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