From: Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: How overcrowded is the world? ?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:13:24 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.7.104.198
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A75640F6720368C6@mac.me.uh.edu>
X-XXDate: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:36:38 GMT

In article <GPRIORES.92Dec14104329@fish.oracle.com> gordon prioreschi,
gpriores@oracle.com writes:

>I agree that the world is _currently_ able to sustain its current
>human population. That says nothing about the future, and the world
>doesn't have to be incapable of supporting all of its human
>inhabitants for it to be considered overpopulated; it might be a much
>more comfortable place with a tenth the people on it. If there were a
>tenth the people in, say, the San Francisco Bay area, the smog would
>hardly be noticeable, there wouldn't be a water shortage, and the ski
>lift lines in Tahoe would be a lot shorter. 

Maybe. But what about the role that population plays in improving quality
of life? All the wonderful things we have today are the result of efforts
of billions of people (not all of whom were Ueducatedj) over hundreds of
years, whose skills, creativity, imagination, and firsthand knowledge of
the price of tea in China (or whatever) were integrated through the
marketplace. 

Think about ANY manufactured product and all the steps that are necessary
to get the necessary materials, assemble, package, adverstise, ship, and
display it in your corner supermarket. Could you do the whole process by
yourself? Could anyone?

Think about basic services such as water, gas, or electricity, and all
the steps necessary to mine, drill, pump, process, filter, and build into
turbines, pipelines valves, faucets, power cables, plug outlets, not to
mention all the appliances that use them. Could you do it? Could anyone?
Any hundred? Any thousand? If so, why didnUt they do it thousands of
years ago, when the EarthUs population was much smaller? 

The reason is that an advanced technological society requires the
integration of the individual efforts of LOTS of LOTS of people. It also
requires a free economy to perform that integration, to give people an
incentive to be productive and creative rather than steal from each
other. In ancient times these conditions did not exist. There were damn
few people on this earth until about three hundred years ago, and most of
them were slaves, rulers, or bandits (the last two amounting to about the
same thing). As a result, technical progress was VERY, VERY slow.

PEOPLE made the water supply in California, the ski lift in Tahoe, and
all the stuff we take for granted as if it had fallen from the sky, and
it is PEOPLE that keep them sustained, maintained, and profitable. Anyone
who wants cities, trains, planes, ski lifts, etc. with no (or every few)
people in them is living on Fantasy Island. ThatUs who they were built
for! ThatUs also who built them!

Population growth is only a detriment to quality of life in a socialist
economy, where economic planning is done (extraordinarily badly) by a
small elite, with the rest of the people being just so much flesh that
has to be fed. But in a free society, population is not only sustainable,
it is necessary. The answer to the population Uproblemj is not to get rid
of people, but to get rid of the socialist governments (like that of
Somalia) that prevent people from feeding themselves, or developing the
technology to solve environmental problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Struble    | Department of Mechanical Engineering         |
| MECE3D@UH.JETSON.EDU | University of Houston, Houston 77204-4792    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    The true civilization is where every man gives to every other    |
|    every right that he claims for himself  --  Robert Ingersoll     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct