esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (02/27/85)
[The Loyal Opposition strikes again] > Any amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but > negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments > about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by > keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).) > Will Martin And no doubt *you* get to be one of the lucky 100,000! I don't agree that anybody has negative value -- doubtless you don't consider yourself to be one of the excess. I'm glad that the world population is large; otherwise I might not have been born! I don't know about you, but by and large I *like* people. I don't consider them a threat to my economic well-being either -- see below. > One assumes that the same magic that will wish away unprecedented federal > deficits will also somehow solve the world's need for resources with > twice the present population while the *present* population is leading > to massive famine. > tim sevener whuxl!orb I know it's against NETNEWS policy, but let's *think* about this. It's obvious that with less people and the same amount of food, we could avoid much starvation. (But not all -- much of it is politically caused. Most of the starvation occuring right now is in the most war-torn areas of the world.) However, it is also obvious that people *produce* things, including food. (Libertarians, all gasp -- Torek realizes that people produce! Oh no, you'll have to revise your stereotypes! :->) In fact, when you look over some centuries of history, you'll find that the long-term trend is toward *less* starvation as a percentage of population, while population has grown! Could it be that increasing population creates economies of scale, and encourages invention, thus leading in the long run to improvements in the overall economy, including agriculture? What evidence is there for the view that a small world population would make life better for the lucky few who got to be there, than a large [and perhaps slowly growing] population? Not much, as far as I can see. Not only would such a world have fewer inventors and laborers, it would have fewer artists, writers, architects, etc.; fewer potential spouses; fewer potential friends ... And last but most, there would be fewer people to enjoy life. Up with people, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Don't hit that 'r' key! Send any mail to this address, not the sender's.
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (03/01/85)
> [The Loyal Opposition strikes again] > > > Any amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but > > negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments > > about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by > > keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).) > > Will Martin > > And no doubt *you* get to be one of the lucky 100,000! I don't agree > that anybody has negative value -- doubtless you don't consider yourself > to be one of the excess. I'm glad that the world population is large; > otherwise I might not have been born! I don't know about you, but by > and large I *like* people. I don't consider them a threat to my economic > well-being either -- see below. Give Will Martin the credit he deserves. He was talking about a long range goal, (i.e. significantly past this generation). He mentioned in the same article that he had been sterilized. Great, you may not consider other people a threat to *your* economic well-being, but then again you are (presumably) college educated and employed! Most likely, your children will be also. So if you are planning on having children, you are really saying that no doubt, *your* children will get to be in the n% employed or m% above the poverty line. > > One assumes that the same magic that will wish away unprecedented federal > > deficits will also somehow solve the world's need for resources with > > twice the present population while the *present* population is leading > > to massive famine. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > I know it's against NETNEWS policy, but let's *think* about this. It's > obvious that with less people and the same amount of food, we could avoid > much starvation. (But not all -- much of it is politically caused. Most > of the starvation occuring right now is in the most war-torn areas of the > world.) However, it is also obvious that people *produce* things, including > food. (Libertarians, all gasp -- Torek realizes that people produce! Oh no, > you'll have to revise your stereotypes! :->) In fact, when you look over > some centuries of history, you'll find that the long-term trend is toward > *less* starvation as a percentage of population, while population has grown! > > Could it be that increasing population creates economies of scale, and > encourages invention, thus leading in the long run to improvements in > the overall economy, including agriculture? What evidence is there for > the view that a small world population would make life better for the > lucky few who got to be there, than a large [and perhaps slowly growing] > population? Not much, as far as I can see. Not only would such a world > have fewer inventors and laborers, it would have fewer artists, writers, > architects, etc.; fewer potential spouses; fewer potential friends ... And > last but most, there would be fewer people to enjoy life. I won't choose the number at 100,000, in fact, I won't even pick the number, but I will say that exponential growth will certainly screw things up eventually. > Up with people, > Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 For someone who claims "up with people," you certainly came down on Will Martin for no reason. Voluntarily sterilization means that he has willingly given up the continuation of *his* genes for what he believes is a good cause. Please don't try to imply that *he* is the selfish one. --Cliff
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (03/05/85)
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP > Give Will Martin the credit he deserves. He was talking about a long > range goal, (i.e. significantly past this generation). ...For someone > who claims "up with people," you certainly came down on Will Martin > for no reason. ...Please don't try to imply that *he* is the selfish one. I apologize for any insult to Will Martin. I wasn't trying to "come down on" him personally, just show that anyone who thinks this world would be so much better with only 100,000 people in it is probably imagining himself as being one of the 100,000. One of my main points was that one of the good things about a high population is *precisely* that lots of people get to enjoy life. (Admittedly, maybe there's some super-high population at which nobody would enjoy life because we'd all starve/ die of pollution/whatever, but I don't think we're anywhere near that.) Look, someone who wants a "long range goal" of lower population probably thinks it would be better *now* if out ancestors had followed low- population policies. Suppose they think an ideal population would be one-fourth of the present one. Then I would ask who they are imagining as inhabiting such a world -- if they are imagining that everyone presently alive would live in such a world, but that everyone has one- fourth the lifespan (that would get you the desired population), then they are drawing the right comparison. If they are imagining that they and their favorite one-fourth of the present population would get to live in such a world, then their comparison is flawed. See the point? > I won't choose the number at 100,000, in fact, I won't even pick the > number, but I will say that exponential growth will certainly screw > things up eventually. [cliff] I don't think it is so certain, unless you want to argue physics and astronomy -- sure, at some point the amount of Gibbs free energy in the universe will be inadequate to maintain an increasing (or even constant) economy/population, but that's a mite far off in the future. Until then, I don't see any absolute physical resource limits that will inexorably constrain exponential growth. "singin' songs, and carryin' signs mostly say 'hoo-ray for our side' ..." --Paul Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/17/85)
Will Martin wrote that the world perhaps cannot continue to carry the present population, and if it can, a time will come when increasing population exceeds the stable carrying capacity of the world. Paul Torek disagreed, quite strongly, claiming that greater population gave more people the opportunity to enjoy life, and that people arguing for lower population levels always included themselves and their friends among those who would be included: >Look, someone who wants a "long range goal" of lower population probably >thinks it would be better *now* if out ancestors had followed low- >population policies. Suppose they think an ideal population would be >one-fourth of the present one. Then I would ask who they are imagining >as inhabiting such a world -- if they are imagining that everyone >presently alive would live in such a world, but that everyone has one- >fourth the lifespan (that would get you the desired population), then >they are drawing the right comparison. If they are imagining that they >and their favorite one-fourth of the present population would get to >live in such a world, then their comparison is flawed. See the point? For once, I think Paul Torek has the wrong end of the stick (a rare event). It is possible to argue that the famines in the Sahel and elsewhere, territorial wars, resource fights, and so forth are unrelated to population pressures. We don't KNOW that they would be greatly reduced in impact with a less dense world, but I believe that they would. I don't think there is any question of a "long range goal" of lower population; I think it is just a fact of future life. Whether it comes about through war, disease and famine, or through intelligent planning, is up to those now living. We KNOW that the kinds of energy source we now rely on will be running out soon, and that we are not doing much about building the infrastructure for substitutes. We KNOW that the kind of agriculture that is needed to feed the world is highly energy-intensive. Yet we think that all is fine, and that if we just teach those Africans our ways, they will no longer be hungry. That could be true, for a few years, but we would all be hungrier quicker if they started using energy with as much abandon as we do. We are living on borrowed energy capital, built over hundreds of millions of years, and we are using it up in a matter of centuries. Is that wise? How many people would the Earth have, in a natural balance with the rest of life? If we avoid the Judeo-Christian notion that we have to dominate all other creatures, and learn to live beside them instead, we might get some idea by considering biomass. How much do all the members of given species weigh? There should be some kind of distribution that would determine a reasonable range of numbers for humans (the figures should be for a time before humans became so dominant, rather than now, when we have driven so many species to extinction and cultivated others to unnatural numbers). If you want another approach, consider what kind of lifestyle seems to result in the greatest average happiness. Again, I don't know the answer, but I am pretty sure it is not in crowded cities, nor yet in hermitages. It may be in small towns close to a rural countryside. If so, then judge how many people could live in such places in the fertile parts of the world. I haven't calculated, but I would bet the number is far, far less than one billion. As for who I would expect to live in such a world -- in the real future, I expect the majority to be the descendants of non-urbanized people from reasonably fertile (but not prime) land. I expect the cities to be decimated by disease, famine, and riot when the energy supplies break down (all bets are off if this leads to nuclear war, as it well might). People who can feed themselves and a few neighbours are the ones who will have both the organization and the spare resources to survive this period, if anyone does. I hope that enough history survives that humanity (and the rest of us) will not have to go through a similar period again in another two or three thousand years. At least it seems unlikely that those people will be able to build their population on the basis of using up resources hundreds of thousands of times faster than the resources accumulate. We, in this century, will have used them up. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/20/85)
