Blah! Blah! Blah! I don't care about "overpopulation" any place but in my town. I don't care how many people live in China. What I care about are the people in my own back yard. People who build on every beautiful wild place they can reach. Pave every place they can so they can drive their big ugly cars. And like the bull in the china shop, what they don't break, they shit all over! I am not a complete misanthrope. I have people in my life who I would miss if they were gone. But I do like my space and 37 people to the acre, as a previous writer wrote, is too much, too close for me.
No one has yet answered by question. Why do you want more population? --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/
