Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: I'm OK, you're excess population Message-ID: <882@ames.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 23:20:47 EST Article-I.D.: ames.882 Posted: Tue Mar 19 23:20:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 00:05:03 EST References: <1457@dciem.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 91 From mmt!dciem (Martin Taylor): >I don't think there is any question of a "long range goal" of lower >population; I think it is just a fact of future life. Whether it comes >about through war, disease and famine, or through intelligent planning, >is up to those now living. I think you're underestimating the carrying capacity of planet Earth. Details below. >We KNOW that the kinds of energy source we now rely on will be running >out soon, and that we are not doing much about building the infrastructure >for substitutes. We KNOW that the kind of agriculture that is needed >to feed the world is highly energy-intensive. Yet we think that all >is fine, and that if we just teach those Africans our ways, they will >no longer be hungry. That could be true, for a few years, but we would >all be hungrier quicker if they started using energy with as much >abandon as we do. It is true that we cannot fuel our society forever with fossil fuels, but alternatives are available, and even more alternatives are likely to be available in the future, as our technology improves. Fusion energy, whether from the Sun or from fusion reactors (Real Soon Now), is a virtually inexhaustable energy supply. Other sources are nearly as promising. I think you are right in identifying energy supply as the heart of the problem, but wrong in thinking the present energy problems are destined to be with us forever. >How many people would the Earth have, in a natural balance with the rest >of life? If we avoid the Judeo-Christian notion that we have to dominate >all other creatures, and learn to live beside them instead, we might get >some idea by considering biomass. How much do all the members of given >species weigh? There should be some kind of distribution that would >determine a reasonable range of numbers for humans (the figures should >be for a time before humans became so dominant, rather than now, when >we have driven so many species to extinction and cultivated others >to unnatural numbers). I don't see why biomass would be a particularly good way to decide how many people the Earth ought to support. Doesn't it make more sense to just see how many it CAN support, comfortably? And while it's true that we are not presently managing the Earth in a way that comfortably supports the 4 billion we have, this seems a circumstantial rather than theoretical problem. Given plentiful and cheap energy, the figure could probably be far larger than 4 billion. >If you want another approach, consider what kind of lifestyle seems to >result in the greatest average happiness. Again, I don't know the >answer, but I am pretty sure it is not in crowded cities, nor yet >in hermitages. It may be in small towns close to a rural countryside. >If so, then judge how many people could live in such places in the >fertile parts of the world. I haven't calculated, but I would bet >the number is far, far less than one billion. Two points: the minor one is that some people do, indeed, like crowded cities, and some like total isolation. The main point, though, is that "fertile parts of the world" is a variable, as is the degree of fertility of those parts. Again, given plentiful and cheap energy, almost all of the Earth could be fertile. Elbow-room is no problem if you do this. Many more billions than we have could live in uncrowded conditions if we could spread the population more or less evenly over the Earth. >As for who I would expect to live in such a world -- in the real future, >I expect the majority to be the descendants of non-urbanized people from >reasonably fertile (but not prime) land. I expect the cities to be >decimated by disease, famine, and riot when the energy supplies break >down (all bets are off if this leads to nuclear war, as it well might). >People who can feed themselves and a few neighbours are the ones who >will have both the organization and the spare resources to survive >this period, if anyone does. I hope that enough history survives that >humanity (and the rest of us) will not have to go through a similar >period again in another two or three thousand years. At least it seems >unlikely that those people will be able to build their population on >the basis of using up resources hundreds of thousands of times faster >than the resources accumulate. We, in this century, will have used them up. I can at least agree that eventual disaster is inevitable if we do not develop alternative, renewable energy sources. But, with so many candidates (solar, fusion, biomass, geothermal, ???), I fail to see why you are so pessimistic about the effects of a large population. "Large" is a relative term. Given the resources that we can reasonably expect to have in the coming decades, I don't see our present level of population as necessarily disastrous. We've been dawdling on our energy problems, but it's not too late, by any means. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry