, and using only a little energy. In principle,
> there could be a million such cities, each housing a million
persons,
> on the planet, and the
> > > entire surface returned to a natural state. That would be a
> trillion people. But not living like people do today. See
> http://www.pynthan.com/vri/3f4e_002.htm<<
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], Jon Roland
> wrote:
> > > If 6.2 billion were moved to Texas, 261914 sq.mi, that would be
> 23672/sq.
> > > mi. That would give each person 116 sq. ft, or about the area
of
> a small room.
> >
> > Jon...bad math....1 sq mile = 27 878 400 sq feet
> > 265 000 (sq mile) = 7.387776 × 1012 sq feet
> > If EARTH had 7.38 billion (10 to 9th) there would be abt 1000 sq
> feet/person..(actual population is abt 6.3b and actual using your
> stats is 1160 sq ft/person
> > > The island of Manhattan is 33 sq. mi, with a population of
> 1,537,195, for a
> > > density of 46581/ sq. mi.
> > >
> > > However, if all those 6.2 billion people were moved to Texas,
the
> results
> > > would be:
> > >
> > > - People in the middle of the state would suffocate as the air
> flowing in
> > > from the sides would be depleted by the people breathing it
first.
> >
> > Surely, you jest...are you a flat lander? Folks in Manhattan,
> Singapore, Taiwan, and those cramped into crowded enclosed
convention
> ctrs for hours don't display this phenomenon.
> >
> > > - The ones who didn't die of lack of air, would die from lack
of
> water,
> > > because there isn't enough water in Texas, or available from
> surrounding
> > > areas, for all of them.
> > Good point, I admit...Multinationals are buying up water rights
> world wide..and if you want to see something really scary about
land
> and government...ck..
> > >
> > > - If that weren't enough, they would soon be drowning in their
> own wastes.
> > > - There would be no way to feed them, especially if only the
land
> of Texas
> > > could be used. It requires the entire cultivatable area of the
> planet to
> > > produce barely enough for the present population, and most of
> that takes
> > > intense local labor. There is a reason why the land of West
Texas
> takes 150
> > > acres to support a cow-calf unit.
> > >
> > > Overpopulation is not and never has been about space. Space is
> not a scarce
> > > resource. Other things are.
> > >
> > > If you like numbers, consider this one. If an economy is built
on
> an
> > > infrastructure consisting of some amount x of scarce material,
> 1/n of that
> > > material is lost to the surrounding environment each year,
there
> is no way
> > > to replenish the losses, and it can lose .37 of its
> infrastructure mass
> > > before the economy collapses, how many years until collapse?
The
> answer is n
> > > years. Now, what is the present value of 1/n, and how low can
1/n
> be made,
> > > using various strategies? The answer is the present value is
> about 1/50, so
> > > the economy would last only about 50 years if there were not a
> steady
> > > acquisition of additional material. Eventually, all the scarce
> materials
> > > will be depleted, after all the substitutes are made. At that
> point, it
> > > becomes a race to see how low 1/n can be made. In principle, it
> can be made
> > > very low, but only by housing humanity and its economic
activity
> in cities
> > > designed like multi-generation starships, sealed, probably
sited
> under
> > > ground, and using only a little energy. In principle, there
could
> be a
> > > million such cities, each housing a million persons, on the
> planet, and the
> > > entire surface returned to a natural state. That would be a
> trillion people.
> > > But not living like people do today. See
> http://www.pynthan.com/vri/3f4e_002.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > terry12622000 wrote:
> > > > I would have to go back to refiqure but I think if the whole
> world
> > > > moved to Texas or an area the size of Texas the population
> density
> > > > would be less than Manhathan Island, New York City.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
