05-12-2001 08:12									#61
	Increase Your PM Length

Moron there is OIL everywhere. Caspian, gulf of mexico, alaska, RM, Antartica, everywhere......Give them the chance to explore it will be found

The enviormentalists used to say when I was in school we would run out of fossil fuels in 2020-2050. This we now know is untrue. There is enough oil to keep us going for a long time and possible beyond.

	05-12-2001 08:15									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

In the 1970s there was a group of snooty economists called the Club of Rome, and the predicted we'd be out of oil by 1990. Excuse me, I have to recharge my computer via bicycle now...

	05-12-2001 08:18									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm TALKING ABOUT JAPAN not the world.

	05-12-2001 08:34									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Richard, you should go to China or India to FEEL the pressure of population. By living comfortably in your North Carolina suburb, you don't know the pain of overcrowding.

Population Density of China: 136.5 people per square kilometer
Population Density of New Jersey: 402.3 people per square kilometer

My grandparents live in New Jersey, and we visit them frequently. So by your logic I have experience with an area that is three times as painfully overpopulated as China.

And by the way, I'm a college student. We have about 3000 residence hall dwellers on a campus with an area of less than one square kilometer. If this is "the pain of overcrowding" It can't be so bad.

Yes I'm being flippant. That's because "feeling" is less of a rational basis for judgement than the numbers I just spit out.

I will admit that I don't know the pain of filth and poverty. But as I've tried to show, filth and poverty has almost nothing to do with population density or overcrowding. The problems in China and India are due to poverty, not overpopulation.

quote: You should try to get to a Chinese bus during the rush hour,

You should try getting on a New York subway during rush hour.

quote: or you should experience the water being rationed in Northern China,

Isn't water rationed in California?

quote: or you should observe the sand storm in Bei Jing because the desertification caused by people using unsuitable land for agriculture.

We had a Dust Bowl too, back in the '30's. We got over it with better education and technology.

I think is is amusing that all of your terrible indications of third world overpopulation have also been problems in the USA.

quote: I have to remind you that both Europe and Japan depend on foreign grain supplies, the former on American wheat and the latter on Asian rice.

Actually France produces 143% of the calories it needs, and Germany about 94%. I did discover that I was mistaken about current Japanese produation; they make 46% of the calories they need.

But this fails to take into account the economics of comparative advantage. If a country can do something else more efficiently, than it is to their advantage to make that thing, export it, and import the other stuff. Making all the food they need would be a lot more expensive than imports, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it.

quote: Suppose Japan is fighting another war in Asia and loses its grain supply, you will see a famine happening unpredent in human history.

No I wouldn't. America and Canada would have more than enough food to tide them over.

Great Britian provides a good example of the ability to shift to agricultural self-sufficiency. Before World War 2 it was a big food importer. After the Nazi submarines cut off their food, they decided that being dependent on food imports was a bad thing. So after World War 2 they made a lot of farm improvements and soon they produced all the calories they needed.

Edit: I always miss a backslash somewhere.

	05-12-2001 08:57									#65
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MORON no meat......

Meat is bad for you anyway. It's also incredibly inefficient; if we didn't devote so much cropland with silage we'd be swimming in excess food. A vegetarian planet would have an enormous food excess even with current technology and our current mishandling of agriculture.

quote: super high rice price..... (in Japan, Rice costs 3+ time more due to protectionism)

But they don't starve.

quote: pollution as bad as Japan? I'll pass....

Yes, their city smog is pretty bad. But so is the pollution in LA and Mexico city. Cars really are dirty and wasteful things. But they used to be worse. Pollution and gas consumption were a lot worse before fuel-efficient Japanese cars started hitting the market....

quote: (Note: Japanese population is declining thanks to low birth rates....)

Yes I know. And nobody had to lecture or force them or set up a major program to stop their reproduction.

quote: No Oil ....... no trees......

quote: Japan imports huge amounts of nature resources for its uses.

Yes, Japan is one of the most barren places on the planet in terms of natural resources. It also has an incredibly high population density. Yet somehow they seem to be managing a lot better than places with a lot more natural resources and a lot less people.

Also don't forget that a lot of those natural resources are for manufactured goods that they ship right back to other countries.

quote: However, I'd agree that without the inefficiency and waste of both human and natural resources, much more people can be support.

Good.

quote: However, it is not infinite.

Of course not. 20 billion people is a lot less than infinity, and most projections show population leveling off a lot below that, without the need for coercion. And according to the UN, the population will not level off due to famine or death or disaster.

quote: Do you want to wait 20,000 years for trees you plant today to become oil?

Of course not. That's why we genetically engineer some bacteria to mass produce the stuff from biomass.

quote: The current consumption outstrip nature's recycling ability. However, the change in technology have saved us by giving replacements faster than the resources running out.

My point exactly.

quote: Assuming people can use infinite variety of resources.... yeah right.... or not

Actually, it is within the realm of possibility that within 50 years almost all of our needs could be supplied with polymers derived entirely from renewable biomass. Du Pont is already running a plant to make polyethelyne from biomass, and that's even without genetically engineering the plants.

Edit: Just once I'd like to get all the quote tags right the first time. The scary thing is I'm a computer programmer.

	05-12-2001 20:49									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Isn't water rationed in California?


Probably, and water will be a problem before food and oil will. More and more places are having problems with water quality and availability.

	06-12-2001 02:03									#67
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns Population Density of China: 136.5 people per square kilometer Population Density of New Jersey: 402.3 people per square kilometer My grandparents live in New Jersey, and we visit them frequently. So by your logic I have experience with an area that is three times as painfully overpopulated as China. And by the way, I'm a college student. We have about 3000 residence hall dwellers on a campus with an area of less than one square kilometer. If this is "the pain of overcrowding" It can't be so bad.

That shows your complete ignorance about the geography of China. 2/3 or China's territory are virtually uninhabitable, and only 10% of the country are arable land. Shanghai has about the same area as Denver, but has at least 20 times its population. Redo your math please.

Since you have never been to China, you are not in a position to judge the effect of overcrowding.

quote: I will admit that I don't know the pain of filth and poverty. But as I've tried to show, filth and poverty has almost nothing to do with population density or overcrowding. The problems in China and India are due to poverty, not overpopulation.

Overpopulation had a smaller effect in industrial countries than agrarian ones where ownership of land was crucial. Unfortunately, both China and India were agrarian societies, with over 90% of their population being peasants. Especially China has way too low land per person ratio. The poverty was widespread, even landlords are just one or two crop failures away from starvation.

My father was born into a comparatively 'well-off' peasant family near the east coast before the end of WW2. The family owned a dozen acres land which was more than most other families in the village, and yet meat was only available during major holidays and celebrations, and rice was not always available. To gather materials for fire(the source for heating and cooking), he often had travel several of miles to chop woods at age 10, every day. Other familes were so poor that some couldn't even afford pants for all of their family members. People living in the vast inland regions were much worse off than that.

Such dire was the living condition around 1949 for the majority of Chinese population, and that condition has persisted for the previous two centuries. To compete for the already very limited resources, it was imperative for each family to have more sons. Adult sons were able to work the field, defend the family, and even go to schools. My grandfather had three sons, and that was one major reason why he was better off than most other families.

The overpopulation was the most important reason why China's population was so poor. Industrialization would have helped. But for it there was no capital. Both China and India were unlucky enough to be on the pillaging end of European powers. European powers, especially England and France, financed their transformation from agrarian to industrial society with looted wealth from their colonies.

I hope now you would understand why overpopulation is intrincably linked to poverty, and vice versa, and why it is important to break the cycle.

quote: quote: You should try to get to a Chinese bus during the rush hour, You should try getting on a New York subway during rush hour.

Another comment of total ignorance. Do you have to fight to get onto a NY subway? Do you need to professional pushers to squeeze people into a train? I speak from my own personal experience, experience I have had hundreds of times, if not thousands.

quote: quote: or you should experience the water being rationed in Northern China, Isn't water rationed in California?

The situation in Northern China is far more dangerous than California, with more than 300 millions people being endangered. And do you think it's good sign that California's water is being rationed?

quote: quote: or you should observe the sand storm in Bei Jing because the desertification caused by people using unsuitable land for agriculture. We had a Dust Bowl too, back in the '30's. We got over it with better education and technology. I think is is amusing that all of your terrible indications of third world overpopulation have also been problems in the USA.

In the 30s, the US already was far more industrialized than China today. Americans had the capital to develop new technology and fund education, China didn't.

quote: Great Britian provides a good example of the ability to shift to agricultural self-sufficiency. Before World War 2 it was a big food importer. After the Nazi submarines cut off their food, they decided that being dependent on food imports was a bad thing. So after World War 2 they made a lot of farm improvements and soon they produced all the calories they needed.

The majority of convois got through. If Nazis won the Battle of Atlantic, Britain would have surrendered.


I highly recommend you to get informed about third world countries. You displayed too much ignorance in your reply. Read more books from multiple sources, and regard any media reports with discretion, including from conservative sources.

	06-12-2001 03:51									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Back in ~1980, the late Prof. of Economics Julian Simon challenged Stanford Prof. of Biology Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb" and other books making dire environmental predictions) to a bet. Ehrlich could pick 5 commodities that should increase in price according to his predictions of gloom and doom. They would compare the prices of these commodities - tungsten, chromium, tin, copper and nickel - after 10 years.

Ehrlich lost the bet, all 5 commodities dropped in price and he had to pay Simon the aggregate drop in prices. While Simon has since passed away, Ehrlich is still out there making dire predictions while accusing economists and critics of all sorts of nefarious motives and ignorance. Population growth is a good thing, more people, more brains out there dreaming up new ways to produce value. Is there a point at which too many people will have a negative impact surpassing the positives? Who cares? If you do, have yourself cremated so we can use your remains to fertilize the crops

	06-12-2001 04:11									#69
	Support Apolyton

Population already reaches critical mass in China and India, especially China where arable land is scarce. The overpopulation and overuse of land is already turning the cradle of Chinese civilization, the Yellow River valley, into a semi-desert. Yellow River, famous for its devastating floods in old times, is now completely dry at certain places during the summer season.

Many people born in America know too little about the precarious situations other nations are in.

Last edited by Transcend on 06-12-2001 at 04:16

	06-12-2001 04:36									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Transcend, I agree with you in principle, but I think India has a worse population problem than China. India's area is only one third of China's (and not all of it is arable/productive) and the population is growing much faster. The problem in China is pretty bad too.

BTW: Some people seem to have misinterpreted the issue here. They think that what is being proposed is coercive lowering of the birth rate, but this is not the case. Numerous studies show that many people in the developing world would like to have fewer children, but they don't have the choice (other than abstinence). It would merely be enough to enable these people to have a choice on how many children they want to have and population growth would slow down to much more managable levels.

	06-12-2001 04:38									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Overpopulation is also this forums' problem

	06-12-2001 04:49									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Such dire was the living condition around 1949 for the majority of Chinese population, and that condition has persisted for the previous two centuries. To compete for the already very limited resources, it was imperative for each family to have more sons. Adult sons were able to work the field, defend the family, and even go to schools. My grandfather had three sons, and that was one major reason why he was better off than most other families.

Doesn't this have far more to do with politics and culture rather than population?

quote: I hope now you would understand why overpopulation is intrincably linked to poverty, and vice versa, and why it is important to break the cycle.

Then by logical extension you would have to believe that the USA is also over populated (or any country in the world for that matter) as the USA also has a proportion of "poor" people living well within its borders.

quote: In the 30s, the US already was far more industrialized than China today. Americans had the capital to develop new technology and fund education, China didn't.

Again politics and culture. China has more than enough human capital to have built a massive infrastructure and instead it choose to remain in the dark ages. You seem to be suggesting America had capital simply because it lacked population.

How much of all this is linked to China's isolationist politics and military dictatorships and not over population?

	06-12-2001 05:02									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm not too familiar with the situation in India so I can't comment too much about it. But I was born in China and lived there for more than a decade, and I have visited it from time to time. The last time I was in Beijing, I experienced the sand storm first hand. It was awful and scary.

The cause for the sand storm is the desertification of Inner Mongolian pasture land. Since the time of Emperor Qianlong(1736-1796), China had experienced a rapid growth of it population. Millions of people were losing their land due to the overpopulation in core provinces, and some of them tried their luck in the pasture land of Inner Mongolia. As you know, without sophiscated irrigation technology, which these poor farmers didn't have, such pasture land could easily turn into deserts. After 2 centuries of those developments, the desert has literally pushed into the suburbs of Beijing. Since the 60s, the government has been trying desperately to reforest the area hoping to push back the desert. But demand after burning materials by local farmers again and again frustated these attempts. Not until the late 80s, after the population finally stablized and people's standard of living increased, did the newly planted forest have a chance of survival.

For the people who don't know, China has only 7% of world's arable land, but has to support 20% of the world's population. If the Chinese crop yield experiences only a 5% deficit, the entire world grain export will not be able to help China. Even with the population control, China's future is still hanging in balance.

It really infuriates me that these native born Americans, who have lived their whole life in conformtable, uncrowded places, and who know nothing about other countries's dire situations, and who are only immersed in their own religious dogma, still bemoan the very policy those countries introduced to save themselves. Shame on these Americans!

	06-12-2001 05:20									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by WhiteElephants Doesn't this have far more to do with politics and culture rather than population?

Did you read my post throughouly? I stated clearly that lack of land was the main cause for the poverty of peasants in China, who made up 90+% of the population back then, and what caused the lack of land? Too many people.

quote: Then by logical extension you would have to believe that the USA is also over populated (or any country in the world for that matter) as the USA also has a proportion of "poor" people living well within its borders.

In 1949, even the poor Americans were compared rich to Middle Class Chinese. The percentage of Chinese living in poverty was several times higher than America. At least 99.999% of Americans could afford a pair of wool pants.

quote: Again politics and culture. China has more than enough human capital to have built a massive infrastructure and instead it choose to remain in the dark ages. You seem to be suggesting America had capital simply because it lacked population.

Human capital? If 90% of the population were illiterate and many without land, how could they contribute effectively? You can do it like the depotism in Civ3, but even Communists and Japanese weren't that ruthless. As for material and financial capitals, they were completely lacking. World powers back then were not as nice as today.

quote: How much of all this is linked to China's isolationist politics and military dictatorships and not over population?

If you read my comparison about India and China in the first page of this thread, you will see that Communists were NOT at fault for China's poverty.
Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control. Now the growth rate is just a little bit higher than the US.

	06-12-2001 05:24									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Transcend It really infuriates me that these native born Americans, who have lived their whole life in conformtable, uncrowded places, and who know nothing about other countries's dire situations, and who are only immersed in their own religious dogma, still bemoan the very policy those countries introduced to save themselves. Shame on these Americans!

You wouldn't be refering to the death penalities dolled out to drug offenders and even those caught for tax evasion, would you?

From Amnesty International:

quote: AI-index: ASA 17/009/2001 12/04/2001 printer friendly format 12 April 2001 AI Index ASA 17/009/2001 - News Service Nr. 68 China: Day of death The execution of at least 89 convicted criminals yesterday in China, shows an appalling lack of respect for human life and will do little to curb China's rising crime rate, Amnesty International said today. "Like the other 'strike-hard' campaigns before it, this latest crackdown is unlikely to solve the crime problem. The Chinese government only has to look to the USA to see that executing people has no effect on the level of crime," the organization said. The official Chinese news agency has reported a 50% increase in crime since 1999, which is evidence that extensive use of the death penalty is not working. "Of great concern is that this blitz on human life increases the chances of miscarriages of justice. The rush to rid society of 'hardened criminals' could result in the execution of innocent people." Amnesty International is appealing to the Chinese government to stop all executions and review the use of the death penalty with a view to abolishing it.

What about the wonderful world of torture? This article hit home with regards to this thread and as you know Transcend I would hardly call AI a conservative organization.

quote: AI-index: ASA 17/003/2001 formatAI Index ASA 17/003/2001 - News Service Nr. 10 Embargoed for : 12/02/2001 16:00 GMT China: Extensive use of torture - from police to tax collectors to birth control officialsWhen officials from a township birth control office got a hold of Zhou Jiangxiong in May 1998, they hung him upside down, repeatedly whipped and beat him with wooden clubs, burned him with cigarette butts, branded him with soldering irons, and ripped his genitals off. The 30-year-old farmer from Hunan province was tortured to death because the officials were trying to make him reveal the whereabouts of his wife, suspected of being pregnant without permission.

	06-12-2001 05:56									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Transcend If you read my comparison about India and China in the first page of this thread, you will see that Communists were NOT at fault for China's poverty. Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control. Now the growth rate is just a little bit higher than the US.

Actually, I remember reading a statistic that back in 1980s the Chinese Communist Party aimed to curb population growth in such a way that it would peak at slightly 1.2 billion in the year 2000 and then slowly decline to 700 million. After that it was supposed to stabilize at this level, as this was considered an environmentally/long term sustainable population for China, producing sufficient food surplasses not to have to rely on foreigners even in the worst of times. Basically, they thought that would be the ideal population for China. The plan obviously did not work and the Chinese population is prrojected to reach 1.5 billion by 2030. Can you remember anything more about this? What is their revised "ideal" level for China's population?

	06-12-2001 06:06									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

WE, why don't you go ahead and read my other posts in this thread?

We are talking about population control, a policy I support with great approval, and not about AI complaints. AI complains about America, too. Does that mean I have to disagree with everything the US government does?

Amnesty International is an organization I don't respect much. They complain and complain without offering any solutions. They are just like many religious groups who tried to impose of their world view on everyone else. Their slogans may sound pretty. Their causes may seem to be noble. But they can't solve any real-world difficulties. Their insistence to investigate the prison revolt in Mazar-i-Sharif was a complete sham. Why didn't they investigate the WTC bombing instead? Their opposition to the war in Afghanistan is completely reality-detached. In their narrow-minded world view, Roosevelt, Churchill, and many other great world leaders would be labeled as war criminals, terrorists, tyrants, etc...

Finally, if you go to China and ask people about the corrupt officials, you will get an uniform answer: SHOOT THEM.

	06-12-2001 06:11									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Roman Actually, I remember reading a statistic that back in 1980s the Chinese Communist Party aimed to curb population growth in such a way that it would peak at slightly 1.2 billion in the year 2000 and then slowly decline to 700 million. After that it was supposed to stabilize at this level, as this was considered an environmentally/long term sustainable population for China, producing sufficient food surplasses not to have to rely on foreigners even in the worst of times. Basically, they thought that would be the ideal population for China. The plan obviously did not work and the Chinese population is prrojected to reach 1.5 billion by 2030. Can you remember anything more about this? What is their revised "ideal" level for China's population?

The target was 1.2 billion by year 2000. The target was missed by about 100 million. Well, still good enough. Current target is to prevent the population to go beyond 1.6 billion. If the economy keeps going up and a social security system is installed, I don't see why this target can't be achieved.

	06-12-2001 06:31									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Transcend WE, why don't you go ahead and read my other posts in this thread? We are talking about population control, a policy I support with great approval, and not about AI complaints. AI complains about America, too. Does that mean I have to disagree with everything the US government does?

I've read this whole thread. My point was that you were trying to point to China and India as cases for population control claiming their woes stemed from too many people while my arguement was that their culture and politics have more to do with their precarious predicaments than the size of their population.

quote: Finally, if you go to China and ask people about the corrupt officials, you will get an uniform answer: SHOOT THEM.

I don't think I need to tell you this, but actions speak louder than words my friend.

	06-12-2001 06:36									#80
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control. Now the growth rate is just a little bit higher than the US.

I find it ironic that the "magnificent rise" of the Chinese economy and standard of living coincides not only with the popluation growth being brought under control, but also with the fall of Russian Commnunism. Hmm...

I'd be interested to hear your rationale of the decline in population growth effecting the economy as in either case you'd still have too many people and as you've already indicated too many people is the result of poverty, no?

	06-12-2001 08:14									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ah WE, my comparison for India and China was addressed at Richard Brun. I wanted to show him that democracy is not a guarantee that a country will flourish. The comparison of India and China serves exactly this purpose.

I should have made clearer that high population growth is the result of poverty, and the widespread poverty of Chinese peasants was directly caused by overpopulation during the imperial times.

Certainly, the recent boom of Chinese economy has more to do with reforms carried out in the early 50s and then in late 70s. Despite the annual growth rate of 10+% over these years, there are currently 200-300 million Chinese underemployed, meaning they really contribute little to the GDP, but more to social instability. Also, it is exactly the underemployed who committed the bulk of crimes, especially violent ones. Without population control, these people could easily be increased by another 200 million. Now that would be a scary proposition.

	06-12-2001 09:08									#82
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Yellow River, famous for its devastating floods in old times, is now completely dry at certain places during the summer season.

You serious !?

quote: Doesn't this have far more to do with politics and culture rather than population?

Well, such politics and culture do play a role, but would be of no effect if China has the population density....of say Canada.

quote: China has more than enough human capital to have built a massive infrastructure and instead it choose to remain in the dark ages.

China tried.... (thinks the great leap forward......................millions died in great famines...since the farm labors were required to industrilization)

Well, anyway, China is far more developed than it was 20 years ago.

quote: How much of all this is linked to China's isolationist politics and military dictatorships and not over population?

A country trying every trick to get into WTO isolationist?

quote: You wouldn't be refering to the death penalities dolled out to drug offenders and even those caught for tax evasion, would you?

WTF. Linking two unrelated stuff together. Are you telling me that Texas is using capital punishment for population control? Unless we have mass killing on scale of Stalin or Hitler, China's population won't feel a dent.

quote: I've read this whole thread. My point was that you were trying to point to China and India as cases for population control claiming their woes stemed from too many people while my arguement was that their culture and politics have more to do with their precarious predicaments than the size of their population.

Population, culture and politics all adds to the problem. Without the population, the problem wouldn't exist. Solving the other problems seems easier but is in fact not much easier. Culture? Both had thousands of years of years behind them. Politics? Communist and Democracy plagued by violence and uneducated? Development? Lack of capital and highly educated. Sure somethings are improving, but not at a fast rate.

quote: Overpopulation is also this forums' problem

....only if ot counts....

	06-12-2001 09:55									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MORON You serious !?

Yes, I saw it with my own eyes when my train crossed the river near Zhengzhou last summer.

	06-12-2001 20:35									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Gee, I forgot about this thing and lots of stuff went up while I was gone. Some interesting discussion on both sides!

A few things to address. I am not a gloom and doomer I wasn't calling for an apocalypse or anything. I didn't make any predictions. I'm not pretending to be a prophet.

The whole basic idea of this thread IMO was to think about quality over quantity. I am talking about IMPROVING the overall quality of life and the quality of the planet. If one can't see the damage that has already been done to the earth in our very short time of being here, then they are blind. Sure, we can make lots of subsitutes and come up with brilliant ideas, but the fact of the matter is, there is still sprawl. Urban areas are slowly but surely consuming nature. And believe me it's not at all slowing down. Yes, there is plenty of room still, but why do we want more urban and less rural? How many animals have we made extinct because of rising demands? How many are close to being extinct? Plenty.

More people= more resources used, regardless of technology. It could be 100 years from now. It could be 1000, or 10000. But at some point, if the population doesnt level off, there will be a massive world wide issue.

I think it was richard that asked if americans should feel like they should limit their baby making. Well, the answer is yes! PARTICULARLY Americans. Why? Because we have lots of money, and lots of disregard for anything but ourselves. As the biggest consumers in the world, we are the biggest wasters and throw away society on the planet. We almost all have fundamental items like tv's cars, microwaves etc. and they are all built to last for a very finite amount of time. It's very often cheaper to buy new things in the US than repair them. And all these plastics and artificial materials get pitched. Most americans don't recycle! And hundreds of new homes are built every day, just a little further on the outskirts of an urban area. Soon suburbs become urban and rural becomes suburban. Do we notice it in our lifetimes? Perhaps not, but it is happening everywhere, particularly in the US.

Waste waste waste. Throw litter all over the place. Walking through cities is usually un-pleasant, just for the amount of trash on the grounds and the stench of exaughst and smog. Is that living? Is that what we should strive for?

More americans= more waste, more pollution, more abuse of resources. We SHOULD be limited to having a certain amount of kids, but the government would never consider it. Why? Well that would be bad for business of course!

Everyone knows things not used in moderation, in excess always causes problems....and the same is the case for population. Some day it will reach the point where people become too excessive for the planet to bear.

Ahh, but what do we care? It won't effect us
Right?

	06-12-2001 21:42									#85
	WHAT WILL HAPPEN SOONER OR LATER Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Is
1. we will go to the moon or beyond...
or
2. we will have have a WWIII that will decimate the population
or
3. we will have diseases that will decimate the population
or
4. the economy will crash, and a lot of people will live in poverty, but this is in place on most of the earths surface so the rich (west) lives off the poor, and this is the way it will stay for a long time, and they will die there so that we may live here using their resources to live in abundance... if they get rich too than eventually we will both get poor (te environment will not be able to support us like the rabbits on that island), or more likely there will be a war that will decimate the population.

	06-12-2001 22:49									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

5. A way to sustain a larger number people on Earth is discovered.

If people can be uploaded and the Earth is converted into a computer, it can contain ten to the somethingeth people. (Where "something" is a number much larger than 10).

	07-12-2001 02:15									#87
	Tired of ads?

