desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/10/86)
In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].844266.860309.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > If we define the present population density of Hong Kong, 12,000 >people per square mile, as the limit, then the world can support about >200 times the population you estimate. We don't run into trouble for >300 years. This just shows that we should have many large space >colonies operating by then if we want population to be able to >continue to grow at this rate. Come on. Hong Kong may have 12000 people per square mile, but what percentage of its food does it import? 99% or so? It seems that people who don't actually produce their own food take it a bit too much for granted. > I *DO* think it should always remain a matter of personal choice. >If people do not like to live around highly populated areas, why is >it that most people tend to clump into heavily populated cities, >rather than distributing themselves fairly evenly across the world? In many parts of the world (e.g. Mexico City) the standard of living is much higher in the city. (This means malnutrition instead of starvation!) But these people are still depending on the surrounding underpopulated area to provide their food. -- David desJardins
lreastma@CRDC-VAX2.ARPA (Leslie R. Eastman) (03/11/86)
I guess population density is a matter of taste. I, for one, think there are too many people now, even in the United States, not to mention China, India, Ethiopia, etc,etc. Big cities are a nice place to visit occasionally but I wouldn't want to live there. In addition, the discussion of how many people can live on earth seems to totally disregard the rights of animals to live in their preferred habitat. Even if we could get all of our food and energy from space, if there are (pick your own number) of people on earth, where will the animals live and what will they eat? Some people on this net talk like free food, energy and building material are there in space just waiting to be picked up and beamed back to earth where it will also be free for the taking by who ever needs it. The raw materials may be there, but utilizing them will take alot of money and energy on our part and I don't think they will be inexpensive in the forseeable future. (Remember the claims at the beginning of nuclear power that electricity would be so cheap you wouldn't even need to meter it.) So don't look to space to be the answer to the population problem in the near future. The only near term answer is birth control. (I only plan to have one child.) And birth control does not mean killing anyone - it just means stop having babies. If the population continues to grow, there will be people (myself included) who will not want to go into space for adventure, curiosity, or science but just to find a more pleasant place to live.