orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/12/85)
> From Will Martin: > > From me (Tim Sevener) > > In this case and many others in which a landed > > aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle. It is left > > idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little > > incentive to make it productive. > > The thing is, it is BETTER for land to be left "idle" and "unproductive". > Then the natural processes and growth may continue unimpeded and > undamaged by interference from humanity; light use, like individual > hunting for subsistence (as the Amerinds did), will not damage it, > and fits in with the other natural predation. > > Why do we feel compelled to upset this situation? Because we have > enough people to feed that we find it "necessary" to engage in > unnatural practices like agriculture, dam and road building, etc. > All of these degrade and harm the land and the environment in general. > > What all this arguing about social organizations, libertarianism vs. > anarchism vs. socialism vs. whatever, and trying to find fault with > this or that system, is ignoring is that the cause of all the problems > is simply excessive people. > There is no doubt that excessive population is a major problem for the whole world and especially the Third World. Many people have difficulty understanding the magnitude of the problem of exponential population growth, even intelligent people. They create fallacious solutions to exponential population growth such as sending people out to space, and so forth. Isaac Asimov had an excellent essay on this subject in which he examined these supposed solutions and demonstrated that even if one could whisk a segment of the population away to another planet at the speed of light with no real cost involved (thoroughly unrealistic assumptions) that such solutions could not solve the problem of exponential population growth. What is appalling and was generally ignored in the last election is that the Reagan administration has reversed decades of efforts by past administrations to curb population growth in the Third World. The proposal to cutoff funds for countries which support abortions is only the tip of the iceberg. During the summer the Reagan administration issued a report declaring that "population growth" was not a problem and pointing to examples of highly populated regions like Hong Kong as proof that population growth was good for economic growth. Whether we all would *like* to live in a whole planet populated like Hong Kong was never considered in the report. Nor did the report consider just where the resources were to be obtained to support current levels of population growth. 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. I am still dumbfounded how the American people could vote for such myopic policies! tim sevener whuxl!orb
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/14/85)
> tim sevener whuxl!orb > There is no doubt that excessive population is a major problem for > the whole world and especially the Third World. I doubt that. The problem is not "excessive population" but how that population lives. There are places in the world with high population densities which are not filled with starving people: Japan, Manhattan, West Germany ... > What is appalling and was generally ignored in the last election is that the > Reagan administration has reversed decades of efforts by past administrations > to curb population growth in the Third World. The proposal to cutoff funds > for countries which support abortions is only the tip of the iceberg. > During the summer the Reagan administration issued a report declaring that > "population growth" was not a problem and pointing to examples of highly > populated regions like Hong Kong as proof that population growth was > good for economic growth. Whether we all would *like* to live in a whole > planet populated like Hong Kong was never considered in the report. Not just Honk Kong but West Germany, Japan, Belgium and Holland all have population densities of 500+ per sq. mile. So does El Salvador, India and Bangladesh. The first group of nations has share a per- capita income of $5K+, the latter $1K-. This demonstrates that population *density* is *irrelevant* to economic growth or prosperity. > 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. Ethiopia, today's best example, is experiencing famine NOT because there is not enough food, but because of distribution (as well as political reasons). In the United States we are *throwing food away*, and not just farmers and dairymen -- did you eat the skin of your potato ... ? I, too, am beginning to doubt the calamaties predicted for us by Malthus almost 200 years ago. While I agree that there are limits to growth, I doubt we've seen them yet. There have been famines and plagues thruout human history right up to today, but not because the Earth was too full. We have yet to see effects of "over-population"; perhaps this is a good time to ask what IS over-population anyway? Too many people? Too many POOR people ... ? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam