01-03-2005 00:46									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin 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?

Not long, I'd guess. And they'd probably experience a golden age of good health, much like Britain during the second world war. Assuming that there's no invasion or anything.

	01-03-2005 00:57									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Corn Laws were great for Britain the 19th century.

	01-03-2005 05:37									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd What's that statistic.... it'd take 40 earths to support everyone (currently) living to the standard of americans?

Absurd. We haven't run out of any resource. the closest we've come to running out of resources is energy and maybe lebensraum and the former could even be over come using present technology.

However recognizing that a thing could be done and doing it are quite different things.

Resources are practically infinite. the problem is obtaining them in a useable form in a way that doesn't further destroy more irreplacable parts of our ecosystems.

The reason people are poor is not resource scarcity and it's not unequal distribution. The problem stems from serious flaws in the global economy. Flaws that are fiendishly difficult to identify with demonstrable certainty much less fix.

	01-03-2005 05:46									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Excuse me Dan, but some of these problems HAVE NO CORRECTIONS, specially using water from aquifers-there is no way to replenish that water in less than a few centuries. The Us is a modern, rich state, yet soild degredation is increasing in many parts of the country, due to simple biology, and the demands of commercial farming. And yet, our eocnomy is mo much fantasitcally bigger that the effect of our agriculture is still much more significant in those areas we still farm. That said, huge overconsumption by Americans means we could cut back and still live fine, healthy lives, but then that would limit profist, now wouldn't it?

if we solve the cheap energy problem how about desalinization to meet water demands?

	01-03-2005 05:51									#155
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo if we solve the cheap energy problem how about desalinization to meet water demands?

And what do we do with all that salt we take out?

Oh, sure, if we had limitless energy, then so many things would be solved- heck, we could have replicators!

Now point to me how realisitc those cheap energy sources are, vs. population growth.

The biggest breakthrough in energy in the last 100 was nuclear energy, and fossil fuels remain, just like 100 years ago, the primary energy sources. Yet in those 100 years the population trippled at least.

	01-03-2005 06:10									#156
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap And what do we do with all that salt we take out? Oh, sure, if we had limitless energy, then so many things would be solved- heck, we could have replicators! Now point to me how realisitc those cheap energy sources are, vs. population growth. The biggest breakthrough in energy in the last 100 was nuclear energy, and fossil fuels remain, just like 100 years ago, the primary energy sources. Yet in those 100 years the population trippled at least.

Yeah, I admit it was just wishful thinking.

Without some serious progress on the energy supply front we are going to be in some serious **** even we do develop technologies that reduce the size of humanity's environmental 'foot print'.

I agree with DanS that theoretically no resource is finite in any meaningful sense, but it's a real ***** demonstrating that theory when we are doing such a lousy job enhancing our supply of energy which stands as the most critical technological resource.

	01-03-2005 08:20									#157
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia chill, but my oil estimate is off. it should be less than water (cuz it floats on top of water)

2190 oil (very close to 30 weight) is about 8.28 therefore it will float on water. 2110 Hyd oil is 8.26 or so. 9250 Hyd oil or as we call it External Hyd Oil because you can have up 50% contamination with sea water and still work. There was a rumor going around for years that some employee never paid for a drop of oil in their cars.

	01-03-2005 08:22									#158
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Because apparently oil is "finite" on earth

Well yeah, sure, but.. if we ARE able to go to the end of the universe, then surely oil is redundant, no?

	01-03-2005 17:36									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin The Corn Laws were great for Britain the 19th century.

If you're including Ireland in that, then no they weren't- authorities holding on to supplies of grain effectively allowed Irish people to starve whilst having the ability (but the not the political will or common sense) to do something to remedy the situation.


It's a strange thing that the diet of the urban poor declined in quality during a period of land enclosures and mechanization of food production, but then when you substitute tea and gin for ale and add in cholera, typhus and overcrowding and tuberculosis, you have a recipe for malnutrition, slow death and epidemics.

	01-03-2005 18:01									#160
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom If you're including Ireland in that, then no they weren't- authorities holding on to supplies of grain effectively allowed Irish people to starve whilst having the ability (but the not the political will or common sense) to do something to remedy the situation. It's a strange thing that the diet of the urban poor declined in quality during a period of land enclosures and mechanization of food production, but then when you substitute tea and gin for ale and add in cholera, typhus and overcrowding and tuberculosis, you have a recipe for malnutrition, slow death and epidemics.

It was sarcasm. I forget sometimes how text has no intonation.

	01-03-2005 18:09									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin It was sarcasm. I forget sometimes how text has no intonation.

There I was mistaking you for an Adam Smith Institute * zealot. My humblest apologies.


(having watched one decrying the United kingdom's various FairTrade campaigns because supposedly supporting Mexican coffee growers would deprive poorer Ethiopian coffee growers of income).

	01-03-2005 18:31									#162
	Got spare money?

Wasn't his biggest blast against the unfair agri-subsidies of Europe?

	01-03-2005 18:38									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Wasn't his biggest blast against the unfair agri-subsidies of Europe?

It may well have been what he wanted to talk about, but to drag in Fair Trade seemed utterly incongruous.

Instead of consumers voting with their spending powers and simultaneously supporting schemes to empower third world producers to shift from a precarious dependence on single agricultural products especially commodities such as coffee and cocoa beans, and lobbying for the reduction or elimination of third world debt, he wanted people to what? write, email or get on the phone to their Euro M.P. .

Great strategy.

	01-03-2005 20:46									#164
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by mindseye 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.

That may be so in the acute sense, but over a relatively short time (less than a generation), the larger population is no worse off on a per capita basis and is better off as a whole.

quote: 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.

Because those rural Chinese may not add much at the beginning, but their contributions are very real over time. Look at it this way. Even 100 million peasants digging ditches is a net positive to society, although, as you say, the value isn't high. But over time, they will move on to much more valuable work.

quote: 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.

The events in post-plague Europe weren't accompanied by mass migrations and modernization at the scale we're discussing. I have no doubt that the majority of Chinese peasants will live a modern existence within a generation, at the current pace.

	02-03-2005 03:34									#165
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

DanS is looking at things purely from a stockholders' POV.

	02-03-2005 03:36									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious DanS is looking at things purely from a stockholders' POV.

Of course, he's a corporate whore.

	02-03-2005 03:42									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

That's a bogus argument: Most people's live carry a great positive value, particularly those leading healthy lives which include both stablity and healthy challenges. less people -> less happiness.

After an urbanized enviroment is reached, the confrontation density hardly raises, while people also benefit from the economic and social structures of scale, and a stable growth allows families to remain more stable, providing healthier conditions for the upbringing of children.

Enviroment is important, though: Plans for the energy and recreation needs of future generations must be made, and we lack those, currently.

	02-03-2005 04:17									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: 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. That's a bogus argument: Most people's live carry a great positive value, particularly those leading healthy lives which include both stablity and healthy challenges. less people -> less happiness.

Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people.

quote: After an urbanized enviroment is reached, the confrontation density hardly raises, while people also benefit from the economic and social structures of scale, and a stable growth allows families to remain more stable, providing healthier conditions for the upbringing of children.

How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks.

	02-03-2005 04:27									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people.

It can't be precisely quantified, doesn't mean that it can't be quantified at all, or that the number of people experiencing the happiness is irrelevant.

quote: How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks.

You either grow or stagnate. I prefer growth. I also forsee a future for humanity outside the planet, so I don't see our possibilities as limited in the long run.

	02-03-2005 04:41									#170
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people. It can't be precisely quantified, doesn't mean that it can't be quantified at all, or that the number of people experiencing the happiness is irrelevant.

It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total.

quote: quote: How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks. You either grow or stagnate. I prefer growth.

Stagnation is more stable.

quote: I also forsee a future for humanity outside the planet, so I don't see our possibilities as limited in the long run.

And some people forsee a second coming... don't put too much faith in fiction.

	02-03-2005 07:10									#171
	Got spare money?

Exactly. This ain't a game of Civ.

	02-03-2005 10:23									#172
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Odin Of course, he's a corporate whore.

No, he's just a neo-liberal market whore


Neo-liberal market whores tend to "forget" the non-quantitative factors when reaching decisions. So that's why another million-man slum in Mexico City is good in net terms even if each slum dweller adds one penny to the economy. Nevermind of course the strain on public utilities, the decrease in the quality of life for the other couple of millions, increase in crime, decaying living standards, worsening income inequality, ecological devastation, traffic congestion... I could go on and on...

Just because you can't measure things with dollar signs doesn't mean they don't exist.

	02-03-2005 12:22									#173
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Exactly. This ain't a game of Civ.

Without space exploration, humanity has no future, period.

This isn't a game of civ, but that doesn't mean that space exploration is impossible.

quote: It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total.

Since when is the "happy people percentage" is the guideline?
besides, it's not binary. They're varying degrees of happiness.

	02-03-2005 12:41									#174
	Support Apolyton

I was referencing the comment on 10 happy people being better than 5, not space exploration. As the Japanese moon base thread suggests, growing population is not needed for rocket ships.

	02-03-2005 20:30									#175
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Dude, the Japanese are not going to be leading the way on space exploration. Even Ukraine does tons more than Japan in space. Japan's program is even more of a government contractor boondoggle than the US effort. I thought all this was obvious and I didn't need to diss Japan's efforts explicitly. Can't you read between the lines?

Last edited by DanS on 02-03-2005 at 20:48

	02-03-2005 20:42									#176
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: No, he's just a neo-liberal market whore

Why am I a "neo-liberal"? Wouldn't "liberal" be more accurate?

quote: Neo-liberal market whores tend to "forget" the non-quantitative factors when reaching decisions. So that's why another million-man slum in Mexico City is good in net terms even if each slum dweller adds one penny to the economy. Nevermind of course the strain on public utilities, the decrease in the quality of life for the other couple of millions, increase in crime, decaying living standards, worsening income inequality, ecological devastation, traffic congestion... I could go on and on...

I never said "never mind" all of those things -- although your list isn't very good. I readily admit that acute problems can exist. On the other hand, an economy that is growing should be able to solve those acute problems in relatively short order. If your economy isn't growing, then that's another problem, and obviously most people would be worse off in that situation, no matter the extra million slum dwellers. In both instances, the focus on the existence of the slum is unwarranted.

	02-03-2005 20:49									#177
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total. Since when is the "happy people percentage" is the guideline?

Guideline? All I'm saying is that's the only way you can gauge the happiness of a people. You can't say that there is "more total happiness" simply because the group is larger.

quote: besides, it's not binary. They're varying degrees of happiness.

Exactly...

	02-03-2005 21:04									#178
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS I never said "never mind" all of those things -- although your list isn't very good. I readily admit that acute problems can exist. On the other hand, an economy that is growing should be able to solve those acute problems in relatively short order. If your economy isn't growing, then that's another problem, and obviously most people would be worse off in that situation, no matter the extra million slum dwellers. In both instances, the focus on the existence of the slum is unwarranted.

If China is growing and the slums are not shrinking significantly why shouldn't we focus on the slums. Growth does not mean the elimination of slums. You need the right kind of growth for that. You need to build better houses and improve neighborhoods to eliminate slums. The market doesn't do that unless you make it do that.

	02-03-2005 23:34									#179
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Why am I a "neo-liberal"? Wouldn't "liberal" be more accurate?

Neo-liberals are morons who reject Keynes on ideological grounds and have forgotten that thier policies were the same that caused the Great Depression

	03-03-2005 00:06									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Guideline? All I'm saying is that's the only way you can gauge the happiness of a people. You can't say that there is "more total happiness" simply because the group is larger.

It's simple multiplication: Even if we use the binary system, where unhappy people equal zero, and happy people equal 1, there is much more utility in a group of 500 people with 50% of them happy, than in a group of 200 people with 100% of them happy.

And this gets a whole lot more complex.