Mason Clark

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:15:51 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:

Among impenetrable gobs of html:

    >Part of the reason I think we should be settling space is that this
    >state of nothing-but-spiritual-progress seems to me to threaten us only
    >a couple of generations in the future. It's really urgent that we have
    >at least some places where chunks of the human race are safe from just
    >sitting around being primped by our machines.

"Settling space"? It's happened again. David has fallen off
his rocker.

Mason C ok, ok, I'll get at posting the Barney Oliver analysis....

Tiny Human Ferret

Carlos Antunes wrote:
    > "Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>>Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again.
    >>Cites, please.
    >
    >
    > You may start by reading the article I provided. In any case, if Malthus
    > were right, we would be all starting by now, something that is obviously not
    > happening.

Malthus _is_ right. He always has been, and he always will be... except for
one little thing: humans have a _choice_ to restrain their population
growth. Animals do not, nor did humans through most of their history.

Malthus's "dismal equation" has two "outs". One is restraint on the natural
increase of population; we can do this, and the US-born population has been
doing this since the mid-1970s. The other "out" is the advance of
technology, or in the case of the so-called "green revolution", a lot of
luck. The serendipitous discovery of disease-resistant high-yeild rice was
not a human technical advance, but was simply Nature handing over a gift. We
cannot rely on such a thing occurring again "just in the nick of time", and
we cannot rely on human technical advances, because we are at the limit of
such advances, or so close to that limit that the "law of diminishing
returns" begins to make advances possible, but inaffordable in terms of the
scale of increased productivity that will be required if we continue to
allow the population to grow.

In any case, our problem right now isn't so much food, but safe water.



--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Actualgeek

In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:

    > ActualGeek wrote in message
    > news:ActualGeek-AD63A9.1944431402200....supernews.com...
    > > In article ,
    > > "tonyp" wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Oliver Costich" wrote
    > > >
    > > > > Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
    > > > > reduces productivity and places a higher burden
    > > > > on the system which contains the SSA.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
    > > > That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
    > > >
    > >
    > > He thinks that because they are being replaced with people who are just
    > > starting their careers (immigrants) that we're losing out.
    > >
    > > He misses the fact that otherwise they'd be replaced by NOBODY.
    > >
    > > And that the ones replaced by american kids are also replaced by people
    > > just starting their careers.
    > >
    > > And yet, if there are more immigrants added than there are retiries,
    > > then productivity goes UP because the size of the working set is larger.
    > >
    > > He's giving a lot of typical liberal voodoo economics.
    >
    > And.... the Greenspic specialist shows ignorance of matters scientific.
    >
    > Can Greenspic envision an America overflowing with a billion or more people?
    >
    > View overcrowded 3rd-world countries of today. Therein is America if the
    > population keeps increasing.

Uh, No. You guys sure are ignorant. Learn some economics and history.

Actualgeek

In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:

    > ActualGeek wrote in message
    > news:ActualGeek-F4C15F.1912211402200....supernews.com...
    > > In article ,
    > > Oliver Costich wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:15:51 -0800, ActualGeek
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >In article ,
    > > > > Oliver Costich wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force
    > and
    > > > >> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively
    > low, we
    > > > >> >are
    > > > >> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized
    > acceleration
    > > > >> >of
    > > > >> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years
    > or a
    > > > >> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in
    > train
    > > > >> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a
    > decade's
    > > > >> >time.
    > > > >> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment
    > sooner
    > > > >> >rather than later."
    > > > >> >
    > > > >>
    > > > >> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
    > > > >> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
    > > > >> retire.
    > > > >
    > > > >He is not making that assumption.
    > > >
    > > > Of course he is. He's not stupid. Replacing retirees with lower paid
    > > > immigrants reduces productivity and places a higher burden on the
    > > > system which contains the SSA.
    > >
    > > But it grows the economy, which lowers the burden.
    > >
    > > Dont' they teach economics anymore?
    >
    > A cancerous tumor grows.

Yes, but irrelevant.

    > Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?

Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
don't you?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -----= 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! =-----

Actualgeek

In article ,
Fred Elbel wrote:
    > > You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but elucidating
    > > article:
    > > http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html
    >
    > Oh come on, now. Just because technology has postponed the inevitable
    > doesn't it will postponed indefinitely. Carrying capacity is already
    > being exceeded (at present rates of consumption). We're stealing from
    > our children for the sake of today's profits.
    >
    > I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
    > "more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
    > after it is too late to reduce our numbers.


When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
about "Enough" and I might listen.

Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
to fight poverty.

Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
money back home.

Immigration is not what changes birth rates-- education is. And
education comes from not being poor anymore.

You let people immigrate here, the economy grows, they send money back
home, their grandkids go to college and have fewer children.

This becomes a self feeding cycle that reduces population and poverty at
the same time.

On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
too many kids.

Actualgeek

In article ,
[email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:

    > Fred Elbel wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > > "Fred Elbel" wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > Of course, in doing so, we will outstrip the carrying capacity of our
    > > > > own country, wreak havoc upon our environment as well as upon the
    > > > > environment of contries from which we draw down resources.
    > >
    > >
    > > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:48:28 GMT, "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
    > > > Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again. I hope you aren't also
    > > > a
    > > > member of the Flat Earth Society.
    > >
    > >
    > > No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
    > > growth is impossible on a finite planet.
    >
    > It´s a cute phrase but wrong. Infinite growth is not just possible but
    > virtually certain.
    >
    > Consider :
    > Imagine a world with a stable population, full recycling, renewable
    > energy, and no new appropriation of resources....no new mining, for
    > example, just the endless recycling of those metals we have already
    > extracted.
    > Would we still see economic growth ? Yes indeed we would. Because
    > technology would still advance. Humans being the curious creatures
    > that we are, people would still dream up new ways to do things, and
    > some of these new ways would require less resources than the previous
    > way of doing things. Current world examples might be computer chips,
    > in that we use less silicon each generation of chips to perform the
    > same number of calculations.....this frees silicon to be used to make
    > solar cells. Or plating technologies....gold plating on chip
    > connectors has gone from 20 micron to 2 micron in 30 years, freeing
    > gold to be used for , say, dental caps.
    > New technologies tend to use less resources than the old ones they
    > replace. So even in a world of limited resource use, as technology
    > advances, resources become avaliable for us to do other or new things
    > with them. Another phrase for doing new things is economic growth.We
    > will continue to have such growth until one of three things happens :
    > Humans disappear, the universe runs down, or we discover everything.
    > None seem imminent.
    >
    > So, finite earth not allowing infinite growth is a cute phrase, but
    > provably wrong.

You won't reach him, but I got a lot out of your pointing that out.

Thanks!

Squanto

ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-14C2F0.1605351602200....supernews.com...
    > In article ,
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > > > You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but
elucidating
    > > > article:
    > > > http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html
    > >
    > > Oh come on, now. Just because technology has postponed the inevitable
    > > doesn't it will postponed indefinitely. Carrying capacity is already
    > > being exceeded (at present rates of consumption). We're stealing from
    > > our children for the sake of today's profits.
    > >
    > > I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
    > > "more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
    > > after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
    > When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
    > about "Enough" and I might listen.
    > Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
    > to fight poverty.
    > Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
    > money back home.
    > Immigration is not what changes birth rates-- education is. And
    > education comes from not being poor anymore.
    > You let people immigrate here, the economy grows, they send money back
    > home, their grandkids go to college and have fewer children.
    > This becomes a self feeding cycle that reduces population and poverty at
    > the same time.
    > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
    > too many kids.



I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
any level.

But, that's just my opinion. What do I know. I don't have a TV show or a
newspaper column.




-----= 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! =-----

Fred Elbel

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    > > Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?
    >
    > Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
    > don't you?


Hmmm. India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
They have massive poverty and beggars in the street.

Bangladesh has grown so that its population is forced to live in
dangerous coastal lands, only a few feet above sea level. The result
is poverty and mass deaths from natural disasters.

China has grown and at 1.3 billion people is the most populated
country on earth. Their cities are incredibly polluted, environmental
protection is nonexistent, and poverty and unemployment are rampant.

Mexico has grown is is a country of disproportionate poverty. But
instead of solving its overpopulation problem, they have engineered
sending as many of their poor to the U.S. as they can.

European countries have stopped growing for the most part. They have
generally eradicated poverty and have uniform and good standards of
living.

It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
Fred Elbel
Why population stabilization is important:
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html

Fred Elbel

David:

I, for one, am disregarding your HTML-ized post. Please post again in
plain text.

Fred

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:15:51 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Tim Worstall wrote:
    > cite="[email protected] le.com">
    > Fred Elbel <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    >
    >
    >
    > "Fred Elbel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
    > growth is impossible on a finite planet.
    >
    >
    >
    > It´s a cute phrase but wrong. Infinite growth is not just possible but
    > virtually certain.
    >
    > Consider :
    > Imagine a world with a stable population, full recycling, renewable
    > energy, and no new appropriation of resources....no new mining, for
    > example, just the endless recycling of those metals we have already
    > extracted.
    > Would we still see economic growth ? Yes indeed we would. Because
    > technology would still advance. Humans being the curious creatures
    > that we are, people would still dream up new ways to do things, and
    > some of these new ways would require less resources than the previous
    > way of doing things. Current world examples might be computer chips,
    > in that we use less silicon each generation of chips to perform the
    > same number of calculations.....
    >
    > Tim,
    > Â
    > This is correct, of course. One quibble: I don't understand the bit
    > about "no new appropriation of resources." Resources are something we
    > create, not something we appropriate. Thus technical advance took oil,
    > a water pollutant only used by a few Indian tribes as an arthritis
    > cure, a net cost on society, and we turned it into a resource --
    > something which incidentally took some of the pressure off the whales
    > that we were killing for their various oils. I hear there are some guys
    > out there trying to turn euxenite, a useless rock, into a resource...
    > Will weirdity never cease?
    > Â
    > Still, I betcha that on most planets which achieve stasis changed only
    > by progress in knowledge it takes a different form: perpetual increase
    > in the nonsense industry. Think hundreds of channels of tarot card
    > readers and Tony Robbins. Hey, tens of thousands of channels of Usenet.
    > Â
    > Part of the reason I think we should be settling space is that this
    > state of nothing-but-spiritual-progress seems to me to threaten us only
    > a couple of generations in the future. It's really urgent that we have
    > at least some places where chunks of the human race are safe from just
    > sitting around being primped by our machines.
    > Â
    > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Cheers,
    > Â
    > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -dlj.
    > Â
    >
    >
    >
    >

Fred Elbel

    > Fred Elbel wrote in message news:...

    > > No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
    > > growth is impossible on a finite planet.



On 16 Feb 2003 01:24:44 -0800, [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:

    > It´s a cute phrase but wrong. Infinite growth is not just possible but
    > virtually certain.

Oh, my!

Here's an explanation of exponential growth with graphs and charts:
Exponential Growth and The Rule of 70
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html

We can, if we try, have 10 billion people in the U.S., one person
every square yard, no - one every square foot, no- one every square
inch... ad infinitum. Which is clearly impossible (as we are
attempting to demonstrating with our endless increase of population in
most countries).




    > Consider :
    > Imagine a world with a stable population, full recycling, renewable
    > energy, and no new appropriation of resources....no new mining, for
    > example, just the endless recycling of those metals we have already
    > extracted.

Beautiful, isn't it?



    > Would we still see economic growth ? Yes indeed we would. Because
    > technology would still advance.

Perhaps that would better be called economic development, since it
does not involve physical growth.


    > New technologies tend to use less resources than the old ones they
    > replace. So even in a world of limited resource use, as technology
    > advances, resources become avaliable for us to do other or new things
    > with them. Another phrase for doing new things is economic growth.

Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".


    > We
    > will continue to have such growth until one of three things happens :
    > Humans disappear, the universe runs down, or we discover everything.
    > None seem imminent.
    >
    > So, finite earth not allowing infinite growth is a cute phrase, but
    > provably wrong.


No, Tim, you are quite confused in use of your terminology. You are
confusing physical growth with economic development and technological
advancement. It is important to differentiate physical growth in
numbers, which was my original point, versus non-physical qualitative
growth.

Infinite physical growth on a finite planet is impossible. In fact,
even one more doubling of human population is questionable.

Technological growth and economic development are indeed conceivable
and practicable without physical growth.

Fred Elbel

Fred Elbel

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:05:35 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > > I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
    > > "more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
    > > after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
    >
    >
    > When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
    > about "Enough" and I might listen.

Hooey. As posted to another thread:

India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club. They have
massive poverty and beggars in the street.

Bangladesh has grown so that its population is forced to live in
dangerous coastal lands, only a few feet above sea level. The result
is poverty and mass deaths from natural disasters.

China has grown and at 1.3 billion people is the most populated
country on earth. Their cities are incredibly polluted, environmental
protection is nonexistent, and poverty and unemployment are rampant.

Mexico has grown is is a country of disproportionate poverty. But
instead of solving its overpopulation problem, they have engineered
sending as many of their poor to the U.S. as they can.

European countries have stopped growing for the most part. They have
generally eradicated poverty and have uniform and good standards of
living.

It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.



    > Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
    > to fight poverty.

Why, no, that's not true. Another such weapon is population
stabilization.



    > Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
    > money back home.

No thanks. I would prefer to stabilize U.S. population and put an end
poverty here, while sending massive amounts of family planning
assistance to other countries.

The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
ameliorate the symptoms.

Fred

Graphic Queen

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:54:48 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    >In article ,
    > "Squanto" wrote:
    >> ActualGeek wrote in message
    >> news:ActualGeek-AD63A9.1944431402200....supernews.com...
    >> > In article ,
    >> > "tonyp" wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > "Oliver Costich" wrote
    >> > >
    >> > > > Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
    >> > > > reduces productivity and places a higher burden
    >> > > > on the system which contains the SSA.
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
    >> > > That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > He thinks that because they are being replaced with people who are just
    >> > starting their careers (immigrants) that we're losing out.
    >> >
    >> > He misses the fact that otherwise they'd be replaced by NOBODY.
    >> >
    >> > And that the ones replaced by american kids are also replaced by people
    >> > just starting their careers.
    >> >
    >> > And yet, if there are more immigrants added than there are retiries,
    >> > then productivity goes UP because the size of the working set is larger.
    >> >
    >> > He's giving a lot of typical liberal voodoo economics.
    >>
    >> And.... the Greenspic specialist shows ignorance of matters scientific.
    >>
    >> Can Greenspic envision an America overflowing with a billion or more people?
    >>
    >> View overcrowded 3rd-world countries of today. Therein is America if the
    >> population keeps increasing.
    >Uh, No. You guys sure are ignorant. Learn some economics and history.

Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
American.

Graphic Queen

Koen Robeys

"Fred Elbel" wrote in message

    > European countries have stopped growing for the most part. They have
    > generally eradicated poverty and have uniform and good standards of
    > living.
    > It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.

About a year ago, I started to read several books about economic history.
They all share one starting point. Everywhere, everybody has always been
very poor. The reason is an extension from biology. A population grows to
the point where deaths and births are in equilibrium. That point is a point
of intense population pressure, violence, illness and the like. Just above
starvation.

In all periods of all human history and in all places, we humans shared this
picture. Therefore, poverty as we define it, appears to be an almost
universal feature of humanity, if not life.

Then the question becomes: what caused the fact that at some point in time,
for a limited (as yet) number of people, and on a limited surface of the
planet, people broke through the "just above starvation" point?

Something made for much larger productivity, and the strongly increased
wealth made once again for stabilization of the population. Only it no
longer did so by starvation and violence, but because educated mothers
limited the number of offspring. This was the European situation as you
describe it. The pattern has since been repeated in some, but not very many,
other parts of the world.

So in my opinion we are not looking or the cause of poverty, because poverty
is near-universal. What we are looking for is the factor, or the set of
factors, that set in motion such an increase in wealth, that populations
stabilized for reasons different from what we in general call "poverty".

Cheers,

Koen

Actualgeek

In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:

    > > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
    > > too many kids.
    >
    >
    >
    > I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
    > any level.

About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
20 years disprove your assertion.


    >
    > But, that's just my opinion. What do I know. I don't have a TV show or a
    > newspaper column.


Don't need a TV show. Just read "Economics in one lesson", or any
decent economics text.

Squanto

ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-242ABF.2230121702200....supernews.com...
    > In article ,
    > "Squanto" wrote:
    > > > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
    > > > too many kids.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable
at
    > > any level.
    > About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
    > 20 years disprove your assertion.

And they still have turds floating in their water supplies




-----= 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! =-----