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

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.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:14:41 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.

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:14:41 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.

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

While the Earth and the US are not, bits of it are.

However, this raises an interesting point. Given that the Earth is far from
over populated - why not colonise the underpopulated bits of planet Earth
first?

Plenty of room in the Highlands of Scotland, Antartica, Siberia...

Dave

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:31:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

While the Earth and the US are not, bits of it are.

However, this raises an interesting point. Given that the Earth is far from
over populated - why not colonise the underpopulated bits of planet Earth
first?

First? You mean before space? We surely will, but there's no reason
to not start to colonize space as well if it's economically feasible,
for at least two reasons: eggs in a single basket (we had another
close brush with an object the other day), and ability to start with a
clean sheet of paper in government.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:14:41 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.

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

I never said that. And you have never said why you think we're so far
from being overpopulated.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:00:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

I never said that. And you have never said why you think we're so far
from being overpopulated.

OK, you said that twice the current population would be
overpopulation. That's equally nonsense.

And I've described numerous times why I think we're far from being so.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:00:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

No, you were saying that we are overpopulated. I am saying that we
are so far from being so that it's not worth worrying about.

I never said that. And you have never said why you think we're so far
from being overpopulated.

OK, you said that twice the current population would be
overpopulation. That's equally nonsense.

I said that we *could* double our population, but at the cost of a
substantial portion of our remaining wildlife habitat. Caring about
that is nonsense I suppose.

And I've described numerous times why I think we're far from being so.

You have *asserted* numerous times that we're far from being so. You
have not *described* the technological "deus ex machina(s)" that you are
counting on.