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