Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Feb 18th 2003, 7:35 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
Fred Elbel wrote in message news:...
> > 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).
You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
This is nit picking on your part. When an economist talks about
economic growth he means growth in the GDP, that is growth in the
value added in the economy. For more precision, he will often talk
about GDP per capita. Certainly there is growth of the kind that you
think is " bad " , based on increased resoure extraction. Another
500,000 barrels of oil a day is certainly considered growth in the
Russian economy. So half a point to you. But it is economic
development and technological advance which is the major part of GDP
growth. These are the things that contribute to productivity growth (
or it to they ) and lead to the high standard of living we currently
enjoy, and it is precisely this which will go on forever.
So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
growth in economic development within a finite earth.
Tim Worstall
>
> 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 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).
You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
This is nit picking on your part. When an economist talks about
economic growth he means growth in the GDP, that is growth in the
value added in the economy. For more precision, he will often talk
about GDP per capita. Certainly there is growth of the kind that you
think is " bad " , based on increased resoure extraction. Another
500,000 barrels of oil a day is certainly considered growth in the
Russian economy. So half a point to you. But it is economic
development and technological advance which is the major part of GDP
growth. These are the things that contribute to productivity growth (
or it to they ) and lead to the high standard of living we currently
enjoy, and it is precisely this which will go on forever.
So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
growth in economic development within a finite earth.
Tim Worstall
>
> 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
Feb 18th 2003, 4:15 pm
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
On 18 Feb 2003 00:35:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
> According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
> population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
I await the new U.N. projections with anticipation.
But the population explosion is anything but over. Population of all
countries combined is generally projected to grow by another 50% this
century. That's 3 billion people. That's more than the current
populations of India and China COMBINED!
One of the main reasons for continued population growth in countries
with high fertility (children per woman) is population momentum, where
today's children grow up to have their own children. Even after
fertility is reduced to replacement level fertility (2.1 children per
woman), it takes a genration (approximately 70 years) to achieve an
actual reduction in population numbers.
> > 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.
>
> This is nit picking on your part.
It is absolutely NOT nitpicking to point out this critical difference
in terminology that you so conveniently blur.
You can not claim that growth (meaning economic growth) can be
infinite and thus imply that growth of human numbers can similarly be
infinite.
The meaning of the term in each case is separate and distinct, with
separate and distinct upper bounds on the extent of growth in the case
of population growth.
> So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
> growth in economic development within a finite earth.
I agree that continued (although not infinite) economic development or
growth can be possible on a finite planet and within a finite country.
But population growth can not.
Fred Elbel
> You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
> According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
> population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
I await the new U.N. projections with anticipation.
But the population explosion is anything but over. Population of all
countries combined is generally projected to grow by another 50% this
century. That's 3 billion people. That's more than the current
populations of India and China COMBINED!
One of the main reasons for continued population growth in countries
with high fertility (children per woman) is population momentum, where
today's children grow up to have their own children. Even after
fertility is reduced to replacement level fertility (2.1 children per
woman), it takes a genration (approximately 70 years) to achieve an
actual reduction in population numbers.
> > 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.
>
> This is nit picking on your part.
It is absolutely NOT nitpicking to point out this critical difference
in terminology that you so conveniently blur.
You can not claim that growth (meaning economic growth) can be
infinite and thus imply that growth of human numbers can similarly be
infinite.
The meaning of the term in each case is separate and distinct, with
separate and distinct upper bounds on the extent of growth in the case
of population growth.
> So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
> growth in economic development within a finite earth.
I agree that continued (although not infinite) economic development or
growth can be possible on a finite planet and within a finite country.
But population growth can not.
Fred Elbel
Feb 18th 2003, 5:08 pm
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
>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.
It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>>
>> 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.
wrote:
>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.
It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>>
>> 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.
Feb 18th 2003, 6:42 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article ,
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
enacted economic reforms that created growth.
> It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
india.
You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
enacted economic reforms that created growth.
> It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
india.
You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.
Feb 18th 2003, 6:46 pm
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
In article ,
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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
Its amazing the things you can get when you just blindly project a
current trend out to the future!
Like a guy who gets home from the hospital with a newborn projecting
that he'll have 365 kids at that point next year!
> Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".
Yes, try redefining words so your argument makes sense. It doesn't
work.
> No, Tim, you are quite confused in use of your terminology. You are
And then criticize your opponent for using them correctly! Ha!
> confusing physical growth with economic development and technological
You have made exactly that confusion in my post, and in Tims.
> advancement. It is important to differentiate physical growth in
> numbers,
Numbers of what? Dollars in the economy? Thats what he was talking
about.
>which was my original point, versus non-physical qualitative
> growth.
You mean like gaseous solids?
> Infinite physical growth on a finite planet is impossible. In fact,
> even one more doubling of human population is questionable.
So says you, but you are clearly uneducated when it comes to these
matters.
> Technological growth and economic development are indeed conceivable
> and practicable without physical growth.
Yes, but that's irrelevant.
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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
Its amazing the things you can get when you just blindly project a
current trend out to the future!
Like a guy who gets home from the hospital with a newborn projecting
that he'll have 365 kids at that point next year!
> Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".
Yes, try redefining words so your argument makes sense. It doesn't
work.
> No, Tim, you are quite confused in use of your terminology. You are
And then criticize your opponent for using them correctly! Ha!
> confusing physical growth with economic development and technological
You have made exactly that confusion in my post, and in Tims.
> advancement. It is important to differentiate physical growth in
> numbers,
Numbers of what? Dollars in the economy? Thats what he was talking
about.
>which was my original point, versus non-physical qualitative
> growth.
You mean like gaseous solids?
> Infinite physical growth on a finite planet is impossible. In fact,
> even one more doubling of human population is questionable.
So says you, but you are clearly uneducated when it comes to these
matters.
> Technological growth and economic development are indeed conceivable
> and practicable without physical growth.
Yes, but that's irrelevant.
Feb 18th 2003, 6:49 pm
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
In article ,
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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.
Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
> > 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.
Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
"stabilize" the population.
> > 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.
And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
countries. You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
Learn some economics.
> The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
> overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
> ameliorate the symptoms.
The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
wealth for them to get educated.
Fred Elbel wrote:
> 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.
Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
> > 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.
Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
"stabilize" the population.
> > 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.
And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
countries. You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
Learn some economics.
> The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
> overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
> ameliorate the symptoms.
The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
wealth for them to get educated.
Feb 18th 2003, 6:55 pm
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article ,
Graphic Queen wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
Graphic Queen wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
Feb 18th 2003, 9:07 pm
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:26 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
>In article ,
> Graphic Queen wrote:
>> 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.
>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
Graphic Queen
wrote:
>In article ,
> Graphic Queen wrote:
>> 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.
>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
Graphic Queen
Feb 18th 2003, 9:42 pm
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-305A0F.1142241802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
> enacted economic reforms that created growth.
> > It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
> You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
> its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
> india.
> You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.
What about the turds in the water supply?
-----= 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! =-----
news:ActualGeek-305A0F.1142241802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
> enacted economic reforms that created growth.
> > It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
> You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
> its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
> india.
> You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.
What about the turds in the water supply?
-----= 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! =-----
Feb 18th 2003, 9:43 pm
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Graphic Queen wrote:
> > 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.
> Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
> leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
Bwa hah hah hah!!!
When all else fails play the racist card.
Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.
-----= 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! =-----
news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Graphic Queen wrote:
> > 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.
> Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
> leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
Bwa hah hah hah!!!
When all else fails play the racist card.
Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.
-----= 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! =-----
Feb 19th 2003, 6:04 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-1BBC83.1149221802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
> people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
> your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
> > > 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.
> Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
> "stabilize" the population.
> > > 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.
> And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
> countries. You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
> on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
> Learn some economics.
> > The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
> > overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
> > ameliorate the symptoms.
> The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
> created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
> wealth for them to get educated.
Another mind brainwashed by the Limbaugh propaganda.
-----= 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! =-----
news:ActualGeek-1BBC83.1149221802200....supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
> people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
> your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
> > > 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.
> Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
> "stabilize" the population.
> > > 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.
> And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
> countries. You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
> on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
> Learn some economics.
> > The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
> > overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
> > ameliorate the symptoms.
> The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
> created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
> wealth for them to get educated.
Another mind brainwashed by the Limbaugh propaganda.
-----= 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! =-----
Feb 19th 2003, 7:41 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
Fred Elbel wrote in message news:...
> On 18 Feb 2003 00:35:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
> > According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
> > population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
>
> I await the new U.N. projections with anticipation.
>
> But the population explosion is anything but over. Population of all
> countries combined is generally projected to grow by another 50% this
> century. That's 3 billion people. That's more than the current
> populations of India and China COMBINED!
>
> One of the main reasons for continued population growth in countries
> with high fertility (children per woman) is population momentum, where
> today's children grow up to have their own children. Even after
> fertility is reduced to replacement level fertility (2.1 children per
> woman), it takes a genration (approximately 70 years) to achieve an
> actual reduction in population numbers.
Quite. So whatever is done about population growth will take 70 years
or so to work through the system. And current projections ( before the
new UN figures ) are that within 70 years we will be seeig a falling
world population. And the new figures are expected to emphasise that,
indeed bring the total itself down, and the reduction date forward.
So, whatever it is that we have to do, or did have to do, in order to
start this 70 year process, we have already done.
In one sense you are correct, in that peak population has not been
reached. In another, truer, sense, you are wrong. If, because of
population momentum, it is at minimum a 70 year process, and we see
the peak in 50 years, followed by decline, then we have already done
what is necessary. Nicht War ?
To look at it slightly differently. It's a 70 year process as you say.
So whatever we do now will not impact until 2070. Yet peak is 2050.
Followed by decline. So we´ve already done whatever it was that we
needed to do, right ?
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is nit picking on your part.
>
>
> It is absolutely NOT nitpicking to point out this critical difference
> in terminology that you so conveniently blur.
>
> You can not claim that growth (meaning economic growth) can be
> infinite and thus imply that growth of human numbers can similarly be
> infinite.
I´ve never implied that infinite population growth is possible, nor
desirable, nor likely. I´m Tim Worstall, not Julian Simon.
>
> The meaning of the term in each case is separate and distinct, with
> separate and distinct upper bounds on the extent of growth in the case
> of population growth.
I agree. Your phrase states " infinite growth ". You do not
distinguish between growth in population, resource extraction or the
economy.
By blurring the distinctions between the three, you make it seem that
a true statement ( infinite population growth is not possible in a
finite system ) can be used to buttress an untrue statement ( infinite
economic growth is not possible in a finite system ).
Indeed , the phrase itself is often used by no growth campaigners. "
Anyone who believes in infinite growth is either an economist or a
madman " is a favourite formulation.
My point is that for your statement to be true, it is necessary for it
to be sufficiently specific to only apply to those systems where it is
in fact true, not allowed to be so hazy as to cover those systems
where it does not apply, indeed would be misinformation if it were
applied to them.
So, perhaps your phrase should read " infinite population growth
cannot happen within a finite system " which would be true, but pretty
irrelevant, as no one thinks that we are going to have infinite
population growth.
>
>
> > So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
> > growth in economic development within a finite earth.
>
> I agree that continued (although not infinite) economic development or
> growth can be possible on a finite planet and within a finite country.
> But population growth can not.
I´m willing to drop " infinite economic growth ( or development if you
prefer )" in return for an agreement that the limits are so broad as
to have no real effect on us at present. On the order of discovering
all technologies possible, or humanity itself disappearing, or the
universe running down.
Tim Worstall
>
> Fred Elbel
> On 18 Feb 2003 00:35:28 -0800, [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > You might want to note the new UN figures coming out this week.
> > According to a preview in The Economist the estimate for peak
> > population has been lowered again. The population explosion is over.
>
> I await the new U.N. projections with anticipation.
>
> But the population explosion is anything but over. Population of all
> countries combined is generally projected to grow by another 50% this
> century. That's 3 billion people. That's more than the current
> populations of India and China COMBINED!
>
> One of the main reasons for continued population growth in countries
> with high fertility (children per woman) is population momentum, where
> today's children grow up to have their own children. Even after
> fertility is reduced to replacement level fertility (2.1 children per
> woman), it takes a genration (approximately 70 years) to achieve an
> actual reduction in population numbers.
Quite. So whatever is done about population growth will take 70 years
or so to work through the system. And current projections ( before the
new UN figures ) are that within 70 years we will be seeig a falling
world population. And the new figures are expected to emphasise that,
indeed bring the total itself down, and the reduction date forward.
So, whatever it is that we have to do, or did have to do, in order to
start this 70 year process, we have already done.
In one sense you are correct, in that peak population has not been
reached. In another, truer, sense, you are wrong. If, because of
population momentum, it is at minimum a 70 year process, and we see
the peak in 50 years, followed by decline, then we have already done
what is necessary. Nicht War ?
To look at it slightly differently. It's a 70 year process as you say.
So whatever we do now will not impact until 2070. Yet peak is 2050.
Followed by decline. So we´ve already done whatever it was that we
needed to do, right ?
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is nit picking on your part.
>
>
> It is absolutely NOT nitpicking to point out this critical difference
> in terminology that you so conveniently blur.
>
> You can not claim that growth (meaning economic growth) can be
> infinite and thus imply that growth of human numbers can similarly be
> infinite.
I´ve never implied that infinite population growth is possible, nor
desirable, nor likely. I´m Tim Worstall, not Julian Simon.
>
> The meaning of the term in each case is separate and distinct, with
> separate and distinct upper bounds on the extent of growth in the case
> of population growth.
I agree. Your phrase states " infinite growth ". You do not
distinguish between growth in population, resource extraction or the
economy.
By blurring the distinctions between the three, you make it seem that
a true statement ( infinite population growth is not possible in a
finite system ) can be used to buttress an untrue statement ( infinite
economic growth is not possible in a finite system ).
Indeed , the phrase itself is often used by no growth campaigners. "
Anyone who believes in infinite growth is either an economist or a
madman " is a favourite formulation.
My point is that for your statement to be true, it is necessary for it
to be sufficiently specific to only apply to those systems where it is
in fact true, not allowed to be so hazy as to cover those systems
where it does not apply, indeed would be misinformation if it were
applied to them.
So, perhaps your phrase should read " infinite population growth
cannot happen within a finite system " which would be true, but pretty
irrelevant, as no one thinks that we are going to have infinite
population growth.
>
>
> > So I still say your phrase is wrong. We will still have infinite
> > growth in economic development within a finite earth.
>
> I agree that continued (although not infinite) economic development or
> growth can be possible on a finite planet and within a finite country.
> But population growth can not.
I´m willing to drop " infinite economic growth ( or development if you
prefer )" in return for an agreement that the limits are so broad as
to have no real effect on us at present. On the order of discovering
all technologies possible, or humanity itself disappearing, or the
universe running down.
Tim Worstall
>
> Fred Elbel
Feb 19th 2003, 8:40 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
"Squanto" wrote in message news:...
> ActualGeek wrote in message
> news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
> > In article ,
> > Graphic Queen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
> > leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
>
> Bwa hah hah hah!!!
> When all else fails play the racist card.
>
> Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.
>
Sure it does. The quote could be applied equally to the Irish or
Italians or Germans in the earlier waves of immigration.
> ActualGeek wrote in message
> news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
> > In article ,
> > Graphic Queen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
> > leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
>
> Bwa hah hah hah!!!
> When all else fails play the racist card.
>
> Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.
>
Sure it does. The quote could be applied equally to the Irish or
Italians or Germans in the earlier waves of immigration.
Feb 19th 2003, 12:27 pm
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:
> 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
Are all leftists 14? Or just mentally 14?
"Squanto" wrote:
> 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
Are all leftists 14? Or just mentally 14?
Feb 19th 2003, 12:50 pm
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
> with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
Oliver Costich wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
> with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
And so you would rather reduce their income instead?