Dr. Oogkloot : I don't think that these can be considered proper living conditions . a human is a human , mind AND body !

to help the humanity from taking a step behing we must take a step forward . we MUST do it , because the current situation is leading us to fall back to middle age society . that's why we must :

1) Invent Fusion Power.
2) GM crops are OK , but be smart , scurpulous testing before release .
3) Family planning everywhere ! no country with more than 3 kids per household average ! ( as a first step )
4) Gene therapy , Genetical Tailoring to correct mutations . NOTE : unknown mutations shouldn't be treated as dangerous. The child should be allowed to be born naturally . mutations known as bad should be treated . (and yes we can judge that )
5) full free education . if that is achieved, I wouldn't mind capitalism , even... ( what's wrong with me ??! )
6) space , baby

	07-12-2001 02:51									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Transcend That shows your complete ignorance about the geography of China. 2/3 or China's territory are virtually uninhabitable, and only 10% of the country are arable land. Shanghai has about the same area as Denver, but has at least 20 times its population. Redo your math please.

I knew that. As I said, my math was not serious. You were using one part of a country as evidence to make judgements about the whole thing. The difficulties involved in getting on a train, however spectacular, are not the most compelling evidence regarding the state of an entire country. At most it indicates a bad public transportation system. I was trying to show how meaningless such anecdotes are by throwing out some meaningless ones of my own.

quote: Since you have never been to China, you are not in a position to judge the effect of overcrowding.

I know conditions are bad. But I dispute that overcrowding is the primary problem.

quote: Overpopulation had a smaller effect in industrial countries than agrarian ones where ownership of land was crucial.

Which is why every effort must be made to allow agrarian countries to become industrial. If 90% of the people are farmers, there will be poverty. But if all the farming is done by about 2% of the people, like it is in industrialized countries, then 98% rather than 10% of the population is free to get educated and create other kinds of wealth.

quote: From the CIA factbook After 1978, his successor DENG Xiaoping gradually introduced market-oriented reforms and decentralized economic decision making. Output quadrupled in the next 20 years and China now has the world's second largest GDP.

By starting to abandnon Russian-style centralized communist planning, the government is helping matters. They made GDP quadruple even while population was increasing and overcrowding getting worse.

quote: Unfortunately, both China and India were agrarian societies, with over 90% of their population being peasants.

That is the problem. Poverty, and agricultural inefficiency. Crop yields are far lower than they are in industrial countries, even on similar land. The problem, as you pointed out yourself, is that the land is not being used properly.

[/q]The overpopulation was the most important reason why China's population was so poor.

quote: Look at the average Chinese standard of living in 1700. Compare it to the standard of living in 2000. Is there any difference? Yes, the people in 2000 are better off, as you pointed out with your figures form the factbook. How could that have happened if population is the main thing that causes poverty? [q]Industrialization would have helped. But for it there was no capital. Both China and India were unlucky enough to be on the pillaging end of European powers.

There is capital now. Companies all over the world are pouring capital into China, now that their economy has freed up. Industry is developing rapidly and much wealth is being created. Or is this another lie spread by the news magazines like The Economist that I spend about 2 hours a day reading in the library?

quote: European powers, especially England and France, financed their transformation from agrarian to industrial society with looted wealth from their colonies.

Their industrialization was what gave them the ability to loot the colonies. It came first. Manchester was full of factories long before the Brits started ruining China.

quote: I hope now you would understand why overpopulation is intrincably linked to poverty, and vice versa, and why it is important to break the cycle.

My entire focus is that we should break the cycle by addressing poverty, not by addressing population. If we deal with poverty, population will take care of itself without the need for draconian measures.

quote: Americans had the capital to develop new technology and fund education, China didn't.

And that is what we must change. The key, as I keep saying, is education and poverty. Population is a secondary concern.

quote: The majority of convois got through. If Nazis won the Battle of Atlantic, Britain would have surrendered.

I know that most of the convoys got through. But it was the possibility of worse that scared them. My point was that they were able to dramatically increase their food production once they put effort and capital into it.

quote: Population already reaches critical mass in China and India, especially China where arable land is scarce.

In England, Ireland, and many other places around 1800, population was reaching critical mass. Rural poverty was rampant, and people hardly had enough land to support their families. The country's food production was critical and a failure in food production could and did mean the deaths of millions. Corrupt landlords abused their people in the countries, and the masses of urban poor were similarly oppressed.

Sound familiar? It should. The good news is that they got over the situation. First they got rid of the corrupt officials. Then they applied scientific methods to farming, increasing crop yields while simultaneously freeing the poor from the horrors of subsistence farming.

Now they are far richer, and they don't worry about food and other essentials. This despite the fact that the poopulations are now a lot larger.

Nothing prevents this from happening again.

quote: The cause for the sand storm is the desertification of Inner Mongolian pasture land. Since the time of Emperor Qianlong(1736-1796), China had experienced a rapid growth of it population. Millions of people were losing their land due to the overpopulation in core provinces, and some of them tried their luck in the pasture land of Inner Mongolia. As you know, without sophiscated irrigation technology, which these poor farmers didn't have, such pasture land could easily turn into deserts.

Change a few words and you just described our Dust Bowl. We got over it, and I have every confidence that you can too. And American rural poverty in the 30's was just as bad as Chinese poverty now. Ever read Steinbeck books? Lots of people couldn't afford good clothes or beans.

quote: Also the magnificent rise of Chinese economy and standard of living in the last 20 years coincided with the population growth being brought under control.

quote: Certainly, the recent boom of Chinese economy has more to do with reforms carried out in the early 50s and then in late 70s.

So which one is it? Are you saying that poverty was alleviated by economic reform or by population coltrol?

There's something else I don't understand. First you complain about the terrible conditions in China, then you use figures from a CIA publication to say India is a worse place than China. Also you say that everyone wants to shoot the corrupt officials, while at the same time saying that these Communist officials are doing the right thing for the country. It seems that you are simultaneously condmming and defending your country and government. I thought Americans were the only people who display that odd behavior.

quote: For the people who don't know, China has only 7% of world's arable land, but has to support 20% of the world's population.

Congratulations. You just proved that the world is capable of tripling its food production.

	07-12-2001 03:10									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by drake If one can't see the damage that has already been done to the earth in our very short time of being here, then they are blind.

No one disputes the fact that damage was done. The point is that population is not directly responsible for that damage. Most industrialized countries were far more polluted in teh past than they were today, even though there are more people. Places like the Great Lakes have been cleaned up as industries were forced to be cleaner.

quote: Sure, we can make lots of subsitutes and come up with brilliant ideas, but the fact of the matter is, there is still sprawl. Urban areas are slowly but surely consuming nature. And believe me it's not at all slowing down.

This is mainly an American problem. If you've been to or flown over western Europe you've seen that they don't have suburban sprawl, at least not enough to be statistically significant. Villages and cities don't grow in size they way they do here.

Even though their population density is a lot higher, they have less negative impact on the environment than we do.

quote: More people= more resources used, regardless of technology.

Nope, sorry. That simply isn't the case. If current developments in chenistry and biology continue, it will be possible to support a wealthy, advanced civilization with little more than biomass.

Consider that so many things that were once considered critical resources are now cheaper and less in demand. For example, the German war machine almost shut down for lack of molybdenium and cobalt but now there isn't any hint of a supply problem. This was reflected in the Ehrich bet.

quote: It could be 100 years from now. It could be 1000, or 10000. But at some point, if the population doesnt level off, there will be a massive world wide issue.

Do you have any idea of the kind of technology we might have in 1000 years if current development trends continue? Compare 1900 and 2000, and extrapolate. Even assuming linear growth you get unheard of advances, and there are many indications that tech growth is exponential in the right situations.

Remember that people, even advanced human societies, don't really need steel or oil or silicon or uranium. We could easily grow beyond the need for such things long before they run out.

----
If I forgot to address soneone's important point, let me know. It wasn't intentional; it's easy to miss stuff.

	07-12-2001 04:36									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by drake I think it was richard that asked if americans should feel like they should limit their baby making. Well, the answer is yes! PARTICULARLY Americans. Why? Because we have lots of money, and lots of disregard for anything but ourselves. As the biggest consumers in the world, we are the biggest wasters and throw away society on the planet.

I case you forgot, or don't know, we Americans also produce the most so naturally we use the most as well. Now if we didn't produce the most and still used the most then we'd have a problem, but as it stands I don't see it that way. Mind you, the reason our ancestors crossed Oceans in steerage class was to have more, not less. There are plenty of places in the world where people have less, a lot less. If that's what you're looking for I implore you to seek them out and live up all the lessness you can get.

quote: More americans= more waste, more pollution, more abuse of resources. We SHOULD be limited to having a certain amount of kids, but the government would never consider it. Why? Well that would be bad for business of course!

Well that's one way to look at it, or you could also look at it as more americans = more production, hence more commodities. You also seem to be unaware of the impending crisis that is about to befall you and I when the baby boomer generation begins retiring leaving more people retired than in the work force. The problem being that the baby boomers haven't produced enough children to fill the large work force, not that there were too many baby boomers born. If that was the case there would be a far higher unemployment rate. Unless of coure you believe the US is over populated now?