India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

[Lawrence of Arabia]

We don't even need rigid spaceships upon launch. We have an atmosphere to slow the spaceship down on Earth entry. Only a small ablative heat shield is required.

you need

1. a helluva lot of space ships
2. enough landing pads

we dont have any of that. and no, you need more than a small ablative heat shield, since there would be thousands of large spaceships, which are very heavy, and would all need someplace to land. the whole ship would need to be covered, because youd have to be able to land it, and take off again multiple times.

You really are going to argue this?

its your argument. im just demonstrating how 'usng todays technolongy' we CANNOT harvest oil in any amount from mars/ 400 billion other stars in the galaxy, and that contrary to what you say, theres IS a finite amount of resources.

[DanS]

1. a helluva lot of space ships

Sure. We can build such a large number of spaceships. Note that much of the things reused would not need to land inside a gravity well (or a substantial gravity well), but could remain in space.

2. enough landing pads

We don't need any landing pads. We've got the oceans.

[Master Zen]

/me thinks DanS has been smoking some really heavy sh*t...

I have to say that you are absurdly wrong in affirming that there's such thing as infinite resources. I will start by agreeing that Malthus was plainly wrong but you are falling into the trap of equating overpopulation with insustainability, something which is plainly false. Is Mexico City overpopulated? Of course it is. Is it insustainable, no because if it were I wouldn't be here posting this.

A twist on the issue is to ask a counterfactual question. Would certain cities/countries be better off if they had less people? The answer is plainly yes. One can say that this is definitely not the case with the US since the US benefits from the economies of scale which the large population provides (the sole reason why the US turned into an enconomic superpower) and the huge landmass available for such population can sustain its growth. And its precisely the benefits of land which allow the creation of rentable cities in the first place (no industrial nation has grown prosperous solely due to the success of its cities, without an agricultural success behind them). This of course, is hardly the case in the developing world, and despite agriculture occupying a minor fraction in most nations' GDP, the proportion of people working in it is generally much higher. That fact alone says more than anything else, as there is something fundamentally wrong when a nation just earns 5% of its GDP from agriculture when 25% of its people actually work on it. So now you have overpopulation in the agro sector as you have too many people producing just a small piece of the pie. Of course, most being poor people, they end up emigrating into those bright beacons of hope, the cities, swarming them and swamping their already meager public services, creating the wonderfully gray favellas, slums, and lost cities which are the real beltways of many of our cities in the developing world and which lack the basic services which people can hope to progress with. So what's the use of having million-men slums in cities like Mexico, Rio or Lagos? Are these people actually meaningful contributors to prosperity or unfortunate wretches leeching the already pititful services available? In the best of cases they do neither harm nor good but for the most part they are definitely a burden. Of course, with education, with enough infrastructure, they would not be a burden... but where's the inifinite cash to solve their infinite needs?

Now, what frankly makes me laugh about your take on finity and infinity is why on earth all the marvelous solutions you mention are simply NOT implemented. Let's see, Mexico City could definitely benefit from suburban rail, 3 or 4 new subway lines, wider urban expressways and a more efficiently-laid population density. But the fact is that it just isn't happening. What you claim are infinite resources is not that, it's that there are infinite solutions - a very different thing. Applying them thus becomes a pain in both a market or a centralized economy simply because... drumroll... the main resource we need - MONEY - doesn't exist!

So no, the world will not suddenly collapse because one too many chinese or indians were born. But adding more people to our already overcrowded planet sure as hell isn't helping. And you can have a million solutions (or using your terms, infinte) to the problems of overpopulation but as long as you don't actually have the financial resources (or technology) to apply them then it's all for naught, just pure wishful thinking. In the world you describe there wouldn't even be a single poor person in the world, because we would have already mobilized our "infinite resources" to combat every possible economic and social ill.

It just doesn't happen that way.

Overpopulation is therefore a sad fact of life in many places on earth. No, we won't explode because of it, but people are definitely not living to their full potential, and many places would be far better off if there were a couple hundred/thousand/million drivers, walkers, and mouths to feed on this very finite planet.

-MZ

[:) Smiley]

There is no such resource as "money". Money's an abstraction of labor, thus the problem is an apparently infinite amount of inefficiency.

[Dinner]

I remember reading that one of the main reasons 3rd world countries stayed poor was because of their rapid population growth rates. The populations were all growing much faster then the economy thus per capita income was continually going down in many countries. Controling the population means you don't need as much growth in order to improve everyone's standard of living plus as an added benifit the government doesn't need to spend as much on all the services people consume nor does the enviroment suffer as much.

[DanS]

The thrust of my argument is that human beings are by and large a net plus in any modern economy and are far and away the most important resource. If large masses of your population are a net minus, then that's primarily a reflection on your organization and use of the human resources, not the human resource itself. Removing the "overpopulation" won't fix the nub of the problem of extremely poor use of human resources. It won't even help. It will merely decrease your positive potential once you start fixing things.

In short, if Mexico City is "overpopulated", then there's something extremely fvcked up with Mexico and Mexico City. If Mexico City had half the population, it would have no less a proportion of fvckedupedness.

Please note that I don't think that the US is anywhere near the ideal, so there's no offense intended to Mexico. We do OK. But if you're looking for warts, you are sure to find them.

In the case of both China and India, they have a long legacy of extremely poor use of their human resources. They have to work off this legacy. But if China took a mid-term view of their human resources, they would see that any additional people would be a benefit.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DanS
The thrust of my argument is that human beings are by and large a net plus in any modern economy. If large masses of your population are not a net plus, then that's primarily a reflection on your organization and use of the human resources, not the human resource itself. Removing the "overpopulation" won't fix the nub of the problem of extremely poor use of human resources. It won't even help.

And your argument is flawed because "modern economies" don't exist in most parts of the developing world. And even the super-efficient model that you mention doesn't hold water in the developed world either as big cities like LA and NY have a plethora of problems which the market or even the government have been unable to solve despite there being obvious solutions to them.

And of course I pointed out that even in such economies, "large masses" of population are not necessarily better in themselves. I'd seriously wonder what would happen to the Netherlands if its population doubled or trebled too quickly. Would efficient use of human resources win over the inherent problems of this new mass of humanity? I sincerely doubt it. Likewise many of our countries could definitely be better off (note that I'm not saying that it would be THE solution to all our problems, hardly) without a couple of millions extra.

My point, therefore, is that in many places, overpopulation will definitely not "break" a nation, but it will not be necessarily better than with a reduced number, the main issue being that enough financial resources do not exist to cope efficiently with such problems.

[DanS]

I edited my post liberally while you were preparing your post.

[DanS]

I think you're overreading in my use of the term "modern economy." At least half of the developing world (India and China) are modern economies in that a significant portion of their economic effort is devoted to non-agricultural endeavors.

[:) Smiley]

There may be a time where continuous population growth is a good thing, perhaps in a "6th stage of development" where things are so good that we don't need to put divert resources into improving the conditions of the existing population. That time is definitely not now.

[DanS]

I remember reading that one of the main reasons 3rd world countries stayed poor was because of their rapid population growth rates. The populations were all growing much faster then the economy thus per capita income was continually going down in many countries.

China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.57% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth. So in both countries, people are becoming better off on average.

Compare to the US, with about 4.4% real economic growth rate and a 1% population growth rate.

[Dinner]

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Master Zen.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.65% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth. So in both countries, people are becoming better off on average.

And in both countries the governments haqve wisely decided to take steps to slow population growth in order to realize those real standard of living gains. India uses public education and the media to urge smaller families while China uses coersion. I have to say that China's one child policy is an excellent (though thankfully rare) example of totalitarian regimes doing certain things better then democratic regimes.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by DanS
China had ~ 9% real economic growth last year, but only about 0.57% population growth. India had ~ 7% real economic growth last year, and 1.44% population growth.

9+ 0.57 ~ 7 + 1.44

Coincidence?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

too bad in China, 16% of the people are living in extreme poverty and nearly 50% of the people are living in poverty.

the growth doesnt reach them. its just concentrated on the few coastal towns.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:QX7JfTMX3goJ:www.developmentgoals.org/Poverty.htm+poverty+rates&hl=en&client=firefox-a