From: allan@hico2.westmark.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:42:39 GMT
Reply-To: allan@hico2.westmark.com
Organization: High Country Software
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I have some comments, both on the original article (as quoted),
and on the followup.

Robert Reed missed an important point about population migration
to the cities.

In general, I found Ed Ipser's "reproduce to the max" argument
seems to neither answer the question "why" nor do any decent social-
consequences analysis.  Ed Ipser's analysis also seems to be of
the "continued straight line" type,  the kind that gets people
in trouble in the stock market.

Robert Reed (robert@slipknot.rain.com) wrote:
: In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>
: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
: |There is no overpopulation problem.
: |People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
: |contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
: |advancement, generally.
: 
: This is patently wrong.  The most glaring counter to this fantasy is the
: sitation in Somalia, which began with the global drought the world has been
: experiencing over the last three or four years.  The ability of the land to
: support food requirements of its population failed, which fits the definition
: of overpopulation.  Historically, the migration of the poor to cities is a
: classic symptom of rural overpopulation; the poor go to the population
: centers to look for work because the land can no longer support them.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!  People move to the cities when EXCESS production
allows fewer people to farm.  If you starve less by farming than by
moving to the city (or other known options), then you remain farming.
If you starve more by farming, or have better opportunities available,
you move away.  If EVERYBODY in the city was starving, the city would
be abandoned....
  
: |Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
: |around the myth of finite resources. Nothing could be further from the
: |truth. As Juliam Simon as amply demonstrated, every resource of
: |signifance, from metals to food stuffs, has decreased in price over
: |the last century. And, of course, when you consider other sources of
: |human wealth such as knowledge and skill, the finite resources argument
: |crumbles even further.

Yes, and if our goal is to live like ants, and convert as much mass
to human biomass as possible, we can probably do that.  Why?

: I haven't heard the arguments of Juliam Simon, but it's easy to skew any
: economic analysis by ignoring external factors.  For example, while the price
: of food has fallen over the last hundred years, the technology and
: non-renewable resources consumed, from vehicle fuels to agrichemicals, have
: skyrocketed, and are plainly unsupportable.  Just between 1970 and 1990, the
: total use of fertilizers in the world rose from 70 million to 145 million
: metric tons per year.  The major source of agrichemicals is petroleum, and it
: clearly is a limited resource.

The existance of agricultural subsidies drives down the price of food,
at the cost of everything else more expensive (through taxes to support
the subsidies).  And while the existance of substitute goods means that
"running out" usually really means just more expensive, think of slash/burn
agriculture, where you really do run out of decent land, at a rate determined
by how fast the activitie takes place.

Increasing the innovation pressure on the economic system leads
to toxic waste, ozone holes, etc., where we
    1. had problems we didn't forsee,
    2. developed higher standards for longevity, health and safety
    3. treated land and other geographic resources as "infinitely available"

Think of the park in NJ built (unknowingly) on land that use to be a racetrack.
All signs of its former usage were gone, but people got sick from day-use
of the park.

: wholesale collapse of ecosystems in the Pacific northwest.  Or the moratorium
: on cod fishing in the Grand Banks.  Or the severe restrictions on whaling
: imposed by the IWC.  Or the dying of Appalachian forests due to the acid rains
: generated in combustion based power plants.

Well, I don't know about that wholesale collape.  But I DO know that in
the Black Forest in Germany, and the like, the large die-off of trees seems
to be most likely due to accululated acid-rain damage, and we may start
seeing the like here.

: But I've asked myself, which is worse: reducing population through
: restrictions on having children, or letting nature do it through famine,
: pestilence and war?

I agree with this remark completely.  Everybody is born, everybody dies;
but if we want to increase the length of life for the same population,
we have to decrease the birth rate.

Right now, people starve because they cannot create enough value to
pay for necessary food, either though direct farming or through other
means.  If meerly the PRICE of food rises, more will starve.
(Food X fetches more for catfood in this country than as a staple
 in country C)
 
: |Do your part for the human race. Have as many kids as you can afford.
: |Teach them to acquire and defend wealth through peaceful commerce with
: |their fellow man.

PHOOEY.  I guess we'd have to get into philosophical arguements about
the purpose of life to argue about this one.  Me, I LIKE having a
"non-economicly producing" land around me, like forests, parks, lawns,
etc.   Do you want downtown Manhattan to be everywhere?

I'll make the unsupported argument that we (in the U.S.)
can't keep the same individualist social systems and increase
social density and survive.  Most countries with denser populations
have much more structured cultures.  I also believe that societies
with denser populations tend to put less value on an individual life.
Think of how farmers treat their neighbors, and how apartment
dwellers treat their neighbors.  Who has the greater respect?
I like having more social choices.
I like having my and other people's existence respected.
I don't think we should maximize population growth.

	Allan Kugel
	allan@hico2.westmark.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc