Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

And lowering the human population won't?

No. Population stabilization can be accomplished voluntarily with the
appropriate incentives. Absent mass immigration, we wouldn't be too far
from that now.


No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

On 20 Mar 2004 02:09:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No. Population stabilization can be accomplished voluntarily with the
appropriate incentives. Absent mass immigration, we wouldn't be too far
from that now.


No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Neither is overpopulated. They're both just badly governed.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 20 Mar 2004 02:09:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No. Population stabilization can be accomplished voluntarily with the
appropriate incentives. Absent mass immigration, we wouldn't be too far
from that now.


No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Neither is overpopulated. They're both just badly governed.

Bad government can certainly exacerbate population problems.
Unfortunately, bad policies are widespread and persistent, and until
someone invents a means for guaranteeing good government, we will simply
have to take that into account. Good government policies could increase
carrying capacity limits but they would not remove them. I also have
the feeling that the kind of government that would be required to deal
with a population pushing the limits of sustainability would not be the
kind that you (or I) would consider "good". A libertarian approach to
population may ultimately be self defeating.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:53:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Neither is overpopulated. They're both just badly governed.

Bad government can certainly exacerbate population problems.
Unfortunately, bad policies are widespread and persistent, and until
someone invents a means for guaranteeing good government, we will simply
have to take that into account. Good government policies could increase
carrying capacity limits but they would not remove them. I also have
the feeling that the kind of government that would be required to deal
with a population pushing the limits of sustainability would not be the
kind that you (or I) would consider "good". A libertarian approach to
population may ultimately be self defeating.

You continue to misunderstand that the "limits of sustainability" are
an artifact of bad governance, not an objective natural boundary.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:53:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Neither is overpopulated. They're both just badly governed.

Bad government can certainly exacerbate population problems.
Unfortunately, bad policies are widespread and persistent, and until
someone invents a means for guaranteeing good government, we will simply
have to take that into account. Good government policies could increase
carrying capacity limits but they would not remove them. I also have
the feeling that the kind of government that would be required to deal
with a population pushing the limits of sustainability would not be the
kind that you (or I) would consider "good". A libertarian approach to
population may ultimately be self defeating.

You continue to misunderstand that the "limits of sustainability" are
an artifact of bad governance, not an objective natural boundary.

I've always had this problem understanding things that aren't true.
What specific policies do you think we should enact to remove all
Earthly limits to human population growth?

"Dick Morris" wrote ...
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:53:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris wrote

You continue to misunderstand that the "limits of sustainability" are
an artifact of bad governance, not an objective natural boundary.

I've always had this problem understanding things that aren't true.
What specific policies do you think we should enact to remove all
Earthly limits to human population growth?

The ones he's going to dictate from his Supreme Dictatorial Hideaway
in LEO. Remember - Stop cheap access to space or Rand will be one
step closer to fulfilling his megalomanic dreams.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:58:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You continue to misunderstand that the "limits of sustainability" are
an artifact of bad governance, not an objective natural boundary.

I've always had this problem understanding things that aren't true.
What specific policies do you think we should enact to remove all
Earthly limits to human population growth?

That's an amusing strawman, but we weren't discussing "all Earthly
limits to population growth." We were discussing the issue of whether
or not earth, or the US, is currently overpopulated. Neither is, and
both are a very long way from getting there.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:58:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You continue to misunderstand that the "limits of sustainability" are
an artifact of bad governance, not an objective natural boundary.

I've always had this problem understanding things that aren't true.
What specific policies do you think we should enact to remove all
Earthly limits to human population growth?

That's an amusing strawman, but we weren't discussing "all Earthly
limits to population growth." We were discussing the issue of whether
or not earth, or the US, is currently overpopulated. Neither is, and
both are a very long way from getting there.

If you will go back to my previous posts you will see that "Earthly
limits to population growth" are exactly what I've been discussing.
You, on the other hand, have not been "discussing" *anything*. You've
just been reciting your mantra over and over again.

G EddieA95 wrote:

And lowering the human population won't?

No. Population stabilization can be accomplished voluntarily with the
appropriate incentives. Absent mass immigration, we wouldn't be too far
from that now.


No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

"We" means the US.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Not at present, as far as subsistence is concerned, but then our present
population is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for our energy supply.
Replacing all of that energy with renewable sources will be difficult
and very expensive. Things may get very interesting somewhere around
the middle of the century.

No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

"We" means the US.

OK, good correction.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Not at present, as far as subsistence is concerned, but then our present
population is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for our energy supply.
Replacing all of that energy with renewable sources will be difficult
and very expensive. Things may get very interesting somewhere around
the middle of the century.

We could lower the American P before then by sealing the frontiers, but that
would not only **** off our neighbors, it would crash the economy. Which is
why it's not done.