From: cedman@princeton.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation ? (was: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty)
To: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
	<CEDMAN.93Jan24160246@capitalist.princeton.edu>
	<C1Dzqy.FCH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:00:52 GMT

In article <C1Dzqy.FCH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
   In article <CEDMAN.93Jan24160246@capitalist.princeton.edu> cedman@princeton.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
   >In article <C1DG2E.BLL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
   >   We live in a world with 3 times the population it can support well, and in
   >   a country with at least 1.5 times such population.  Taxing responsible
   >   people to support an increase in people who require public support is
   >   what is unaffordable.

   >The rest of your statements notwithstanding, how do you justify that
   >figure for the US ? After all, the US has little more than one tenth
   >of the population density of eg. Germany. And while Germany is
   >certainly much closer to overpopulation than the US is, it equally
   >certainly hasn't yet reached the point where population pressure has a
   >serious impact on the quality of life of its residents. But 80 million
   >people live comfortably in a country where by your meassure only about
   >5 million could.

   For one thing, average population density is misleading.  The population
   density on the central part of the eastern seaboard is quite close to that
   of Germany.  

True enough. The US probably couldn't achieve the same average
population density as Germany could without overpopulation as it
contains large close to uninhabitable areas which Germany doesn't. On
the other hand the weather in the continental US is on average better
from an agricultural point of view.  So while a higher population
density in the eastern seaboard probably would be deleterious, huge
areas with a friendly climatic and geographic conditions in the South,
Mid-West and West could vastly increase their population densities
without any harmful effects whatsoever.  Based on these factors I'd
roughly estimate that the US could provide a population of at least
one billion with a high standard of living.

   But the factors which caused a higher quality of life in crowded cities
   have been replaced; there is no longer the need for large numbers of low-
   paid workers in a single location, or for that matter much of anything
   else in a central location.  Before WWII, there was a concentration of
   banks in downtown Manhattan so that the money could be transferred; now
   it is mostly done on computers.  In the 19th century and early in this,
   there had to be a concentration of factory workers, large department 
   stores, etc.  The automobile, the telephone, and the computer have
   changed this.  Downtowns are only maintained by government action.

I don't disagree with this.  Certainly much lower population densities
across the world would be possible due to technological factors.
However, there is a difference between possible and necessary.  And I
do argue that population densities of the same order of magnitude as
the West German one can be sustained without any impact on the
standard of living of the population.

   Germany IS overpopulated.  The concentrations of people in the cities
   is no longer an advantage.  Having to wait for a public vehicle is
   automatically a reduction in the quality of life; it was a transient
   phenomenon of the industrial development which caused the need for a
   dense population, which could not be well served by foot and private 
   vehicles.	

By what standard do you call Germany overpopulated ?  If you mean by
that that Germany _could_ be run with a lower population density, we
don't have an argument, but you don't have a very useful standard
either.  I'd define overpopulation as the level at which population
pressure seriously starts to have an impact on the standard of living.
On the most basic level this would mean that there should be no
problems providing the population with food.  And as long as the
government pays farmers _not_ to grow food (as both the German and the
US governments do), I don't think anybody can seriously argue that
this is the case.  But the standard of living also includes adequate
living space and certain amounts of "untouched" nature for
recreational purposes.  But again I think that by all these measures
West Germans are not significantly worse of the US citizens.

So in summary, none of the Western nations is currently overpopulated.
Several of them (like eg. West Germany) are not too far away from
overpopulation, both all of those have stagnant or declining
populations. Only the US has still a growing population but then it is
also very far away from overpopulation. So overpopulation is not a
problem in the West now, nor will it be in the future if present
trends continue.  Now if you want to talk about some Third World
Nations, there the situation is very different ...

        Carl Edman

--
"We hold that what one man cannot morally do, a million men cannot
morally do, and government, representing many millions of men, cannot
do." -- Auberon Herbert
          Send mail to Carl Edman <cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion