27-02-2005 05:54									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: We don't even need rigid spaceships upon launch. We have an atmosphere to slow the spaceship down on Earth entry. Only a small ablative heat shield is required.

you need

1. a helluva lot of space ships
2. enough landing pads

we dont have any of that. and no, you need more than a small ablative heat shield, since there would be thousands of large spaceships, which are very heavy, and would all need someplace to land. the whole ship would need to be covered, because youd have to be able to land it, and take off again multiple times.

quote: You really are going to argue this?

its your argument. im just demonstrating how 'usng todays technolongy' we CANNOT harvest oil in any amount from mars/ 400 billion other stars in the galaxy, and that contrary to what you say, theres IS a finite amount of resources.

	27-02-2005 05:59									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 1. a helluva lot of space ships

Sure. We can build such a large number of spaceships. Note that much of the things reused would not need to land inside a gravity well (or a substantial gravity well), but could remain in space.

quote: 2. enough landing pads

We don't need any landing pads. We've got the oceans.

	27-02-2005 08:13									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

* Master Zen thinks DanS has been smoking some really heavy sh*t...

I have to say that you are absurdly wrong in affirming that there's such thing as infinite resources. I will start by agreeing that Malthus was plainly wrong but you are falling into the trap of equating overpopulation with insustainability, something which is plainly false. Is Mexico City overpopulated? Of course it is. Is it insustainable, no because if it were I wouldn't be here posting this.

A twist on the issue is to ask a counterfactual question. Would certain cities/countries be better off if they had less people? The answer is plainly yes. One can say that this is definitely not the case with the US since the US benefits from the economies of scale which the large population provides (the sole reason why the US turned into an enconomic superpower) and the huge landmass available for such population can sustain its growth. And its precisely the benefits of land which allow the creation of rentable cities in the first place (no industrial nation has grown prosperous solely due to the success of its cities, without an agricultural success behind them). This of course, is hardly the case in the developing world, and despite agriculture occupying a minor fraction in most nations' GDP, the proportion of people working in it is generally much higher. That fact alone says more than anything else, as there is something fundamentally wrong when a nation just earns 5% of its GDP from agriculture when 25% of its people actually work on it. So now you have overpopulation in the agro sector as you have too many people producing just a small piece of the pie. Of course, most being poor people, they end up emigrating into those bright beacons of hope, the cities, swarming them and swamping their already meager public services, creating the wonderfully gray favellas, slums, and lost cities which are the real beltways of many of our cities in the developing world and which lack the basic services which people can hope to progress with. So what's the use of having million-men slums in cities like Mexico, Rio or Lagos? Are these people actually meaningful contributors to prosperity or unfortunate wretches leeching the already pititful services available? In the best of cases they do neither harm nor good but for the most part they are definitely a burden. Of course, with education, with enough infrastructure, they would not be a burden... but where's the inifinite cash to solve their infinite needs?

Now, what frankly makes me laugh about your take on finity and infinity is why on earth all the marvelous solutions you mention are simply NOT implemented. Let's see, Mexico City could definitely benefit from suburban rail, 3 or 4 new subway lines, wider urban expressways and a more efficiently-laid population density. But the fact is that it just isn't happening. What you claim are infinite resources is not that, it's that there are infinite solutions - a very different thing. Applying them thus becomes a pain in both a market or a centralized economy simply because... drumroll... the main resource we need - MONEY - doesn't exist!

So no, the world will not suddenly collapse because one too many chinese or indians were born. But adding more people to our already overcrowded planet sure as hell isn't helping. And you can have a million solutions (or using your terms, infinte) to the problems of overpopulation but as long as you don't actually have the financial resources (or technology) to apply them then it's all for naught, just pure wishful thinking. In the world you describe there wouldn't even be a single poor person in the world, because we would have already mobilized our "infinite resources" to combat every possible economic and social ill.

It just doesn't happen that way.

Overpopulation is therefore a sad fact of life in many places on earth. No, we won't explode because of it, but people are definitely not living to their full potential, and many places would be far better off if there were a couple hundred/thousand/million drivers, walkers, and mouths to feed on this very finite planet.

-MZ

	27-02-2005 09:08									#94
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There is no such resource as "money". Money's an abstraction of labor, thus the problem is an apparently infinite amount of inefficiency.

	27-02-2005 09:09									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I remember reading that one of the main reasons 3rd world countries stayed poor was because of their rapid population growth rates. The populations were all growing much faster then the economy thus per capita income was continually going down in many countries. Controling the population means you don't need as much growth in order to improve everyone's standard of living plus as an added benifit the government doesn't need to spend as much on all the services people consume nor does the enviroment suffer as much.

	27-02-2005 09:25									#96
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The thrust of my argument is that human beings are by and large a net plus in any modern economy and are far and away the most important resource. If large masses of your population are a net minus, then that's primarily a reflection on your organization and use of the human resources, not the human resource itself. Removing the "overpopulation" won't fix the nub of the problem of extremely poor use of human resources. It won't even help. It will merely decrease your positive potential once you start fixing things.

In short, if Mexico City is "overpopulated", then there's something extremely fvcked up with Mexico and Mexico City. If Mexico City had half the population, it would have no less a proportion of fvckedupedness.

Please note that I don't think that the US is anywhere near the ideal, so there's no offense intended to Mexico. We do OK. But if you're looking for warts, you are sure to find them.

In the case of both China and India, they have a long legacy of extremely poor use of their human resources. They have to work off this legacy. But if China took a mid-term view of their human resources, they would see that any additional people would be a benefit.

Last edited by DanS on 27-02-2005 at 09:50

	27-02-2005 09:48									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS The thrust of my argument is that human beings are by and large a net plus in any modern economy. If large masses of your population are not a net plus, then that's primarily a reflection on your organization and use of the human resources, not the human resource itself. Removing the "overpopulation" won't fix the nub of the problem of extremely poor use of human resources. It won't even help.

And your argument is flawed because "modern economies" don't exist in most parts of the developing world. And even the super-efficient model that you mention doesn't hold water in the developed world either as big cities like LA and NY have a plethora of problems which the market or even the government have been unable to solve despite there being obvious solutions to them.

And of course I pointed out that even in such economies, "large masses" of population are not necessarily better in themselves. I'd seriously wonder what would happen to the Netherlands if its population doubled or trebled too quickly. Would efficient use of human resources win over the inherent problems of this new mass of humanity? I sincerely doubt it. Likewise many of our countries could definitely be better off (note that I'm not saying that it would be THE solution to all our problems, hardly) without a couple of millions extra.

My point, therefore, is that in many places, overpopulation will definitely not "break" a nation, but it will not be necessarily better than with a reduced number, the main issue being that enough financial resources do not exist to cope efficiently with such problems.

	27-02-2005 09:52									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I edited my post liberally while you were preparing your post.

	27-02-2005 10:05									#99
	Got spare money?

I think you're overreading in my use of the term "modern economy." At least half of the developing world (India and China) are modern economies in that a significant portion of their economic effort is devoted to non-agricultural endeavors.

	27-02-2005 10:15									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

There may be a time where continuous population growth is a good thing, perhaps in a "6th stage of development" where things are so good that we don't need to put divert resources into improving the conditions of the existing population. That time is definitely not now.

	27-02-2005 10:26									#101
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I remember reading that one of the main reasons 3rd world countries stayed poor was because of their rapid population growth rates. The populations were all growing much faster then the economy thus per capita income was continually going down in many countries.

China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.57% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth. So in both countries, people are becoming better off on average.

Compare to the US, with about 4.4% real economic growth rate and a 1% population growth rate.

	27-02-2005 10:26									#102
	Suffering from ads?

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Master Zen.

	27-02-2005 12:32									#103
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.65% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth. So in both countries, people are becoming better off on average.

And in both countries the governments haqve wisely decided to take steps to slow population growth in order to realize those real standard of living gains. India uses public education and the media to urge smaller families while China uses coersion. I have to say that China's one child policy is an excellent (though thankfully rare) example of totalitarian regimes doing certain things better then democratic regimes.

