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

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.

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 Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:59:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:21:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is room for plenty more people without having to totally
eliminate habitat, and the planet's "net photosynthetic product"
(whatever that means) is not a fixed number.

Increasing it substantially would be a rather expensive proposition.

Not necessarily. It depends on the technology level (including
biotech).

Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitate will be done first.

Not necessarily.

How close to totally eliminating wildlife habitate would satisfy you? What
percent of the Earth's species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

It doesn't matter how much I'd allow. It won't be my decision.

Do we have the right to make such a decision?

Who is we? And if not us, who?

Nobody. If species become extinct due to natural forces that's one
thing. If we drive species to extinction due to greed or stupidity
that's another.

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

I don't find the argument that, if I don't agree with you about the
fullness of the earth, it's because I'm "unreasonable," particularly
compelling.

Ok, how about giving me a compelling reason for doubling the population.

Doubling the potential for another Einstein, another Bach. Doubling
the potential for more innovative solutions to problems. Doubling the
amount of total consciousness in the known universe.

Doubling the potential for another Hitler, another Stalin, another
Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton,
etc., etc., etc. Doubling our crime, pollution, etc. Doubling our
energy requirements. And if you're one of the desperately poor
inhabitants of some third world slum, consciousness might not seem such
a blessing. I will bet serious money that a lot more scientific,
technological, and commercial innovations have come out of Seattle than
from Calcutta, or Mexico City. Or both of them put together. Two or
three generations after the last doubling on Easter Island, the
survivors were not only not busily adding to their store of knowledge,
they had even forgotten why their ancestors carved all those statues for
which the island is famous. The world can be so nonlinear sometimes.

If humanity has any value, then twice as much has twice the value. If
humanity doesn't have any value to you, then do you propose that we
exterminate ourselves?

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:16:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Right *now*, however, there is
a great amount of poverty, even in the wealthiest nations. Clearly,
our population is much larger than can be effectively accomodated on
Earth with our present technological level.

That is not clear at all. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your
premise.

We are presently heavily dependent on "phantom carrying capacity"
created by the one-time bonanza of fossil fuels like petroleum.

That's like saying that in the early nineteenth century, we were
"heavily dependent on the one-time bonanza of fossil fuels like coal."

We are still dependent on coal, of course, but it won't last forever any
more than petroleum.

The petroleum will probably run out sometime around the middle of the
century, and replacing it with renewable sources will be very difficult
and enormously expensive.

And as that occurs (if it does), its price will rise, resulting in
increased research into replacements.

Like fusion? I personally wouldn't count on it, and I'm not all that
thrilled with basing our survival on the production and distribution of
tons of plutonium per year either. The various forms of solar energy,
including SPS, will be available for many billions of years to come, but
they also are finite, and developing them even to the point where they
can support the present population will take a lot of time and money (if
it can be done at all). Furthermore, the rise in energy prices may not
be gradual, just like Stock Market crashes are not gradual. The point
is not that we are "doomed, DOOMED", but that there are serious problems
ahead and things cannot go on the way they are forever. Endless
population growth does not work on a finite planet.

I recommend a book called "Overshoot..." by
Catton, which may clear up some things.

I doubt it.

Of course you do: It's not "politically correct". But I've read at
least a dozen books by people like Julian Simon, Dixy Lee Ray, Ron
Arnold, etc., etc. ad nauseum, so you could read at least one that
disagrees with your position. Doesn't have to be that one. You could
also try "Betrayal of Science and Reason" or "Population Explosion" by
Ehrlich. For an excellent history of wildlife in North America and the
surrounding waters try "Sea of Slaughter" by Mowat.

Poverty is largely caused by misgovernment, not by overpopulation per
se, even at our current technology level.

I see you didn't have a response to this.

I've gotten the impression that you think ALL government is
"misgovernment", so I wasn't sure if there was any point in arguing.
Even if we could magically institute good government all over the world
tomorrow, the improvement in sustainability would only buy us some
time. Population growth would eventually outstrip the increase in
agricultural production.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:50:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Endless
population growth does not work on a finite planet.

I've never proposed endless population growth.

I recommend a book called "Overshoot..." by
Catton, which may clear up some things.

I doubt it.

Of course you do: It's not "politically correct".

Au contraire, it's probably the ultimate in political correctness.
It's people like Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg who aren't politically
correct.

But I've read at
least a dozen books by people like Julian Simon, Dixy Lee Ray, Ron
Arnold, etc., etc. ad nauseum, so you could read at least one that
disagrees with your position. Doesn't have to be that one. You could
also try "Betrayal of Science and Reason" or "Population Explosion" by
Ehrlich. For an excellent history of wildlife in North America and the
surrounding waters try "Sea of Slaughter" by Mowat.

Ehrlich? You're joking, right? Has a single one of his apocalyptic
predictions come true?

Poverty is largely caused by misgovernment, not by overpopulation per
se, even at our current technology level.

I see you didn't have a response to this.

I've gotten the impression that you think ALL government is
"misgovernment", so I wasn't sure if there was any point in arguing.

No, not all government, but most governments in Africa and Latin
America are misgovernments. As is Europe to a lesser degree.

Even if we could magically institute good government all over the world
tomorrow, the improvement in sustainability would only buy us some
time. Population growth would eventually outstrip the increase in
agricultural production.

Eventually being the operative word. It's not a worry for you, or
your children, or your grandchildren.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:47:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

Because it has, and there's no reason to suppose that it won't
continue for a very long time.

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

It's not necessary to control population to do that.

In calculating maximum sustainable population one must take into account
that governments are not, and never will be, perfect.

They don't have to be; only optimized for maintaining high P satisfactorily.
Of course, a system of governance that maximizes sustainable P will let other
desirable aspects go.

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.

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.