David Lloyd-Jones

Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
David
Lloyd-Jones wrote:
D. Long wrote:

x-no-archive: yes
"David Lloyd-Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Â

Take a look at the sentence you're
replying to, above. Or let me repeat
it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
standards of living exist along with high densities. Â


  High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
Â


Your call: what do you want?

You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
population density that meets them.

Like maybe... Calcutta?

If the question was curry, fish cuisine that
might be the answer.
Â
Like I said, whatever makes your toes twitch, population density is not
necessarily its enemy.
Â
For complex things, like say civilization, where communications is an
important ingredient in making the show come off, the general tendency
is for population density to be good. This is why New York is the
effective capital of the world, with everything else taken care of
pretty much by Tokyo, London, Paris, Beijing and a few other
high-interaction entrepots.
Â
High density is obviously unfortunate in some cases. Africa has villages
of hundreds of thousands of people which seem to me major-league horror
stories, but this is not because of their density. It's because they
are villages. I live on a block of Toronto which has a population
density like Hong Kong's or Manila's (which is where many of the people
come from), and the main result is smiling children in the elevators
and good varied shops on the streets. There's a difference: Manila is
roughly 50% farmland inside its city limits, and Hong Kong more. Here
at Jameson and King in Toronto the only farmland we ever see is across
the lake on a clear day in summer.

To make sense in this debate, it seems to me, you have to distinguish
between density, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and more
relevant things. If the dense population have a coherent -- or even,
like Toronto, an agreeably incoherent -- culture, a functioning
economy, and a sufficient intellectual base, then more population tends
to mean more wealth.
Â
Net net, most places in the world are congregating their populations
and abandoning their ghost villages, because most places in the world
these conditions are met. Density often, perhaps generally, means
higher standards of everything.
Â
                                   Â
   -dlj.

Â

Actualgeek

In article ,
Fred Elbel wrote:

    >
    > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:49:22 -0800, ActualGeek
    > > > wrote:
    >
    > > > > Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
    > > > > "stabilize" the population.
    >
    >
    > > In article ,
    > > Fred Elbel wrote:
    >
    > > > You bigoted sack of shit masquerading as an intemperate asshole.
    > > > Don't pull that racist shit on me. There's not one *word* of racism
    > > > in discussion that I have posted.
    >
    >
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:37:14 -0800, ActualGeek
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Actually, I hadn't made the connection to racism at that point
    >
    > Bull farts. Don't tell me you didn't make a racist slur. The only
    > reason you didn't call me a Nazi was because of your subjacent fear of
    > Goodwin's law.
    >
    >
    >
    > > So when fascists like yourself want to oppress rich people, the ovens
    > > are exactyl the correct end solution you advocate, and for the same
    > > reasons.
    >
    > Oh, so now I'm a fascist?


Yes, modern environmentalism has, at its root, the fascist & socialist
ideology that worked so well for Hitler and Stalin (ironic that they
went to war against each other.)

When I see an environmentalist actually using science, then I'll have
met an environmentalist I agree with.

I'm an environmentalist and a trained scientist.

You are a quack with nothing to back your theories but a lot of
fabricated numbers.




    >
    > Fascism, noun : "A political theory advocating an authoritarian
    > hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)".
    >
    > Where the *hell* did you come up that out of the depths of your
    > somnolent remnants of consciousness? Was it something you imagined I
    > said - specific cite, please.
    >
    >
    > > Not really racist pur-se, but advocating mass murder, yep.
    >
    > Now I'm a mass murderer? Goddam, I better start writing my
    > autobiography!
    >
    >
    >
    > > This whole "Carrying capacity" crap is a big lie in an ottempt to
    > > enslave everybody under your brand of socialism.
    >
    > HAHAHAHA HEEE HEEE Ohhhh! HOHOHOHO
    >
    >
    > Fred Elbel
    > EcoFuture (TM) environmental references:
    > http://www.ecofuture.org/

Fred Elbel

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:02:26 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    > > Oh, so now I'm a fascist?

    >
    > Yes, modern environmentalism has, at its root, the fascist & socialist
    > ideology that worked so well for Hitler and Stalin (ironic that they
    > went to war against each other.)
    >
    > When I see an environmentalist actually using science, then I'll have
    > met an environmentalist I agree with.
    >
    > I'm an environmentalist and a trained scientist.

And I'm President of Mars.


HAHAHAHA HEEE HEEE WHOOOO! WHOOOOO!

Hanuman

Fred Elbel wrote:
X-Invalid: >
    > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20: 06:07 +1300, 1980 wrote:
X-Invalid: >
X-Invalid: > > Yeah, and when 1 billion chinese knocks on your door, you'll justQ
try
X-Invalid: > > really hard to ignore them.
X-Invalid: >
X-Invalid: > Actually, it will be 1.6 billion (China is already at 1.3 billion).Q
X-Invalid: >
X-Invalid: > And as long as we have an excess to export. I'm worried that we
X-Invalid: > won't. U.S. population itself is projected to double this century.Q
X-Invalid: >
Comments: Sent through Holodeck Anonymous Remailer
X-Remailer-Contact: [email protected]

US has some 5% of world population and consumes some 35%
of its resources.

Its share of consumption of world resources is not sustainable.

Squanto

Hanuman wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > X-Invalid: >
    > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20: 06:07 +1300, 1980 wrote:
    > X-Invalid: >
    > X-Invalid: > > Yeah, and when 1 billion chinese knocks on your door,
you'll justQ
    > try
    > X-Invalid: > > really hard to ignore them.
    > X-Invalid: >
    > X-Invalid: > Actually, it will be 1.6 billion (China is already at 1.3
billion).Q
    > X-Invalid: >
    > X-Invalid: > And as long as we have an excess to export. I'm worried that
we
    > X-Invalid: > won't. U.S. population itself is projected to double this
century.Q
    > X-Invalid: >
    > Comments: Sent through Holodeck Anonymous Remailer
    > X-Remailer-Contact: [email protected]
    > US has some 5% of world population and consumes some 35%
    > of its resources.
    > Its share of consumption of world resources is not sustainable.

But, altering the equation is that some of the resources used create end
products that are shipped for consumption elsewhere.

This can be witnessed in the massive amounts of food pouring out of the
freighters in lands suffering famine, etc.

Not to deny that America does use a large portion of the world's resources
but, we can not discount that at least a portion of the end result of those
resources assists people across the globe.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

John F. Opie

On 11 Mar 2003 06:10:01 -0000, Hanuman wrote:

    >Fred Elbel wrote:
    >X-Invalid: >
    >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20: 06:07 +1300, 1980 wrote:
    >X-Invalid: >
    >X-Invalid: > > Yeah, and when 1 billion chinese knocks on your door, you'll justQ
    > try
    >X-Invalid: > > really hard to ignore them.
    >X-Invalid: >
    >X-Invalid: > Actually, it will be 1.6 billion (China is already at 1.3 billion).Q
    >X-Invalid: >
    >X-Invalid: > And as long as we have an excess to export. I'm worried that we
    >X-Invalid: > won't. U.S. population itself is projected to double this century.Q
    >X-Invalid: >
    >Comments: Sent through Holodeck Anonymous Remailer
    >X-Remailer-Contact: [email protected]
    >US has some 5% of world population and consumes some 35%
    >of its resources.
    >Its share of consumption of world resources is not sustainable.
Sigh.

5% of the world's population also produces close to 40% of its GDP,
the same who use 35% of its resources: and I say use, not consume. Big
difference. Or do you seriously propose that the earth's resources be
evenly distributed?

John

Narnia Fan

[email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote in message news:...

    > I´ve never implied that infinite population growth is possible, nor
    > desirable, nor likely. I´m Tim Worstall, not Julian Simon.

Even the real Julian Simon may not be the fictional Julian
Simon who is implied by this exchange.

Can you find a place where Simon argues that
infinite population growth is possible?

Can you find a place where Simon argues that
infinite population growth is desirable?

Can you find a place where Simon argues that
infinite population growth is likely?

I haven't finished reading "The Ultimate Resource 2"
by Simon, but so far, I don't think he makes those
claims.

Or in other words, Fred Elbel falsely accused you
of going overboard, and you denied it by
accusing someone else (Simon) of going overboard.

NarniaFan