Correct you can't postulate far in the future but could say if that
point had been reached to the point of very uncomfortable scaricty
and uncomfortable culture and density locale to where rational people
are willing to do something about it through freedom of
association.
I really don't think that point is any where near( but I'm
not sure) in the US. Developed land in the lower 48 states is less
than 6% of the land, less than 10% when developed includes a
household for every 10
acres.
Even in Eastern Costal states the percentage of developed land is
low, NY and VA it is around 10%, PA around 20%, Maryland 30%, RI and
NJ is most densely populated states-
40%.
No, it is the smart growth planners, the politically well
connected developers, politically connected large corporate ag and
bankers and the government that is artifically creating scarcity and
thus jacking up the price of land, housing, farms etc.--- In
[email protected], Mary Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Greg Southworth: You cannot postulate the existence of
overpopulation-- you cannot say there is any such thing as
overpopulation-- unless and until you can pinpoint where productive
innovation will cease to exist. (Or will cease to be of any avail,
which is the same thing). When there is nothing new to use and
nothing already identified that might be used in a more productive or
efficient way-- Whenever, as in Kansas City, "they've gone about as
fer as they can go"-- then, it is true, someone might tot up how much
of everything (oil, water, air, etc.) there is left, and human beings
had better not reproduce in numbers greater than can use that
leftover amount as that amount increases itself.
>
> If human beings should proliferate in greater numbers than can be
outrun by potential human productivity, then it could be said they
have started overpopulating. But how in the world shall you achieve
to identify the point of achievement of all potential productivity?
How can you tell when potential for productivity has run out?
>
> Science-fiction buffs of my acquaintance tell me they expect that
in upcoming centuries it will be possible to replicate cheaply any
physical entity, atomic particle by atomic particle, via something
called nanotechnology. If this seems extremely doubtful to you, then
I hasten to tell you it also seems very doubtful to me, too. --But
these people insist that anything from a $20 bill to one of the
extinct fish you speak of (provided anyone has a leftover one in
their freezer) will be able to be replicated so that each atom in it
is as in the original. If the sci-fi buffs should be right, and you
and I wrong, then it would go to show how hard it is to pinpoint the
extent of human productivity.
>
> The human race, as a whole, can stay alive only insofar as it is
productive. This is as true today as it was at the dawn of Man. But
it is not so in individual cases. In an individual case the
government welfare system may keep alive an unproductive person, as
may a parent keep alive a baby, as may an ordinary citizen keep alive
a charity case. But the human race, AS A WHOLE, can stay alive
insofar as--and only insofar as--it is productive. When human
productivity can no longer keep pace with human needs, then people
will start dying of that thing that you are
calling "overpopulation." I do not think that is a very precise or
descriptive or correct word for it, however.
>
>
>
> Greg Southworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are correct in that the issue of overpopulation is relative to
the circumstance. If technology is able to assure reasonable access
to the means of a livelihood in a way that is not harmful to others,
then the "problem" of overpopulation is not so much of a problem. The
issue of sustainablity comes in as well. If you increase your fishing
and overfish a lake, then you may "up" your revenue in the short run,
but you have depleted an asset and destroyed your means to a
livelihood in the long run. There's a word for that, it is called
stupid.
>
> So the use of innovation does help ameliorate the issues of
population. One interesting side effect of prosperity is that
fertility rates tend to drop with increased prosperity. That drop may
vary by culture, but it appears to be a universal trait for some
reason. And we have not even looked at extra-planetary colonization.
>
> Greg
>
> Mary Dolan 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 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
>
> === message truncated ===
>
> [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/