From mmt!dciem (Martin Taylor): >I don't think there is any question of a "long range goal" of lower >population; I think it is just a fact of future life. Whether it comes >about through war, disease and famine, or through intelligent planning, >is up to those now living. I think you're underestimating the carrying capacity of planet Earth. Details below. >We KNOW that the kinds of energy source we now rely on will be running >out soon, and that we are not doing much about building the infrastructure >for substitutes. We KNOW that the kind of agriculture that is needed >to feed the world is highly energy-intensive. Yet we think that all >is fine, and that if we just teach those Africans our ways, they will >no longer be hungry. That could be true, for a few years, but we would >all be hungrier quicker if they started using energy with as much >abandon as we do. It is true that we cannot fuel our society forever with fossil fuels, but alternatives are available, and even more alternatives are likely to be available in the future, as our technology improves. Fusion energy, whether from the Sun or from fusion reactors (Real Soon Now), is a virtually inexhaustable energy supply. Other sources are nearly as promising. I think you are right in identifying energy supply as the heart of the problem, but wrong in thinking the present energy problems are destined to be with us forever. >How many people would the Earth have, in a natural balance with the rest >of life? If we avoid the Judeo-Christian notion that we have to dominate >all other creatures, and learn to live beside them instead, we might get >some idea by considering biomass. How much do all the members of given >species weigh? There should be some kind of distribution that would >determine a reasonable range of numbers for humans (the figures should >be for a time before humans became so dominant, rather than now, when >we have driven so many species to extinction and cultivated others >to unnatural numbers). I don't see why biomass would be a particularly good way to decide how many people the Earth ought to support. Doesn't it make more sense to just see how many it CAN support, comfortably? And while it's true that we are not presently managing the Earth in a way that comfortably supports the 4 billion we have, this seems a circumstantial rather than theoretical problem. Given plentiful and cheap energy, the figure could probably be far larger than 4 billion. >If you want another approach, consider what kind of lifestyle seems to >result in the greatest average happiness. Again, I don't know the >answer, but I am pretty sure it is not in crowded cities, nor yet >in hermitages. It may be in small towns close to a rural countryside. >If so, then judge how many people could live in such places in the >fertile parts of the world. I haven't calculated, but I would bet >the number is far, far less than one billion. Two points: the minor one is that some people do, indeed, like crowded cities, and some like total isolation. The main point, though, is that "fertile parts of the world" is a variable, as is the degree of fertility of those parts. Again, given plentiful and cheap energy, almost all of the Earth could be fertile. Elbow-room is no problem if you do this. Many more billions than we have could live in uncrowded conditions if we could spread the population more or less evenly over the Earth. >As for who I would expect to live in such a world -- in the real future, >I expect the majority to be the descendants of non-urbanized people from >reasonably fertile (but not prime) land. I expect the cities to be >decimated by disease, famine, and riot when the energy supplies break >down (all bets are off if this leads to nuclear war, as it well might). >People who can feed themselves and a few neighbours are the ones who >will have both the organization and the spare resources to survive >this period, if anyone does. I hope that enough history survives that >humanity (and the rest of us) will not have to go through a similar >period again in another two or three thousand years. At least it seems >unlikely that those people will be able to build their population on >the basis of using up resources hundreds of thousands of times faster >than the resources accumulate. We, in this century, will have used them up. I can at least agree that eventual disaster is inevitable if we do not develop alternative, renewable energy sources. But, with so many candidates (solar, fusion, biomass, geothermal, ???), I fail to see why you are so pessimistic about the effects of a large population. "Large" is a relative term. Given the resources that we can reasonably expect to have in the coming decades, I don't see our present level of population as necessarily disastrous. We've been dawdling on our energy problems, but it's not too late, by any means. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/24/85)
> It is true that we cannot fuel our society forever with fossil >fuels, but alternatives are available, and even more alternatives are >likely to be available in the future, as our technology improves. Fusion >energy, whether from the Sun or from fusion reactors (Real Soon Now), >is a virtually inexhaustable energy supply. Other sources are nearly >as promising. > I think you are right in identifying energy supply as the heart >of the problem, but wrong in thinking the present energy problems are >destined to be with us forever. It is somewhat foolhardy to rely on an energy source that hasn't even been shown to be technically feasible, at a time when conventional (non-renewable) sources are declining. There is, indeed, one possible bridging energy source that might cover the gap between what we have and what we may be able to have, but that source is nuclear fission. People irrationally don't like it, and its progress has been dangerously slowed. As an energy source far safer ecologically than coal or oil, one would think that the ecology people would have been loud in its praises. If you look at a graph of the rise and decline of energy sources over the centuries, you will see that it takes about 50 years for an energy source to become significant, another 50 for it to become dominant. Declines take the same kind of time. So, even if someone this year achieved reliable excess energy from fusion, we still need 100 years of energy from other sources before we can get to this essentially inexhaustible source. The same argument applies to other (renewable) possibilities, such as solar, oceanic thermal, geothermal and so forth. The technical feasibility of these has been shown, but not the engineering feasibility. Solar is probably closest, but its a long way from becoming a significant source. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (03/25/85)
<2^256> The problem with overpopulation is NOT that the Earth can/cannot support 4,5,6,7..billion people, the problem is it CAN'T support 4,8,16,32.. billion people indefinitly, since the population DOUBLES every N years. Such growth will outweigh the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and eventually the universe with just a few doublings (the universe, by some estimates, has approx. 2^256 atoms in it). Currently, the doubling rate is on the order of 50 years or thereabouts. People (i.e. Reagan) who say it isn't something to worry about obviously can't multiply :-) Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/10/85)
From Martin Taylor (dciem!mmt): >>[me] It is true that we cannot fuel our society forever with fossil >>fuels, but alternatives are available, and even more alternatives are >>likely to be available in the future, as our technology improves. Fusion >>energy, whether from the Sun or from fusion reactors (Real Soon Now), >>is a virtually inexhaustable energy supply. Other sources are nearly >>as promising. >> I think you are right in identifying energy supply as the heart >>of the problem, but wrong in thinking the present energy problems are >>destined to be with us forever. > >It is somewhat foolhardy to rely on an energy source that hasn't even >been shown to be technically feasible, at a time when conventional >(non-renewable) sources are declining. There is, indeed, one possible >bridging energy source that might cover the gap between what we have >and what we may be able to have, but that source is nuclear fission. >People irrationally don't like it, and its progress has been dangerously >slowed. As an energy source far safer ecologically than coal or oil, >one would think that the ecology people would have been loud in its >praises. We agree here. My original point, you will recall, is that our energy situation is far from hopeless and, if solved, would allow much larger populations than currently exist to live on the Earth in comfort. By pointing out *another* alternative to fossil fuels, you seem to me to be helping me to make my case. Not so? >If you look at a graph of the rise and decline of energy sources over >the centuries, you will see that it takes about 50 years for an energy >source to become significant, another 50 for it to become dominant. >Declines take the same kind of time. So, even if someone this year >achieved reliable excess energy from fusion, we still need 100 years >of energy from other sources before we can get to this essentially >inexhaustible source. I'd guesstimate more like 50 years than 100, but that's beside the point; we can go another 100 years with fission, or with coal, or probably even with oil, though that might be a bit tight. What is most likely is that we'll use a combination of them all, plus better sources gradually taking the burden off fossil fuels and fission. >The same argument applies to other (renewable) possibilities, such as >solar, oceanic thermal, geothermal and so forth. The technical feasibility >of these has been shown, but not the engineering feasibility. Solar >is probably closest, but its a long way from becoming a significant >source. Some types of solar are already engineering realities (solar heating), as is geothermal energy (used in California and Iceland, and probably elsewhere). Geopressure zones could provide enormous quantities of natural gas, a substance we're already equipped to transport and use. We have a number of energy alternatives in the short term, and while they're not as attractive as the longer term possibilities, they'll give us the time we need to make those better possibilities into realities. I agree that it would be good if we were pursuing alternate energy sources with more vigor, so that they could come on-line sooner. I even agree that failing to deal with our energy problems is *potentially* threatening to the survival of our society. My dispute was with the apparent assertion in your original article that the planet was heading for inevitable ecological disaster, and cannot properly support the population it has. If this was not your position, I'll shut up now but, otherwise, I still fail to see what makes you think that civilization is surely on the skids. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/10/85)
From Merlyn Leroy (digi-g!brian): > The problem with overpopulation is NOT that the Earth can/cannot > support 4,5,6,7..billion people, the problem is it CAN'T support 4,8,16,32.. > billion people indefinitly, since the population DOUBLES every N years. > Such growth will outweigh the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and > eventually the universe with just a few doublings (the universe, by some > estimates, has approx. 2^256 atoms in it). Currently, the doubling rate is > on the order of 50 years or thereabouts. People (i.e. Reagan) who say it > isn't something to worry about obviously can't multiply :-) I think this misses the point. We know we're not going to double until the universe is solid people; the question is, is there any alternative more pleasant than the traditional Four Horsemen that will keep the population from increasing faster than the available resources? There is evidence that another alternative exists. Statistics suggest that an affluent and educated population have fewer children than illiterate peasants. Children are free labor for the peasant, and insurance for their old age, but tend to be an economic liability for the middle-class city-dweller. But whatever the reason, population increase has been slowing in countries where the people's material lives have been improving. Perhaps if we can develop our resources to the point that the entire world can enjoy a decent standard of living, population increase would slow to a manageable rate. I don't know the context of Reagan's saying that population pressure is nothing to worry about, but if he was speaking only of the US, I'll have to agree with him. Our current level of population does not seem excessive to me, nor does our current rate of increase. The total wealth of this country is adequate to support its entire population in comfort. That it doesn't (quite) do so is due to uneven distribution, not overall shortage. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry