Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: I'm ok, you're excess population
Message-ID: <800@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 18:25:45 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.800
Posted: Tue Feb 26 18:25:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 20:26:22 EST
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 45

[The Loyal Opposition strikes again]

> Any amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but
> negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments
> about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by
> keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).)
> Will Martin

And no doubt *you* get to be one of the lucky 100,000!  I don't agree
that anybody has negative value -- doubtless you don't consider yourself
to be one of the excess.  I'm glad that the world population is large;
otherwise I might not have been born!  I don't know about you, but by
and large I *like* people.  I don't consider them a threat to my economic
well-being either -- see below.

> 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.
>                  tim sevener   whuxl!orb

I know it's against NETNEWS policy, but let's *think* about this.  It's
obvious that with less people and the same amount of food, we could avoid
much starvation.  (But not all -- much of it is politically caused.  Most
of the starvation occuring right now is in the most war-torn areas of the
world.)  However, it is also obvious that people *produce* things, including
food.  (Libertarians, all gasp -- Torek realizes that people produce!  Oh no,
you'll have to revise your stereotypes! :->)  In fact, when you look over
some centuries of history, you'll find that the long-term trend is toward
*less* starvation as a percentage of population, while population has grown!

Could it be that increasing population creates economies of scale, and
encourages invention, thus leading in the long run to improvements in
the overall economy, including agriculture?  What evidence is there for
the view that a small world population would make life better for the
lucky few who got to be there, than a large [and perhaps slowly growing]
population?  Not much, as far as I can see.  Not only would such a world 
have fewer inventors and laborers, it would have fewer artists, writers, 
architects, etc.; fewer potential spouses; fewer potential friends ...  And
last but most, there would be fewer people to enjoy life.

					Up with people,
				Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Don't hit that 'r' key!  Send any mail to this address, not the sender's.