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

G EddieA95 wrote:

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


Because the alternative to *letting it double* (no one wants to purposely
raise the P that much, but it will get there), would be a tyranny such as the
world has never seen. I for one would rather see a few more wildlife species
gone than live in a world where infanticide, euthanasia and mass executions are
used to keep the P down.

The world saw several tyranies of that magnitude just in the last
century. Draconian population control measures have been employed in
China in recent years, and if the world's population doubles, we may see
them employed other places too. But such measures are not necessary.
Many countries in Europe have stabilized their populations without
draconian measures. All it requires is the proper incentives.

And we're not talking about a "few" species, we're talking mass
extinction on a scale that has not been seen in the last 65 million
years. We already lose more than a few species every year. Destroy the
rain forest on a single mountain top in Central America and you can
destroy a dozen species found nowhere else on Earth. We destroy species
without even thinking - without even knowing they existed in many cases.

(Actually, there are people who would like to see our population
double. There are some powerful special interests who profit from
population growth, and I don't recall any of them saying that we really
should stop at X billion. Promoting population growth is one of the
more important drivers for public policy in this country.)

Clearly,
our population is much larger than can be effectively accomodated on
Earth with our present technological level.

That's not obvious. Technology is *not* currently being used in any major way
to try and fight poverty (or physical need, which is somewhat more quantifiable
than "poverty." Social tools are just as important in this as technological
ones.

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? Do you care?

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? We want to see a stable population precisely
because we value the principles of human freedom and dignity embodied in
Western Civilization. We don't want to live in a world that's been
impoverished, either economically or biologically. Endless population
growth threatens to do both, sooner rather than later. There may be a
handful of nut cases in the entire world who really want to exterminate
the human race. I don't know of any.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:00:10 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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?

If it becomes possible to support additional humans in comfort and
peace and happiness, then I am for it.

That is clearly possible. Or at least as "clearly" as your next
proposition.

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

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

G EddieA95 wrote:

*cheaper* than increasing
Earth's agricultural production artificially - and, thus, the survival
of wildlife habitat in an Earth more populous than today's would
require immense amounts of self-discipline and law enforcement.

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.

I sure hope that the happiness of wildlife species is to you worth the
Chinese-type atrocities that a population-control society will impose on a
global scale. It certainly isn't to me.

John Savard wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:04:34 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:
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:

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.

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?

If it becomes possible to support additional humans in comfort and
peace and happiness, then I am for it. 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.

You should also seriously consider proving that the number of people in
poverty would be smaller if the number of people would be lower, and not
vice versa.


John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

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."

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.

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

I doubt it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes we do. "Rights" come from the human mind. Not from Mother Earth.

Do you care?

I do, but not to the point that I would accept a population-control society.

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.

Funny, we don't hear about mass-suicide in these poor places. Even the
"desperately poor" seem to enjoy being alive, and propagating their life.

We want to see a stable population precisely
because we value the principles of human freedom and dignity embodied in
Western Civilization.

Then we don't want a Chinese-type society . And lowering the P requires it.