Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: I'm ok, you're excess population
Message-ID: <712@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 11:51:11 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.712
Posted: Fri Mar  1 11:51:11 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:39:27 EST
References: <800@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 63

> [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