Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Population Control and Social Problems
Message-ID: <1138@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 23:18:46 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1138
Posted: Wed Feb 13 23:18:46 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 22:31:36 EST
References: <4521@cbscc.UUCP> <423@whuxl.UUCP> <1182@ut-ngp.UUCP> <431@whuxl.UUCP> <8108@brl-tgr.ARPA> <475@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA
Lines: 48

>  tim sevener   whuxl!orb

> There is no doubt that excessive population is a major problem for
> the whole world and especially the Third World.

I doubt that.  The problem is not "excessive population" but how
that population lives.  There are places in the world with
high  population densities which are not filled with starving 
people: Japan, Manhattan, West Germany ...

> What is appalling and was generally ignored in the last election is that the
> Reagan administration has reversed decades of efforts by past administrations
> to curb population growth in the Third World.  The proposal to cutoff funds
> for countries which support abortions is only the tip of the iceberg.
> During the summer the Reagan administration issued a report declaring that
> "population growth" was not a problem and pointing to examples of highly
> populated regions like Hong Kong as proof that population growth was
> good for economic growth.  Whether we all would *like* to live in a whole
> planet populated like Hong Kong was never considered in the report.

Not just Honk Kong but West Germany, Japan, Belgium and Holland all
have population densities of 500+ per sq. mile.  So does El Salvador,
India and Bangladesh.  The first group of nations has share a per-
capita income of $5K+, the latter $1K-.  This demonstrates that
population *density* is *irrelevant* to economic growth or prosperity.

> One assumes that the same magic that will wish away unprecedented federal
> deficits will also somehow solve the world's need for resources with
> twice the present population while the *present* population is leading
> to massive famine.

Ethiopia, today's best example, is experiencing famine NOT because there
is not enough food, but because of distribution (as well as political
reasons).  In the United States we are *throwing food away*,
and not just farmers and dairymen -- did you eat the skin of
your potato ... ?

I, too, am beginning to doubt the calamaties predicted
for us by Malthus almost 200 years ago.  While I agree that there
are limits to growth, I doubt we've seen them yet.  There have been
famines and plagues thruout human history right up to today, but
not because the Earth was too full.

We have yet to see effects of "over-population"; perhaps this is a
good time to ask what IS over-population anyway?  Too many people?
Too many POOR people ... ?
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam