Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!dartvax!chuck
From: chuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Safety
Message-ID: <4255@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 05:59:19 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.4255
Posted: Thu Mar  6 05:59:19 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 20:21:49 EST
References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].835728.860302.KFL>
Reply-To: chuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 60

>   The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term.  It makes
> population sound like a bad thing.  

The consensus in the economic and historical communities seems to be that
too much population is indeed a bad thing.  The word "explosion" in the
phrase "population explosion" implies that there is too much population.

> Remember that if the pouplation
> were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would
> never would have been born.  

So what?  Those people that were alive would probably be better off.  If I
had never been born I certainly wouldn't be able to regret it.

> Instead of imagining 'our little brown
> brothers' or other third world peoples to be the subjects (victims) of
> population reduction measures (i.e. final solution), try imagining
> your parents, your wife or girlfriend, the people on the net, or
> yourself, as being one of the 'reduced'.  It puts things in a whole
> new light, doesn't it?

I have no objections to population reduction measures in this country.  In
China, small families are encouraged by giving couples with a single child
a tax break.  If they have more than one child, the tax break goes away.
If vasectomies were cheap and easy to come by, I'd go out and get one 
tomorrow.  Population reduction measures do not need to be very drastic.
Most of the countries in the norther hemisphere have population growth rates
close to zero percent.  The population reduction measures that take place
in these countries are an increased standard of living and education.

>   The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much
> higher population.  MUCH higher.  And every person a billionaire, by
> todays standards.

Where do you get such a ridiculous idea?  The reasons we are going out
into space are to increase our supply of raw materials, satisfy our sense
of adventure, increase our knowledge of the universe, and possibly to make
various manufacturing processes less expensive.  If you let the population
grow too fast, there is no way every person will be a billionaire by today's
standards.
     I do not like living in a world with 5 billion or so people.  The
competition for food, clean water, a place to live, and a job are way too
high.  Or maybe you don't care that large portions of the world population
don't have these four items that you and I take so much for granted.

>   I consider myself a fairly cautious person.  I don't smoke, drink,
> or take drugs (not even aspirin (or tylenol!)).  I don't stay around
> people who are smoking, even if it means I lose my job.  I drive a car
> as seldom and as slowly as possible, and always wear a seatbelt.  I
> eat little meat and eggs, and no pork.  I don't have sex with
> strangers.  I test the battery in my smoke detector every two weeks.

Sounds like loads of fun...

> 								...Keith

Chuck Simmons     chuck@dartvax