Tweet
DanS seems to think that that all problems relating to high population density are destined to be solved. A baseless and reckless view, IMO.
-
-
Gah, those full food boxes lead to so many bloody drones.
absolutes:
Resources is finite if technology is finite.
Technology is finite if time is finite.
Productivity depends on both economy of scale and limits of supply. Thus it does not have a linear relationship with number of people.
Note that humans are a resource as well.
----------- current sistuation
Productivity is largely determined by avoidable inefficiency(africa), and mildly effected by limits in natural supply. (even if there is "infinite energy", driving my car is expensive) The magnitude of positive effects from larger economy of scale is unknown. (to me anyway) It appears that the current economy does not benefit fully from economy of scale due to various barriors.
I'm not sure I agree completely.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.
Lets say we want to maintain our current standard living while seeing problems with oil supply, and given different population counts.
1. High population, high consumption. This requires fast technological growth that benefit from increased labor pool resulting in lower costs developing new tech.
2. Low population, low consumption. Technological growth is less urgent (thus cheaper) and the technological demands are less, but the cost of labor is higher due to smaller labor pool.
Well, the situation isn't completely deterministic, but I don't think that high population is the better solution, at least with respect to oil/replacements since it really isn't finding replacements fast enough. (to keep the oil price down and reducing)
Before economies are fully intergrated and inefficiencies largely elimated, I don't think we can know whether supply of natural resources, or supply of humans is the true limiting factor. It is easier to give birth to humans than building new planets orbiting the solar system at the right distance from the sun, so I think erring on the side of low population makes more sense.Comment
-
Yes.9+ 0.57 ~ 7 + 1.44
Coincidence?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
While obviously some Chinese are making out better than others, I hear that it's no longer true that the benefit is accruing solely to the coastal cities.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.
China is still suffering the impact of backward-thinking policies instituted long ago. In my view, the one child policy will be viewed in the same manner pretty soon.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Nothing gets done by itself, but if you take a look at the Korean experience, they tend to do OK managing extreme population densities.DanS seems to think that that all problems relating to high population density are destined to be solved. A baseless and reckless view, IMO.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
If you're growing 7% or 9% real per annum, people are becoming much better off very quickly no matter the rate of population increase.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.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Interesting figures for the Korean population. Currently South Korea's population growth rate is 0.89% (down from 3% in 1960) and is expected to zero out or go negative in the next 20 years. For all of Korea (North & South) the total population is around 68.3 million with a total land area of 222,154 square kilometers so the population density is around 300 people per square kilometer. That means it is slightly less densely populated then Israel or El Salvador but no where near as densely populated as Taiwan (600 people/km2) or Bangladesh (960 people/km2).
Population density number are from
HEREl.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
S. Korea has a higher population density than N. Korea. But both S. Korea and Taiwan seem to do OK managing extreme population densities. Japan seems to do reasonably well managing a huge city (Tokyo-Yokohama).
I don't know why China or India wouldn't be able to organize things equally well or better.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
That means it is slightly less densely populated then Israel or El Salvador
effective population density in Israel is double that figure.
http://gis.cbs.gov.il/shnaton53/tivi_area_per.jpg ( numbers on areas are NOT persons per km^2 )
Currently South Korea's population growth rate is 0.89%
The best number.
Comment
-
Negative growth! Less people!Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
Negative growth! Less people!
Korea has got it perfect. a small, sustainable growth of population.
Comment
-
sure, but thats 50% of the population making $2 or less a day. if the 10% GDP growth was in any way spread across the country, you wouldnt have half the country in poverty, and an eigth in extreme ($1 or less) a day.While obviously some Chinese are making out better than others, I hear that it's no longer true that the benefit is accruing solely to the coastal cities.
China is still suffering the impact of backward-thinking policies instituted long ago. In my view, the one child policy will be viewed in the same manner pretty soon.
but how many new people entered the labor market? 23 million new chinese were born in 1988 and are now entering the labor force. if we take 78.7% as the ratio of people in the labor force to out of the labor force, we get 18 million and change entering the labor force. remember that you need to compare this number to the present growth rate, not the present birth rate.If you're growing 7% or 9% real per annum, people are becoming much better off very quickly no matter the rate of population increase.
thats a lot of people.
now the government of china in 2004 wanted to create 14 million new jobs (as we know, these things are always more positive than what actually happened) that still leaves us with a net of 4 million more unemployed people than before
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...ver-200411</a>(B).htm+2004+chinese+job+creation+statistics&hl=en&client=firefox-a[/url]
in other words, china cannot make jobs fast enough to cover its population increase. in general, people are not getting better off."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
I really don't see how you can prefer a larger population through altruistic beliefs, even without considering the environmental impact that a large population has. At the most basic level, more people means more suffering - more ideals, more conflicts, more strife, more controversy, more disagreements, more disastification, ect... the goal of pleasing the most people possible only becomes more and more difficult as the number of people increases.Originally posted by Azazel
Negative growth! Less people!
Korea has got it perfect. a small, sustainable growth of population.
Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse
Do It OurselvesComment
-
Your language isn't that clear, but if I'm reading you correctly, then you haven't accounted for the people who are leaving the labor force for one reason or another.but how many new people entered the labor market? 23 million new chinese were born in 1988 and are now entering the labor force. if we take 78.7% as the ratio of people in the labor force to out of the labor force, we get 18 million and change entering the labor force. remember that you need to compare this number to the present growth rate, not the present birth rate.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Negative growth! Less people!
If I remember right, it would take about 2 to 3 more Earths to sustain the current world population if it is to have the same quality of life the West has today. And the mount of resorces we need per capita will continue to rise for the forseeable future. We need to reduce the world population to a level where everyone can have an equally high quality of life while letting large areas of the world revert back to wilderness, and at the same time having enough people for a technological society, and I say 500 million people is a reasonale number. Think of how much more wilderness there would be in the US if it had 30 million people instead of 300 million. In Europe, The great forests could grow back and packs of European grey wolves could hunt the recovering herds of European bison (now restricted to a reserve in eastern Europe). In Asia, tiger and panda populations can recover, In South America, the rainforest will begin it's very slow recovery. In Africa, rinos, elephants, chimps, and gorillas, would not be threatend with extinction. With the lower human population, overfishing will be much less of a problem.Comment
Comment