From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:26:51 GMT

>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.

Speaking of myths, the "growth myth" is one of the longest running right-
wing fables.  Population growth may be a great thing for the ruling and 
wealthy class, but it doesn't offer much to the middle class and it is the 
#1 reason for the existence of the poor class.  If overpopulation is defined 
as: too many people for the resources of the environment and technology of a 
given area, there are many people starving from overpopulation.  Unless 
you are only familiar with food, water, and resources from the usual grocery 
store source, you'd be pretty ignorant not to notice the damage done to the 
planet and the sources for these items; just in the last few decades.   

>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.

Boy is this a popular superstition.  Even "Megatrends" promoted this 
drivel with the "knowledge-based economy" fairy tale.  I guess people who 
work for the government don't have much cause to understand supply and 
demand, but you'd think they would have a passing aquaintance, at least. 
 
First, the cost of some metals and raw materials have held still or 
dropped in value because demand has changed and world competition has 
increased.  But third world countries joining the list of countries mining 
resources doesn't prove that those resources are infinite.  I don't even 
understand the basis for this argument.  How can a finite planet have 
infinite resources?  What are you thinking about?  Probably your own 
lifetime and no further, like a good *conservative* (what a bastardization 
of a good word).  

Second, the limits and application of "human wealth such as knowledge and 
skill" are probably the best argument for worrying about excess population.  
Where do you think the unemployed class comes from?  Having worked in 
manufacturing and information based corporations for most of my life, as an 
engineer and manager, I have seen the demands of industry exceed the 
abilities of a good portion of the population in my lifetime.  Except in the 
socialist portion of our economy (civil service and the military), there are 
few jobs that don't demand skills that are out of reach for too many 
people.  (I know that sounds elitist, sorry.  I haven't seen a solution 
for this problem.)  Basic manual labor functions are being assumed 
by machines and the machines are being run by only the most talented and 
educatable of assembly personnel.  

In a few years, a basic factory job will require high level (by today's 
standards) programming and quality control skills.  My previous employer (a 
small audio equipment manufacturer) tripled production numbers in 
eight years while adding on only a dozen assemblers and reducing technician 
and QC inspector positions by half.  These positions weren't shipped 
overseas either: they don't exist.  And the positions weren't filled by 
equipment that required an equivalent number of employees from other 
manufacturers, a few PCs and some process and tooling changes accounted for 
most of the efficiency improvements.  

And this occurred in S California.  Where do you think uneducated, 
undeveloped, and overpopulated countries will find places for their people?  
They aren't doing well at it now and the "developed countries" are finding 
resources hard enough to come by that not much surplus is available to 
assist the much larger populations in the "undeveloped countries."

>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>bridge to controlling people, generally.

I'd buy that argument, but in reverse.  The ruling class finds a large and 
stupid population a lot easier to control than a well-fed, educated 
population that doesn't have to worry about a starving underclass pushing 
for their place in the economy.  I am afraid of the population control 
systems that *will* be put in place when the population reaches critical 
mass.  And "conservatives" will be controlling the population then (like 
they do now) for the same goals they work for today: their own profit and 
power.

>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.

You read too much SF and/or watch too much Star Dreck.  Pretending that the 
world can afford to fill with human bodies and assuming that science will 
save the human race in the last minute is as fantasy-filled as a Disney 
fable.  As resources tighten and demand increases for the basic support of 
the huge number of unemployable bodies, the only SF future we will have is 
the one pictured in "Soylent Green."  

How many kids can you have if you really have to afford them?  I mean by 
paying for their education and the systems that are needed to assure their 
future?  Instead of leaching off people who don't believe in your fantasies, 
try on a "kid tax" for instance.  If people who have large numbers of 
children had to pay for the full cost of those children and the burden they 
put on society, I suspect their population position would change radically.  
But that kind of reality won't set in until we have past the point of no 
return, ecologically and politically.
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss