Text 2133, 75 rader
Skriven 2006-06-08 11:27:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2579.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Soylent Green (Re: At
=================================
* * * This message was from Mox Fulder to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <128eiu8tjhh5835@corp.supernews.com>
@REPLY: <L_veg.878$VE1.89@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:38:04 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson <edmondson@ieee.org>
wrote:
[...]
> Ah, Grasshopper, you finally begin to understand, even when you will not 
> admit you understand!

There you go again, confusing me with someone else.

> It is not a question of population, or of over-population, it all a case 
> of resource management.  So many have the false idea that "More people 

Take a deep breath, and stay with me on this. The Earth is a physical 
object. With me so far? The physical elements from which the Earth is 
made, are not infinite. Still with me? The physical space and surface of 
the Earth are not infinite, either. Those elements and resources cannot be 
exploited indiscriminately, because they do not exist independently from 
each other. If you exterminate a species, or cut down all trees, there 
will be consequences beyond one missing species and no more wood. So, not 
only is there a limit to the amount of physical resources, but also to 
the rate they can be used. This is why the *number* of people is 
significant.

> bad." or even "Present number of people bad." when that isn't the 
> problem.  What the problem is, how do we allow people to achieve the 
> greatness within them?  How do we allow them to effective use the 
> resources we have available?  That is a function of government and 

That's all wonderful, but even the most benign government and the best 
technology will have more trouble feeding one BILLION people than feeding 
one million. So, if you are going to argue that politics and technology 
are the only variables, and the number of people is irrelevant, you are 
never going to convince me.

> technology.  Once you have that, the more folks you have to use them, 
> the more resources you can get.

...and the more people you have CONSUMING those resources.

> If I have a single family, I can grow enough food for them.  That is all 
> I have the resources to do.

> Get a few families together, and I can have a couple of folks who make 
> harness and equipment, maybe even furniture to make my growing food 
> easier and home comfier...

And while your pals are making that equipment, they are not gathering 
resources to feed their own families, so they die from starvation. At 
least, in this simplistic fantasy.

> Then, you get a small hamlet, and I can get potters, glass blowers, a 
> priest or two...

> So, the more folks you have, the more resources you have available.

No, sorry. In your example, the more *technology* you have, the more 
people you can feed. If all those people in your imaginary town dedicated 
themselves to feeding their own families, and not manufacture equipment, 
you would simply have a lot more people, and you would not be better off.
You are making a false argument by presuming that just by increasing the 
population, you end up with a rich, more complex and productive society.

It's a little more complicated than that.

-- 
20060607 1500
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
                                                                
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)