Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: I'm OK, you're excess population Message-ID: <3804@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 21:08:05 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3804 Posted: Mon Mar 4 21:08:05 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 11:55:24 EST Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 40 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