Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!csvax.caltech.edu!jon From: jon@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU Newsgroups: net.space Subject: (none) Message-ID: <4191.510798127@csvax.caltech.edu> Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 19:23:12 EST Article-I.D.: csvax.4191.510798127 Posted: Sun Mar 9 19:23:12 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 03:34:41 EST References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].844266.860309.KFL> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 82 > == Keith Lynch (kfl@mc.lcs.mit.edu) > If we define the present population density of Hong Kong, 12,000 > people per square mile, as the limit, then the world can support about > 200 times the population you estimate. We don't run into trouble for > 300 years. This just shows that we should have many large space > colonies operating by then if we want population to be able to > continue to grow at this rate. Space colonies - even if obtained by dismantling all the rocky bodies of the solar system - can only put off the day of reckoning for so long. The point is that there is a fixed amount of matter to build stuff with, while the population keeps increasing. No matter what the coefficients involved, sooner or later the curves cross. If population increase is exponential, it's sooner. How much land (for farming, mining, etc.) is required to support the population of Hong Kong? How much would be required if they all lived at the US standard of living? I suspect it's substantially more than just the city itself. If the entire world is packed as densely as Hong Kong, where does food, oil, etc. come from? Where's the vegetable biomass to balance O2/CO in the atmosphere? What will the heat balance of the planet be like? In addition, how do you propose to export all the `excess' population to space colonies? How many are going to want to go? Are we to force people to live in space, or force them to control their breeding? I don't care for either alternative but the second seems like less of an imposition. > As for right now, the world is mostly underpopulated. I agree that > unless birth rates decrease or death rates increase, this will not > remain the case for more than another century or so. Is Ethiopia underpopulated? Bangladesh? These and a number of other countries seem to have exceeded their long-term carrying capacity. Densely populated countries like Japan can get away with it - by importing most of their energy. But EVERYONE can't import most of their energy. Or are you referring to such choice underpopulated spots as the `Empty Quarter' of Arabia and Antarctica? I doubt there will be enough volunteers to live there to balance the birth rate. Or should we balance the global population by inviting 200 million third world immigrants to the US? After all, it would only increase the population density by a factor of 2 or less... > I don't think the population is going to increase at 2% forever. It Your original posting sure sounded like it. The first paragraph I quoted above seems to continue to make this claim. > does tend to be lower in wealthier countries. It should drop > everywhere once more people in more countries reach a western standard > of wealth. Maybe. The birth rate in the US seems to be on the rise again. It will take more than a few decades of affluence to establish this point. There's no guarantee that most of the world will ever reach a 'western standard of wealth' either (even if they want to). > I *DO* think it should always remain a matter of personal choice. > If people do not like to live around highly populated areas, why is > it that most people tend to clump into heavily populated cities, > rather than distributing themselves fairly evenly across the world? > > ...Keith Many like it. Many don't have any choice. Poor people in the inner city are hardly in an economic position to move to the country (even if they were able to find a way to support themselves there). Others accept it as a way out of poverty or boredom, like many people in Africa and farm kids in the US. For that matter, I think Los Angeles (Pasadena) is an utterly disgusting place to live but it's a worthwhile tradeoff while I'm getting a Caltech education out of it. But when I graduate, I'll be out of this pesthole so fast... In addition, heavily populated areas tend to be those that are capable of supporting lots of people - near major waterways, with fertile soil nearby, centers of commerce, etc. 10 acres in the Sahara will support a lot fewer people than 10 acres in the Corn Belt. -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu) __@/ PS This discussion has diverged significantly from a space-related topic. Perhaps we should continue it by private mail?