28-02-2005 00:10									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS 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.

Then why haven't they?

If markets are so perfect why haven't they been able to effectively solve this? If goverments have all the solutions, why have they failed to implement them?

The world isn't as perfect as you'd like to hope it'd be. That some countries have been able to overcome these dificulties does not mean all of them, and should the problems truly become critical where's the guarantee that the solutions will be able to be applied globally? Wishful thinking if you ask me.

Take the AIDS issue for example. The devloping world can afford to keep its HIV-positive population still active yet Africa is suffering tremendously under the epidemic. If the solution is out there, why isn't it implemented as effectively as the solutions you have posted in this thread?

	28-02-2005 00:11									#122
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS Actually, you're quite wrong about the US experience

My point was that the US could accomodate large numbers of additional people who could settle in vast new lands with huge amounts of natural resources readily available.

China's countryside, on the other hand, is already crowded and underemployed. Natural resources are already severely taxed. There is no room for large numbers of new residents, as there was in the US. And the cities are already more densely crowded than at any point in US history.

quote: Ask yourself why all the people moved in from the countryside in the US, so that now we're a majority urban society. If workers in rural areas were so well employed and compensated, they would have stayed there.

I have no argument with you over why urbanization takes place. What I'm saying is that you are wildly unrealistic about the ability of cities in a contemporary developing nation like China to absorb the kind of numbers we are talking about, numbers which dwarf anything in the US experience. American cities never needed to absorb 700 million rural people, much less figure out how to handle their water, food, sewage, air, transportation, education and employment requirements, all long before these people can hope to contribute enough to society to offset these costs.

Your contention that additional people automatically benefit a society does not seem to take into account many factors such as living standards. Adding ten million slum dwellers to your city benefits it how? And who uses more water, a slum dweller or an office worker?

quote: The inapposite part comes because the economic strength of the US is not in its frontiers, but rather in its cities. It doesn't matter much overall to the US economy what happens in Montana. It never has, even during the frontier era.

So what? If your population growth is outstripping the national water and air resources available, what does it matter where your economic strength is located?

quote: The inefficient sucking up of so many natural resources is due to such insane rates of economic growth, not the number of people. If the Chinese government throttled the growth rate back to something more reasonable, Chinese companies could do a better job at picking out the most efficient resource sources.

This seems seriously divorced from reality. Slowing down growth will increase ground water? Huh? Desertification is happening here because in many areas there is NO more water available at ANY realistic cost. I'm sorry, but it is not simply a matter of more efficiently extracting it. And forgive me for saying so, but some of your other proposed solutions ("just build more subways") are ludicrous for a developing nation where many lack even basic education. Throttling back growth will further limit available funds for all those new subway lines.

	28-02-2005 00:13									#123
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS 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.

That all depends on how income distribution is affecting the allocation of those 7-9%. Geography also comes into play. It is quite conceivable that the great mass of poor or certain regions might not actually be benefiting from positive real growth rates, and could actually be getting worse off (happens often in Mexico). I'm not saying that is the current case with China or India but this affirmation reeks of ceteris paribus...

	28-02-2005 00:18									#124
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Then why haven't they?

They've only been following positive economic policies for a short time. Cut them some slack. They are solving some of their problems at a reasonably good clip.

quote: The world isn't as perfect as you'd like to hope it'd be.

I don't know where you saw me state or imply that the world is perfect. It doesn't need to be. It seems like you are projecting your prejudices on my views.

	28-02-2005 00:23									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS 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.

First off, you are comparing three modern, industrialized, developed places with China and India.

Second, these nations may be doing well in managing large populations, but you are talking about GROWING them. By LARGE numbers. I wonder how well Japan could "reasonably well manage" a Tokyo with an addition 10 million uneducated residents, much less do it with the resources available to an Indian city.

	28-02-2005 00:28									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Whereas DanS is right in the near-infinite resources of outer space, I would not include oil among them. Fresh water and possibly methane are plausible. Oil isn't.

	28-02-2005 00:31									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

hmmmm your right. thats an excellent point. so heres another link. china's labor force grew by 7 million people, employment grew by 7 million, and unemployment remained constant at 14 million (with massive underemployment). in other words, the country isnt going anywhere, because its not creating jobs fast enough.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...03/wp03210.pdf.

now this is where it gets interesting. they project that between 2003 - 2005, and 2010, there will be surplus new job seekers of 9 million, 9 miilion, 8 million, and 5 mil.

	28-02-2005 00:32									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What I'm saying is that you are wildly unrealistic about the ability of cities in a contemporary developing nation like China to absorb the kind of numbers we are talking about, numbers which dwarf anything in the US experience.

While you are correct in absolute numbers, the growth of Chicago is on a similar scale and timeframe to that of many Chinese cities. To add to the mix, Chicago was absorbing rural people from all over the world, not only the rural Midwest.

It wasn't a "clean" process by any measure, but most of the problems in rapid urbanization proved not to be intractable and the result is a pretty nice city. Chicago is even spotting the Chinese a city-destroying fire or two.

quote: First off, you are comparing three modern, industrialized, developed places with China and India.

I chose S. Korea for a reason. Only very recently has it moved into the ranks of developed countries. They only just moved to a 5 day work week, for instance.

	28-02-2005 00:34									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia no, they didnt deregulate it properly. governments must come together to sell plots of sea where fisherman have exclusive rights to fish. the ocean is an excellent example of the govt not privatising.

The ludicrousness of this notion acts as a perfect example of why private ownership of land is absurd and immoral. Better satire could not be written.

	28-02-2005 00:38									#130
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia ... farmers in the midewest get paid to produce things we dont even want.

Hell, yeah! Who needs wheat, corn or soybeans anyway?! We can get rid of our farmers growing that stuff stateside and become reliant upon foreign farmers to grow our food for us. Sounds like good fiscal planning to me. Hell, it worked for Rome, didn't it?

Gatekeeper

	28-02-2005 00:42									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The ludicrousness of this notion acts as a perfect example of why private ownership of land is absurd and immoral. Better satire could not be written

face it, we all look out for our own self interest

quote: Hell, yeah! Who needs wheat, corn or soybeans anyway?! We can get rid of our farmers growing that stuff stateside and become reliant upon foreign farmers to grow our food for us. Sounds like good fiscal planning to me. Hell, it worked for Rome, didn't it?

if we wanted it at those price, we wouldnt need to subsidize them, would we? they wouldnt need our money to put food on their table.

	28-02-2005 00:43									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

It's foolhardy to consider this proof that all population problems will always, in every instance, be solved by a modern society. Sure, some problems will be solved, maybe all of them will. But there is no guarantee.

You seem to think that human ingenuity is essentially limitless. I think it is exceptionally high, but there are still limits, and that we shouldn't tempt fate in an ill-considered population boom.

	28-02-2005 01:16									#133
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I need only be correct in holding that high economic growth will lead to more problems being solved than created, no matter the population growth (within reason).

Extreme population movements may create acute problems in this context, but an economy growing at a 7% or 9% rate is retiring lots more problems than it is creating and will eventually retire most of the acute problems. Indeed, the acute problems come bundled with lots of human resources to solve those problems.

What I am saying is hardly revolutionary. It's the entirely rational bet that the Chinese government is making, after all, minus the "no matter the population growth" part.

	28-02-2005 01:36									#134
	Support Apolyton

quote: This seems seriously divorced from reality. Slowing down growth will increase ground water? Huh? Desertification is happening here because in many areas there is NO more water available at ANY realistic cost. I'm sorry, but it is not simply a matter of more efficiently extracting it. And forgive me for saying so, but some of your other proposed solutions ("just build more subways") are ludicrous for a developing nation where many lack even basic education. Throttling back growth will further limit available funds for all those new subway lines.

I'll take the air and water examples on board, but consider the example of the resource of concrete. Concrete is hard to come by in the US nowadays because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly. We can create more supply for this resource no problem (i.e., there's no real hard-and-fast limitation to its production), but it's tough to manage this increase when it is so rapid. In this instance, it might make sense to throttle back the growth a couple of percent in order to facilitate rational management of this growth.

Another example resource is electricity. As I understand it, wide swaths of China experience blackouts and brownouts due to demand outstripping supply. Again, there's no real hard and fast limitation to this resource -- just build another nuke plant. But it might make sense to ratchet down the demand a percent or two in order that the building of your nuke plants is on a favorable basis and not so many coal-fired plants are used to generate electricity.

Overall, the Chinese economy is throwing off extreme amounts of resources. The Chinese are accumulating capital at a furious clip. So while Shanghai might not be able to build more train stations at every instance that it wishes, over time it will be able to solve its problems with some budgeting. This need not be a precise exercise. Shanghai can screw up right and left (see, f.e., the low occupancy rate in Shanghai office buildings), but the margin available for success is pretty high.

	28-02-2005 01:48									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

So, are you assuming that ALL countries will be achieving high growth rates eventually? Because that's a pretty big assumption. If it doesn't happen, guess the problem won't be solved everywhere, will it?

	28-02-2005 01:51									#136
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Part of that human ingenuity is knowing when and when not to have kids.

	28-02-2005 01:54									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm not assuming anything. Some countries persist in their backwardness. Some countries catch a tough break too.

But how can you be anything but hopeful for the future of the Chinese and Indians, when their governments consistently choose policies that are resulting in 7% or 9% growth rates on a routine basis? For certain, the US hasn't had such a high growth rate in a single year during my lifetime.

	28-02-2005 02:15									#138
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS But how can you be anything but hopeful for the future of the Chinese and Indians, when their governments consistently choose policies that are resulting in 7% or 9% growth rates on a routine basis? For certain, the US hasn't had such a high growth rate in a single year during my lifetime.

Because growth is bad.

The more the economy grows, the more you have to feed it, and the more precarious it becomes.

quote: You seem to think that human ingenuity is essentially limitless. I think it is exceptionally high, but there are still limits, and that we shouldn't tempt fate in an ill-considered population boom.

Ingenuity is mostly just dumb luck. Relying on it is mostly just dumb.

	28-02-2005 04:45									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The US can't grow that fast. It's too developed already. Developed countries grow much more slowly.

	28-02-2005 08:44									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

DanS, I think few would argue with you that high rates of growth are beneficial, but I think the point many are trying to make is that they would be more beneficial if they were affecting a smaller population.

Adding more and more people only thins out and slows down the advances. The marginal addition to the economy by the large rural populations is minimal, maybe even negative in remote regions. I think you could easily subtract a few hundred million rural Chinese without significantly affecting China's GDP. At the same time there would be more wealth, services, and opportunities to go around. Yet you advocate the reverse this by adding still more people.

Maybe instead of looking at Chicago's history, you should consider the example of post-Plague Europe, where survivors experienced a major improvment in the standard of living. In many ways the situation of 14th century French peasants is much closer to that of rural Chinese than 19th century Chicagoans.

	28-02-2005 09:02									#141
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS And there are some 400 billion star systems (+/- 200 billion star systems) in our galaxy alone. OK, so that might be too much of a "thought exercise" for some people. But with our current technology, every part of our solar system is within striking distance for resources that are truly necessary. No Buck Rogers technology required.

Why exactly would we travel to the end of space to get some oil? Talk about taking state subsidised programming to the extreem.

	28-02-2005 10:00									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by alva Why exactly would we travel to the end of space to get some oil? Talk about taking state subsidised programming to the extreem.

Because apparently oil is "finite" on earth

	28-02-2005 10:30									#143
	Increase Your PM Length

millions of people might have to be "plugged in" to virtual reality... matrix style, if population growth begins to outstrip the supply of resources.

~ Dracon's crazy DanS-esque thought of the day.

	28-02-2005 10:47									#144
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Because growth is bad. The more the economy grows, the more you have to feed it, and the more precarious it becomes.

Growth is fine if resources are value properly with no externalities what not.

Too bad that is usually not the case, espeically in developing countries and growth is artifically inflated in that case.

After all, growing a forest is economic growth too.....but many numbers don't count it.....

quote: Originally posted by DanS Concrete is hard to come by in the US nowadays because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly. We can create more supply for this resource no problem

We can more supply at a HIGHER COST. I don't care if there is infinite amounts of concrete in the universe, it is just too expensive to milk the higher-end of the supply curve.

If there is less people and less consumption, there would be more natural resources relative to people and the price of resources would be less.

	28-02-2005 10:59									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia theres no way. theres what, 40 gallons of oil per barrel? water is 8.3 lbs/ gallon, lets estimate oil = 10 lbs/ gallon. 10 million barrels a day, that makes out to be 4 billion lbs. 2200 lbs per ton, thats 1818181 tons of goods. todays spaceshuttles carry 10 tons of goods up. thats 181,819 spaceshuttle trips per day. on top of that you need facilities on both ends for launching/ landing. dont change your argument now. you said there are infinite amount of resources, and there will be some on the planets, and since we can easily get to them, thats why we will go there, and get it, and that its not inconcievable. well it is. weve got finite resources.

Sea Water is 8.34/5 and Fresh water is 8.32 if I remember correctly.
I had to know this when we did water calibration. Some of our sensor were calibrated for fresh and some for sea water.

	28-02-2005 11:08									#146
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

chill, but my oil estimate is off. it should be less than water (cuz it floats on top of water)

	28-02-2005 14:34									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia if we wanted it at those price, we wouldnt need to subsidize them, would we? they wouldnt need our money to put food on their table.

Prices? Aside from milk, America has some of the cheapest food on the planet. That markup from field to processed product sure as heck isn't making its way to your friendly, neighborhood family farmer (what few of those there are left after decades of consolidation and more and more corporate ownership of acres).

Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

Ah, well. What will happen will happen. Sometimes folks gotta get burned to learn the lesson. Just so long as we don't hop into the frying pan while jumping about hooting and hollering about our burned fingers, that's the main thing.

Gatekeeper

	28-02-2005 20:58									#148
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by mindseye I think you could easily subtract a few hundred million rural Chinese without significantly affecting China's GDP. At the same time there would be more wealth, services, and opportunities to go around. Yet you advocate the reverse this by adding still more people.

	28-02-2005 21:04									#149
	Got spare money?

quote: Prices? Aside from milk, America has some of the cheapest food on the planet. That markup from field to processed product sure as heck isn't making its way to your friendly, neighborhood family farmer (what few of those there are left after decades of consolidation and more and more corporate ownership of acres).

because its subsidized! so they can offer them at discount rates, cuz the govt covers part of their cost of living, so that way third world farmers cant compete anymore, and then they all starve and die.

quote: Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

no, i dont believe in any of that stuff. 'national dependence' 'national security' thats all a load of crap that those lobbies hav told us. looks like theyve done theie job, and their scare tactics have worked. who is gonna invade us? mexico? canada? those are the only two countries who can, and only cuz they are right next to us. you think china will? think again. or russia? nah. what about thsoe middle east countries? nope, they dont even have transports.

we face no threat of invasion. and no, were not gonna get burned. there is no lesson to learn except dont listen to special interst lobbies.

	01-03-2005 00:23									#150
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

I may be wrong, but if the US ever found itself dependent for basic food from other nations then that in itself is not a bad thing unless the supplying nation turns hostile or jacks up the price above the cost of home supply. Then, how long would it take to re-engage the home supply of foodstuffs, and how much would it cost to have a store that would last that lag period?