From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:54:45 GMT

In article <3226@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence) writes:
>>   Big cities disgust me. They are filthy, congested, and far more dangerous
>>(due to these wonderful creatures called humans) than any wilderness I've 
>>ever been in. After 10 years in a large city, and most of my life previously
>>spent in cities of around 100,000 population, I fail to see any virtue in 
>>large numbers of people. A smaller number with a higher standard of living
>>(as defined, of course, by me) would be far preferable. 
>>Jeff Achenbach
>
>	Kind of reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia.  Why did he like the desert
>	so much?  "Because it's clean".
>
>>I fail to see any virtue in large numbers of people.
>
>	Well, there are reasons why large numbers of people congregate
>	together.  Mainly it's due to efficiency.  Larger groups of people
>	lend themselves to higher levels of specialization and division of
>	labor.  Most large groups of people are located near an important
>	shared natural resource, i.e. a river, harbor, or lake.  People living
>	close together results in decreased travel distances for people and
>	the goods they produce.  Why do you think that all these businesses
>	headquarter in downtown Manhattan?  Being physically close to other
>	related and interdependent businesses is more efficient.  For those
>	people who *do* like other people, a large city provides more diversity
>	and variety in the people who live there.
>

In principle you are correct. There is another principle, however, known
as diminishing marginal returns. What % of this larger population is really
productive? Quality of life is subjective. If more consumer products is 
important to you, then you will base your judgement on such things. IMO,
there is no need for more video games, new car models every year, and many
other things resulting, in part, from a large population. Wide open spaces,
without trash and campfire rings, or even footprints, mean far more to me.
   As populations increase, outdoor recreation becomes increasingly restricted.
Have you tried to get into Yellowstone recently? Backcountry permits may 
not even be attainable when you want them. Hiking requires registration and
timing so that people don't stumble over one another on the trail. The lakes
become increasingly crowded with powerboats, and catch limits increasingly 
restricted so that fish can be recycled through catch and release.
   Our air and water becomes increasingly polluted, and the landfills are 
overflowing. How will a higher population address these issues?



>	Also, there is a relationship between competition and population
>	growth.  It is easy to come up with all kinds of utopian societies
>	that would function well within a protected environment, i.e. an
>	environment that does not have to face competition from other societies.
>	But, the world we live in *is* affected by competition.  

We were quite competitive after World War 2 with a much smaller population. 
Again, what proportion of our present society is actually productive and 
useful? 150 million gainfully employed people would have a very significant
advantage over 250 million, of whom only 150 million are employed.

>	have to do double duty.  In the larger society there are enough people
>	for a portion of the population to spend it's time exclusively in
>	training for one function, say, the function of a warrior.  When the
>	small society and the large society come in conflict, the small society
>	will either have to adopt the methods of the large society (which
>	include increasing it's population) or it will be defeated by the
>	large society and it's members will be integrated into the larger
>	society and be forced to adopt it's methods.
>

How do countries like Israel and Switzerland fit this model?

>	In the United States, though, we are privileged as a people and have
>	many more options, in terms of life style, than anyone else has in
>	any other time in history.  It is now possible to live in a small town
>	and enjoy many of the benefits that previously may have only been
>	available in large urban centers.  I can live in Podunk, Oklahoma and
>	enjoy chocolate from Switzerland, oranges from California or Florida,
>	wheat from Iowa and beer from Canada.  And I can enjoy plays, art and
>	concerts presented on recorded media and delivered, mail-order, right
>	to my door.  

I consider all of these to be worthless if we have to live like rats in a 
cage nesting in our own refuse. 


>	and more limited.  It's easy enough for us to say "we'll just limit
>	our population".  But, what about China?  What about India?  What
>	about Mexico?  We don't live in isolation.  We compete with societies.
>

We have no right IMO to try to control the actions of China and India. If 
they seek our help, it may be in our interest to give it. In case you haven't
noticed, we have lost much of our competitive advantage. The loss has occurred
at a time when we have experienced massive population growth. I'm not saying
there is a cause and effect relationship here. There are too many other factors
to count. However, it indicates to me that large population is no guarantee
of affluence, competitiveness, or "quality" of life (which is defined by 
each of us as individuals).


Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals