Text 2256, 125 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 20:49:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2702.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Soylent Green (Re: At
=================================
* * * This message was from Wesley Struebing to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <belh821ig6jr3p3p6onlv64ciupkr2geip@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <127u3iqh3pd7td0@corp.supernews.com>
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:37:47 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
>> <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Mox Fulder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, but you have those even in the smaller populations.  This is 
>>>>>definitely one of those 'non-arguments' that make sense only to the 
>>>>>person making the argument.  If you assume that children are some fixed 
>>>>>portion of the population (and guess what, this isn't true.  In more 
>>>>>productive societies it is LESS!) and that the old and infirm are a 
>>>>>fixed percentage (and here, the more productive society probably has 
>>>>>MORE, because they live longer, and can support more non-productive 
>>>>>people like telephone sanitizers...) then the larger the population, the 
>>>>>more of both, unless you assume that THE MAJORITY of your population is 
>>>>>non-productive, an obviously false assumption, at least on this planet 
>>>>>at present. (Assumes no global pandemic that targets productive adults 
>>>>>more than non-productive...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So, Mox, you have to find a different point here!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why? Your "argument" doesn't make any sense.
>>>>
>>>>Do you even understand what you just said?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, do you?  If children compose 20% of a population, and 
>>>elderly/non-productive compose 15%, then there are 65% of the population 
>>>productive.  If I have a million people, then I have 200,000 children 
>>>and 150,000 E/NP supported by 650,000 productive adults.  If I have a 
>>>billion people, I have 200,000,000 childen, 150,000,000 E/NP supported 
>>>by 650,000,000 adults.  I can produce a lot more since I have 1000 times 
>>>more people to utilize resources I might not have been able to before, 
>>>but I have no greater a percentage of non-productive people to deal 
>>>with, just a lot more folks to take care of them.
>>>
>>>And of course, there are limits to growth.  We just aren't anywhere near 
>>>them yet.
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>>
>> 
>> are the people taking care of the children and E/NP people counted
>> among the "productive" people? They're not really "producing"
>> anything, just performing as "caretakers" - so if 35% of the
>> population is "non-producing" (i.e. consuming only), then how large a
>> percentage of the "productive" population are diverted from production
>> to caretaking? another 20%? (so we're already at more than half the
>> population being "non productive")
>> 
>> And is producing food/goods for the non productive population
>> considered "being productive" or just "maintaining the population that
>> can't care for itself?" (because if that doesn't count towards
>> "production", then an even greater percentage of the population will
>> be taken out of "productive" work...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>So, you feel that caretakers are non-productive?  Especially of 
>children!  I feel that they are extremely productive!  Even in this 
>stricly economic sense, they are producing that great human resource 
>that will maintain our economic engine.  So are the folks working the 
>factories and mines that produce our other resources!

Well, no - they're not *producing* anything (other than molding their
charges into good citizens).  Their charges have already been
produced;  Wendy was indeed correct. (oh, and she did not say
caretakers were unproductive.  Sorry about the different shades of
meaning between "producing" something and being productive.) Which is
a necessary thing, but how does that fit into your model
>
>Why do I suddenly feel I should be twirling a thin, black mustache? 8-)
>
>No, but really, the fact that some percentage of the population is not 
>'actively and at present' generating resources is just a cost of doing 
>business.  If you get more folks, that percentage doesn't change, like 
>Mox seems to think.  Actually, it usually gets better as you are able to 
>utilize folks with more limited resources better.  My wife gets a 
>talking computer, so she can keep the books, even though she is blind, etc.

Actually, the percentage DOES change. Ask an army about the logistics
of deploying a large army as opposed to a small one.  The support
personnel increase faster (and therefore their percentage rises)
faster than the troops they need to support. (even taking into account
some economy of scale)
>
>Like I have maintained all along, the fact that there are non-productive 
>folks is not a factor in overpopulation.  It just isn't!

I think we disagree on that.  Even if everything becoming bigger
remained proportional.
>
>Charlie
>

--

Wes Struebing

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
                                                                               
                   
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)