Earth's Carrying Capacity

Rand Simberg wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

I guess that means that we now all agree about the existence
of fish farming.


We *never disagreed* about that.

Yes I know. I'm not debating that.

I'm trying to get information about the post by Robert
Carnegie to which you were replying. I'm trying to understand
what was your point (or if you had any). When you wrote that
we don't farm fish, that we hunt them (in this case meaning
that we do farm fish) you were replying to the statement that
"fish farms apparently cause pollution which wipes out the rest
of the local ecosystem". If someone else would reply to that
that we don't farm fish (not you Rand someone else who would really
think that we don't farm fish) I would think that he was saying
that Robert Carnegie was wrong. If we don't farm fish, fish farms
don't wipe out ecosystems. It would be logical, only based on
false premises. But since you were really saying that we do
farm fish, I don't know, were you supporting the claim by
Robert Carnegie? If so there seems to be missing something
in what you wrote to date. I have problems figuring out what is
happening in this sub thread. Were you trying to provide any
useful information about the post of Robert Carnegie?

Alain Fournier

Mike Combs wrote:


Heh. That's a good point. I think we all need to agree that
nobody will ever immigrate off-planet out of some noble
motivation to reduce Earth's population. We can only assume
space migration if environments are being built out there
which are not only attractive but MORE attractive than most
places here on Earth.

By itself, a pleasant environment is not enough. You need to have
better paying jobs to attract people. In fact, if the jobs are
there, the environment could be fairly marginal and people would
still come.

--
Dan Tilque

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:20:07 -0700, "Dan Tilque"
twrote

Mike Combs wrote:


Heh. That's a good point. I think we all need to agree that
nobody will ever immigrate off-planet out of some noble
motivation to reduce Earth's population. We can only assume
space migration if environments are being built out there
which are not only attractive but MORE attractive than most
places here on Earth.

By itself, a pleasant environment is not enough. You need to have
better paying jobs to attract people. In fact, if the jobs are
there, the environment could be fairly marginal and people would
still come.


Payment for work is not in itself sufficient. The time of peak heart
attacks occur each week at a few minutes past 9:00 am on monday
morning. Work ir evidently not sufficient reason to live. You work to
get money for the good life -- if a good life is not obtainable, well
Tokyo has the highest suicide rate on planet earth, but not the lowest
wages.

In sci.space.policy MOONIES for Bush wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:20:07 -0700, "Dan Tilque"
twrote

Mike Combs wrote:


Heh. That's a good point. I think we all need to agree that
nobody will ever immigrate off-planet out of some noble
motivation to reduce Earth's population. We can only assume
space migration if environments are being built out there
which are not only attractive but MORE attractive than most
places here on Earth.

By itself, a pleasant environment is not enough. You need to have
better paying jobs to attract people. In fact, if the jobs are
there, the environment could be fairly marginal and people would
still come.

Payment for work is not in itself sufficient. The time of peak heart

For some it is.

People do not have to enjoy a place in order to move there.

They can place other values higher, anything from not starving to death,
being killed if they don't move, to being able to build up savings to buy a
nicer place in a few years, ...

attacks occur each week at a few minutes past 9:00 am on monday
morning. Work ir evidently not sufficient reason to live. You work to
get money for the good life -- if a good life is not obtainable, well
Tokyo has the highest suicide rate on planet earth, but not the lowest

Some prefer to live in cities, and are unhappy in rural settings.

(Russell Wallace) writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:53:27 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

The wombs of their women will produce weapons, ammunition, vehicles,
fuel, and resolve logistical problems of a supply pipeline that long?
I'm impressed. Stoic women, those.

*grin*

Seriously, though, none of those things will be needed, because
"invasion" was being used metaphorically. In practice, Earth will end
up being inhabited by descendents of those people who (for whatever
biological or cultural reasons) choose to have children; no shots need
to be fired to bring about this result.


Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education, but even that isn't absolutely necessary. If a bunch of
unmarried, childless men and women in Hollywood produce every television
program watched and every video grame played by the fruit of your loins
from infancy through adulthood, then exactly whose descendents are we
really talking about?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

(John Schilling) writes:

Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education

ObRL: Lapps, Canadian Natives, and Australian Aborigines.

The first was totally eradicated this way, the other two only
partially so. Mainly because the Swedes *knew* they were "correct",
and so committed performing as near as possible a 100% all-out total
cultural obliteration, while the Canadians and Aussies dithered a bit.

--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
| you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus

John Schilling wrote:

(Russell Wallace) writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:53:27 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

The wombs of their women will produce weapons, ammunition, vehicles,
fuel, and resolve logistical problems of a supply pipeline that long?
I'm impressed. Stoic women, those.

*grin*

Seriously, though, none of those things will be needed, because
"invasion" was being used metaphorically. In practice, Earth will end
up being inhabited by descendents of those people who (for whatever
biological or cultural reasons) choose to have children; no shots need
to be fired to bring about this result.

Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education, but even that isn't absolutely necessary. If a bunch of
unmarried, childless men and women in Hollywood produce every television
program watched and every video grame played by the fruit of your loins
from infancy through adulthood, then exactly whose descendents are we
really talking about?

Try any traditional Catholic society. Priests and nuns run the schools
and pretty well direct the thoughts of the kids as they grow. It doesn't
alter the fact that the kids are the offspring of their biological
parents, and regardless of their culture, whoever has the most kids
eventually wins.


John Halpenny

(John Schilling) wrote:

Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education, but even that isn't absolutely necessary. If a bunch of
unmarried, childless men and women in Hollywood produce every television
program watched and every video grame played by the fruit of your loins
from infancy through adulthood, then exactly whose descendents are we
really talking about?

That's only a valid question if the parents stand utterly silent and
absent from the child's entire life such that the child's only
cultural conditioning comes from said media.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote ...
(John Schilling) wrote:

Except that cultural inheritance can be decoupled from biological. The
most blatant methods and examples involving adoption and compulsory
education, but even that isn't absolutely necessary. If a bunch of
unmarried, childless men and women in Hollywood produce every television
program watched and every video grame played by the fruit of your loins
from infancy through adulthood, then exactly whose descendents are we
really talking about?

That's only a valid question if the parents stand utterly silent and
absent from the child's entire life such that the child's only
cultural conditioning comes from said media.

Try Googling "Nanny wars".

There's a current hysteria among the "ordinary folk" who can afford live-in
help about their little darlings growing up speaking with a Guatemalan
accent.

Mark Atwood wrote in message ...
(John Schilling) writes:

ObRL: Lapps, Canadian Natives, and Australian Aborigines.

The first was totally eradicated this way, the other two only
partially so. Mainly because the Swedes *knew* they were "correct",
and so committed performing as near as possible a 100% all-out total
cultural obliteration, while the Canadians and Aussies dithered a bit.

Can you elaborate a bit? Given that most Lapps live in Norway or
Finland and still retain a distinctive culture and language, I'm
having a hard time seeing how the Swedes could have culturally
obliterated them.

Nick
--