	27-02-2005 12:44									#104
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DanS China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.57% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth.

9+ 0.57 ~ 7 + 1.44

Coincidence?

	27-02-2005 13:28									#105
	Full PM-box? Change here!

too bad in China, 16% of the people are living in extreme poverty and nearly 50% of the people are living in poverty.

the growth doesnt reach them. its just concentrated on the few coastal towns.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...lient=firefox-a

	27-02-2005 20:31									#106
	Put an end to popups!

DanS seems to think that that all problems relating to high population density are destined to be solved. A baseless and reckless view, IMO.

	27-02-2005 21:26									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Gah, those full food boxes lead to so many bloody drones.

absolutes:
Resources is finite if technology is finite.
Technology is finite if time is finite.

Productivity depends on both economy of scale and limits of supply. Thus it does not have a linear relationship with number of people.

Note that humans are a resource as well.

----------- current sistuation
Productivity is largely determined by avoidable inefficiency(africa), and mildly effected by limits in natural supply. (even if there is "infinite energy", driving my car is expensive) The magnitude of positive effects from larger economy of scale is unknown. (to me anyway) It appears that the current economy does not benefit fully from economy of scale due to various barriors.

quote: The thrust of my argument is that human beings are by and large a net plus in any modern economy and are far and away the most important resource. If large masses of your population are a net minus, then that's primarily a reflection on your organization and use of the human resources, not the human resource itself.

I'm not sure I agree completely.

Lets say we want to maintain our current standard living while seeing problems with oil supply, and given different population counts.
1. High population, high consumption. This requires fast technological growth that benefit from increased labor pool resulting in lower costs developing new tech.
2. Low population, low consumption. Technological growth is less urgent (thus cheaper) and the technological demands are less, but the cost of labor is higher due to smaller labor pool.

Well, the situation isn't completely deterministic, but I don't think that high population is the better solution, at least with respect to oil/replacements since it really isn't finding replacements fast enough. (to keep the oil price down and reducing)

Before economies are fully intergrated and inefficiencies largely elimated, I don't think we can know whether supply of natural resources, or supply of humans is the true limiting factor. It is easier to give birth to humans than building new planets orbiting the solar system at the right distance from the sun, so I think erring on the side of low population makes more sense.

	27-02-2005 21:44									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 9+ 0.57 ~ 7 + 1.44 Coincidence?

Yes.

	27-02-2005 21:51									#109
	Put an end to popups!

quote: too bad in China, 16% of the people are living in extreme poverty and nearly 50% of the people are living in poverty. the growth doesnt reach them. its just concentrated on the few coastal towns.

While obviously some Chinese are making out better than others, I hear that it's no longer true that the benefit is accruing solely to the coastal cities.

China is still suffering the impact of backward-thinking policies instituted long ago. In my view, the one child policy will be viewed in the same manner pretty soon.

	27-02-2005 21:55									#110
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: DanS seems to think that that all problems relating to high population density are destined to be solved. A baseless and reckless view, IMO.

Nothing gets done by itself, but if you take a look at the Korean experience, they tend to do OK managing extreme population densities.

	27-02-2005 21:59									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And in both countries the governments haqve wisely decided to take steps to slow population growth in order to realize those real standard of living gains.

If you're growing 7% or 9% real per annum, people are becoming much better off very quickly no matter the rate of population increase.

	27-02-2005 22:12									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Interesting figures for the Korean population. Currently South Korea's population growth rate is 0.89% (down from 3% in 1960) and is expected to zero out or go negative in the next 20 years. For all of Korea (North & South) the total population is around 68.3 million with a total land area of 222,154 square kilometers so the population density is around 300 people per square kilometer. That means it is slightly less densely populated then Israel or El Salvador but no where near as densely populated as Taiwan (600 people/km2) or Bangladesh (960 people/km2).

Population density number are from
HEREl.

	27-02-2005 22:17									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

S. Korea has a higher population density than N. Korea. But both S. Korea and Taiwan seem to do OK managing extreme population densities. Japan seems to do reasonably well managing a huge city (Tokyo-Yokohama).

I don't know why China or India wouldn't be able to organize things equally well or better.

	27-02-2005 22:26									#114
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: That means it is slightly less densely populated then Israel or El Salvador

effective population density in Israel is double that figure.

http://gis.cbs.gov.il/shnaton53/tivi_area_per.jpg ( numbers on areas are NOT persons per km^2 )

quote: Currently South Korea's population growth rate is 0.89%

The best number.

	27-02-2005 23:06									#115
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Negative growth! Less people!

	27-02-2005 23:14									#116
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Negative growth! Less people!

Korea has got it perfect. a small, sustainable growth of population.

	27-02-2005 23:40									#117
	Put an end to popups!

quote: While obviously some Chinese are making out better than others, I hear that it's no longer true that the benefit is accruing solely to the coastal cities. China is still suffering the impact of backward-thinking policies instituted long ago. In my view, the one child policy will be viewed in the same manner pretty soon.

sure, but thats 50% of the population making $2 or less a day. if the 10% GDP growth was in any way spread across the country, you wouldnt have half the country in poverty, and an eigth in extreme ($1 or less) a day.

quote: If you're growing 7% or 9% real per annum, people are becoming much better off very quickly no matter the rate of population increase.

but how many new people entered the labor market? 23 million new chinese were born in 1988 and are now entering the labor force. if we take 78.7% as the ratio of people in the labor force to out of the labor force, we get 18 million and change entering the labor force. remember that you need to compare this number to the present growth rate, not the present birth rate.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cach...lient=firefox-a[/url]
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...lient=firefox-a[/url]

thats a lot of people.

now the government of china in 2004 wanted to create 14 million new jobs (as we know, these things are always more positive than what actually happened) that still leaves us with a net of 4 million more unemployed people than before

[url]http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cacheSOCCEC-A6kJ:www.bjreview.com.cn/200411/Cover-200411[/url](B).htm+2004+chinese+job+creation+statistics&hl=en&client=firefox-a[/url]

in other words, china cannot make jobs fast enough to cover its population increase. in general, people are not getting better off.

	27-02-2005 23:50									#118
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: Negative growth! Less people! Korea has got it perfect. a small, sustainable growth of population.

I really don't see how you can prefer a larger population through altruistic beliefs, even without considering the environmental impact that a large population has. At the most basic level, more people means more suffering - more ideals, more conflicts, more strife, more controversy, more disagreements, more disastification, ect... the goal of pleasing the most people possible only becomes more and more difficult as the number of people increases.

	27-02-2005 23:59									#119
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: but how many new people entered the labor market? 23 million new chinese were born in 1988 and are now entering the labor force. if we take 78.7% as the ratio of people in the labor force to out of the labor force, we get 18 million and change entering the labor force. remember that you need to compare this number to the present growth rate, not the present birth rate.

Your language isn't that clear, but if I'm reading you correctly, then you haven't accounted for the people who are leaving the labor force for one reason or another.

	28-02-2005 00:07									#120
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Negative growth! Less people!

If I remember right, it would take about 2 to 3 more Earths to sustain the current world population if it is to have the same quality of life the West has today. And the mount of resorces we need per capita will continue to rise for the forseeable future. We need to reduce the world population to a level where everyone can have an equally high quality of life while letting large areas of the world revert back to wilderness, and at the same time having enough people for a technological society, and I say 500 million people is a reasonale number. Think of how much more wilderness there would be in the US if it had 30 million people instead of 300 million. In Europe, The great forests could grow back and packs of European grey wolves could hunt the recovering herds of European bison (now restricted to a reserve in eastern Europe). In Asia, tiger and panda populations can recover, In South America, the rainforest will begin it's very slow recovery. In Africa, rinos, elephants, chimps, and gorillas, would not be threatend with extinction. With the lower human population, overfishing will be much less of a problem.