Rod,

Thanks for the wonderful analysis on population growth, you are right on the 
money.  For folks that are interested in this area, I would refer you to a 
video lecture by Dr. Albert Bartlett, retired professor from the University of 
Colorado in Boulder titled Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.  You can 
purchase it for about $20 from the Univ of Col. Bookstore or can down load it 
in segments from YouTube.  Scary stuff, we showed it as a Bexar Grotto program 
one night.  I have a copy if anyone wants to borrow it.  Garrett Hardin also 
has some very well written papers on this subject.  You can view them all on 
line at the Garrett Hardin Society.

Couple of interesting facts from the video.  Bartlett talks about the rule of 
70 for doubling of exponential growth (any growth over zero).  That is, take 
the yearly growth rate of a city, say San Antonio at approximately 2.8 percent  
and divide that in to 70 and you get the doubling rate.  That is, in 25 years, 
the San Antonio area will double its population to around 4 million people.  
That means we’ll need twice the roads, schools, water supply, land area, food, 
police force, court, jails, parking spaces, energy, etc.  This is not 
sustainable.  The U.S. doubling rate is approximately 60 years if I remember 
correctly, which means we’ll have 600 million people by 2070.

China is the only major country that has addressed its population problem by 
limiting growth to a one child policy (they are thinking about dropping this 
policy – big mistake). Currently, immigration is the major driving force in 
population growth in the U.S. as I believe we are the only first world country 
with an increasing population.   Births for native born citizens is at zero 
population growth.   Maybe the U.S.  should start to limit Its population 
growth through economic means. If you believe that some people on welfare have 
more kids for an increased welfare check, it is reasonable to believe that the 
middle class has more kids for an increased tax break.  If we remove the tax 
breaks for kids, and actually have a tax increase for having kids with a 
graduated rate for having more than 2, it will help to decrease the population 
growth.  The tax rate should also be an exponential number, have more than 3 
and you probably can’t afford it.

So, we should also limit immigration if we want to limit population growth.  
There are consequences to limiting immigration such as it limits the best and 
brightest that want to come to this country, and also removes a cheaper labor 
source, but it also decreases all of the problems associated with growth as 
noted above.  This year, the world will pass the 7 billion mark after passing 
the 6 billion mark in 1999.

Scary stuff, I’ve been concerned about population growth for more than 20 years 
and it is why I’m a Neo Social Darwinist – I believe that we have way too many 
people on the planet and anything we can do to eliminate some of the dummies, 
I’m all for.  That is why I’m opposed to mandatory seat belt laws, child car 
seats, texting bans, and helmet laws.  If you aren’t smart enough to do these 
things out of common sense, you probably shouldn’t be reproducing.

Population and population growth has a major negative impact on our quality of 
life and natural resources, including cave and karst regions.

G






From: Rod Goke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 5:51 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] where a man can breathe free, and relevance to caves


Regarding Gainesville Florida, Sleaze wrote,

   "We don't want no stinking roads either."

Austin tried that for about 2 or 3 decades, during which the attitude of local 
"environmentalists" towards roadway construction/expansion was:

   Don't build it, and hope they won't come.

They opposed road building on the theory that more roads would encourage more 
people to move here. The problem was that people came here anyway, resulting in 
severe traffic congestion problems, as bad or worst than those often found in 
much larger cities.

Unfortunately, this kind of failure to provide workable long range solutions 
often results when people practice superficial environmentalism, addressing 
only the local effects and symptoms of population growth while shying away from 
any discussion of the underlying causes of these problems. It's not hard to see 
why people find this approach tempting. It's relatively easy for activists 
groups to drum up support and claim political victories by promoting petty 
"feel good" measures with no powerful opposition and little, if any, beneficial 
effect. It takes far more courage and perseverance to address the fundamental 
underlying population issues, since almost any measure that would really help 
to alleviate overpopulation is likely to encounter strong opposition from one 
or more influential groups. Different interest groups tend to object to 
different measures on various grounds, involving political, religious, 
ideological, and/or business interests, but almost any suggested solution is 
liable to get you attacked and demonized by someone. Consequently, most groups 
with environmental interest prefer to focus on the symptoms and ignore the 
cause, as if population growth were an inevitable force of nature, beyond the 
control of human beings. Never mind the obvious fact that population growth is 
entirely due to human action. How many times have we heard people quote 
population growth projections as inevitable facts about our future and then 
proceed to talk about how they think we should deal with the consequences of 
that growth? Why does no one seriously discuss the possibility of limiting 
population growth to prevent undesirable consequences?

If any of you are wondering what this has to do with caves or are tempted to 
think of it as "off topic" then think again about the various cave related 
environmental and access issues that clearly are "on topic" for Texascavers. A 
large portion of these issues, probably most of them, are directly related to 
human population. For example, do you care about the effects of development 
near caves, including both environmental impacts and the effects of development 
on cave access? What do you think drives the demand for that development? Do 
you care about the effects on caves of quarrying, mining, or oil and gas 
production? What do you think drives the demand for these resources? Do you 
care about the quality and quantity of ground water, including that found in 
caves? What do you think influences the amount of pollution entering the 
aquifer and the amount of water that is pumped from it? Do you care about the 
effects of human visitation on caves and about the access restrictions that 
sometimes are imposed to limit those effects? What do you think affects the 
number of people seeking access? All of these, and undoubtedly more, cave 
related issues are directly affected by human population density. If these cave 
related effects of population growth are considered "on topic", how can we 
possibly dismiss the underlying cause as "off topic", unless, of course, it's 
just a cowardly attempt to avoid controversy about a relevant, but potentially 
contentious, issue?

Rod


P.S.  By the way, Sleaze, I was one of those graduate students who moved from 
Gainesville to Austin in 1973 for my first full time job in my profession. I 
would not say that "Gainesville is the Austin of Florida", because, although 
both are university towns, Austin is much more. Even at that time, Austin was 
(and still is) the state capitol, a center for high tech industry, and a 
regional music center, attracting musicians from many surrounding states in 
addition to Texas. The population of Austin at that time was approximately a 
quarter million (much smaller than it is now), but the University of Texas was 
so large (about 50,000 students) that it still gave Austin a university town 
atmosphere. At that time, I was impressed with the exceptional variety of 
influences and activities available in Austin for a city that small. I moved 
away from Austin in early '74 and returned in '84, finding that it had grown 
surprisingly larger but still was not a bad place to live. Now Austin still has 
advantages over many other cities its size, but in my opinion, it has grown far 
beyond its optimal size, and quality of life in the entire central Texas region 
continues to deteriorate from excessive population growth. I'm sure there are 
business interests who, like the purveyors of pyramid schemes, equate 
exponential growth with prosperity. For ordinary citizens, however, it means 
worse congestion, greater pollution, higher taxes, less freedom, and greater 
competition for limited natural resources.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
Sent: Aug 5, 2011 3:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Texascavers] where a man can breathe free



In a message dated 8/5/2011 4:12:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
 writes:

If all the people fretting over the numerous environmental and social
problems resulting from overpopulation were to focus instead on the primary
underlying cause, we might reverse this trend and see real progress towards
long range solutions and improving quality of life for future generations

Amen! Here in Hogtown the living is still easy, the moss hangs from the
live oaks and all is well until the Students return. Gainesville is the Austin
of Florida, but the big difference is that there are damned near two
million Texacans in Austin but only about 250,000 gators in the Hogtown metro
area. The reason for that is that we don't want no stinking jobs or new
businesses unless they are directly related to University of Florida biotech
spinoffs. As soon as they become successful they move to Austin taking the
redundant grad students with them. We make it a point to screw every developer
who sticks his head out of a hole. We often lose, but we still cost the
developers millions every time they try. We don't want no stinking roads
either. The bad news is the dawning of the age of biomass. It seems we have way
too many trees, so the plan is to burn them in place of coal. After they
cut down all the trees maybe I'll move to Detroit. I hear there are wide
open spaces out there where a man can breathe free.

Sleaze
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our 
website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
 For additional commands, e-mail: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Reply via email to