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

[:) Smiley]

Part of that human ingenuity is knowing when and when not to have kids.

[DanS]

I'm not assuming anything. Some countries persist in their backwardness. Some countries catch a tough break too.

But how can you be anything but hopeful for the future of the Chinese and Indians, when their governments consistently choose policies that are resulting in 7% or 9% growth rates on a routine basis? For certain, the US hasn't had such a high growth rate in a single year during my lifetime.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DanS

But how can you be anything but hopeful for the future of the Chinese and Indians, when their governments consistently choose policies that are resulting in 7% or 9% growth rates on a routine basis? For certain, the US hasn't had such a high growth rate in a single year during my lifetime.

Because growth is bad.

The more the economy grows, the more you have to feed it, and the more precarious it becomes.

You seem to think that human ingenuity is essentially limitless. I think it is exceptionally high, but there are still limits, and that we shouldn't tempt fate in an ill-considered population boom.

Ingenuity is mostly just dumb luck. Relying on it is mostly just dumb.

[Kidlicious]

The US can't grow that fast. It's too developed already. Developed countries grow much more slowly.

[mindseye]

DanS, I think few would argue with you that high rates of growth are beneficial, but I think the point many are trying to make is that they would be more beneficial if they were affecting a smaller population.

Adding more and more people only thins out and slows down the advances. The marginal addition to the economy by the large rural populations is minimal, maybe even negative in remote regions. I think you could easily subtract a few hundred million rural Chinese without significantly affecting China's GDP. At the same time there would be more wealth, services, and opportunities to go around. Yet you advocate the reverse this by adding still more people.

Maybe instead of looking at Chicago's history, you should consider the example of post-Plague Europe, where survivors experienced a major improvment in the standard of living. In many ways the situation of 14th century French peasants is much closer to that of rural Chinese than 19th century Chicagoans.

[alva]

Originally posted by DanS
And there are some 400 billion star systems (+/- 200 billion star systems) in our galaxy alone.

OK, so that might be too much of a "thought exercise" for some people. But with our current technology, every part of our solar system is within striking distance for resources that are truly necessary. No Buck Rogers technology required.

Why exactly would we travel to the end of space to get some oil? Talk about taking state subsidised programming to the extreem.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by alva

Why exactly would we travel to the end of space to get some oil? Talk about taking state subsidised programming to the extreem.

Because apparently oil is "finite" on earth

[Dracon II]

millions of people might have to be "plugged in" to virtual reality... matrix style, if population growth begins to outstrip the supply of resources.

~ Dracon's crazy DanS-esque thought of the day.

[MORON]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Because growth is bad.

The more the economy grows, the more you have to feed it, and the more precarious it becomes.

Growth is fine if resources are value properly with no externalities what not.

Too bad that is usually not the case, espeically in developing countries and growth is artifically inflated in that case.

After all, growing a forest is economic growth too.....but many numbers don't count it.....

Originally posted by DanS
Concrete is hard to come by in the US nowadays because the Chinese economy is growing so quickly. We can create more supply for this resource no problem

We can more supply at a HIGHER COST. I don't care if there is infinite amounts of concrete in the universe, it is just too expensive to milk the higher-end of the supply curve.

If there is less people and less consumption, there would be more natural resources relative to people and the price of resources would be less.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


theres no way. theres what, 40 gallons of oil per barrel? water is 8.3 lbs/ gallon, lets estimate oil = 10 lbs/ gallon. 10 million barrels a day, that makes out to be 4 billion lbs. 2200 lbs per ton, thats 1818181 tons of goods. todays spaceshuttles carry 10 tons of goods up. thats 181,819 spaceshuttle trips per day.

on top of that you need facilities on both ends for launching/ landing.



dont change your argument now. you said there are infinite amount of resources, and there will be some on the planets, and since we can easily get to them, thats why we will go there, and get it, and that its not inconcievable.

well it is. weve got finite resources.

Sea Water is 8.34/5 and Fresh water is 8.32 if I remember correctly.
I had to know this when we did water calibration. Some of our sensor were calibrated for fresh and some for sea water.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

chill, but my oil estimate is off. it should be less than water (cuz it floats on top of water)

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
if we wanted it at those price, we wouldnt need to subsidize them, would we? they wouldnt need our money to put food on their table.

Prices? Aside from milk, America has some of the cheapest food on the planet. That markup from field to processed product sure as heck isn't making its way to your friendly, neighborhood family farmer (what few of those there are left after decades of consolidation and more and more corporate ownership of acres).

Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

Ah, well. What will happen will happen. Sometimes folks gotta get burned to learn the lesson. Just so long as we don't hop into the frying pan while jumping about hooting and hollering about our burned fingers, that's the main thing.

Gatekeeper

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by mindseye
I think you could easily subtract a few hundred million rural Chinese without significantly affecting China's GDP. At the same time there would be more wealth, services, and opportunities to go around. Yet you advocate the reverse this by adding still more people.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Prices? Aside from milk, America has some of the cheapest food on the planet. That markup from field to processed product sure as heck isn't making its way to your friendly, neighborhood family farmer (what few of those there are left after decades of consolidation and more and more corporate ownership of acres).

because its subsidized! so they can offer them at discount rates, cuz the govt covers part of their cost of living, so that way third world farmers cant compete anymore, and then they all starve and die.

Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

no, i dont believe in any of that stuff. 'national dependence' 'national security' thats all a load of crap that those lobbies hav told us. looks like theyve done theie job, and their scare tactics have worked. who is gonna invade us? mexico? canada? those are the only two countries who can, and only cuz they are right next to us. you think china will? think again. or russia? nah. what about thsoe middle east countries? nope, they dont even have transports.

we face no threat of invasion. and no, were not gonna get burned. there is no lesson to learn except dont listen to special interst lobbies.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Yet folks want things cheaper. It's human nature, I imagine, but in the end it's also why behemoths like Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland (among others) are crowding out the marketplace of not only ideas, but food and commerce as well. As hard as it is to believe, cheaper isn't always better (just ask NASA), and if we're getting to the point where we're importing basic food commodities (and not refined, "luxury" foodstuffs such as wines, cheeses and so on), we're in trouble. No nation, IMO, should ever be dependent on another for such foodstuffs. And America has no reason to be, except for the Almighty Dollar and the Drive To Be Cheap, Cheaper and Cheapest.

I may be wrong, but if the US ever found itself dependent for basic food from other nations then that in itself is not a bad thing unless the supplying nation turns hostile or jacks up the price above the cost of home supply. Then, how long would it take to re-engage the home supply of foodstuffs, and how much would it cost to have a store that would last that lag period?