Building and Construction - Population growth: a means to what end?

Author

Population growth: a means to what end?

Enough Already

2006-03-16, 3:21 pm

Robotic, banal quotes like these make the news every day in America:

"One of the fastest growing regions in the country..." "Unprecedented
housing starts have boosted tax revenues..." "Immigration will assure a
robust economy for the next fiscal year..." "Regional job-creation has
remained strong with no end in sight..." "Sprawl has presented some
problems but economic growth must be sustained..."

Absent from those glowing reports are two fundamental facts in a finite
world:

A) Population growth depletes finite resources at a faster rate and
makes it more difficult to sustain renewable ones. Read any
(non-industry) article about water supplies, global fisheries or old
growth timber if you doubt that second point.

B) Population growth increasingly alters the landscape, making it less
natural and more crowded. Because growth never ends, "balance" between
Man and nature has yet to be achieved.

Population growth is still framed in neutral to buoyant terms by most
observers. Negative side-effects are brushed aside by mass marketers
and land developers. After all, there's money to be made in any pyramid
scheme until its final days. This one's just been going on for awhile,
thanks to fossil fuels. Economic growth is treated like Popeye being
fortified with spinach but it's really more like steroids.

Here are some questions that growth-addicts can't or won't answer:

1) Which came first, more people or more jobs? Would the latter be
necessary without the former? Would the GNP need to grow each year
without more consumers? What about the quality and pay of newly created
jobs? How secure is an outsourced service economy that makes less of
its own stuff?

2) Is the world a better place with less wilderness acreage each day?
Is an increasingly artificial planet a more pleasant one? How many
city-dwellers would be content if they could never fully escape the
suburbs?

3) Aren't open spaces fundamental to America's heritage as a new land
with "unlimited" freedom? Other than accommodating more people (~3
million per year), what purpose is served by filling up these lands and
destroying their mystique?

4) Does it make sense to build homes on farmland which will inevitably
be needed to feed more home-buying families? How many times have you
heard people blame "agriculture" for growing water shortages? Do they
plan to eat Soylent Green when the time comes?

5) Can traffic congestion EVER be reduced with more people driving more
cars all the time? Please use common sense here.

6) RE so-called Smart Growth: if we do manage to build denser cities,
will it do anything to reduce the crowds when all those people leave
their driveways? Or will we force them to wait at home, metered by
green lights like a freeway on-ramp? Even if we could do that, they'd
all end up somewhere by Saturday. Metering a flow barely helps if its
gross volume keeps rising.

7) Is the introduction of more congestion and noise in rural areas
improving their quality of life? Don't people move or vacation there to
escape such things? NIMBY would be a rare term without constant growth.
A nice view could actually stay that way.

8) Don't you tire of things being more crowded all the time? Apply that
generically to almost any public place. Instead of complaining about
long lines for X or waiting forever for Y, ask yourself "Y" it keeps
getting worse. Who taught you that it was inevitable?

9) Why are we so quick to control population spikes in other species
(wildlife management) while ignoring limits to our own massive growth
of 75 million annually worldwide? Birth control is easier to use than
ever. What's our excuse, aside from willful ignorance of limits?

10) On a FINITE Earth (not some Cornucopian dreamland) how can there
ever be more physical wealth PER person? Are rising debts mere
abstractions? Money is an imperfect concept, but it's trying to warn us
that we're living beyond our means. A sustainable economy would
function much like nature and have almost zero long-term debt.
Population growth keeps us constantly wanting, taking and borrowing
more.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

RicodJour

2006-03-16, 3:21 pm

Enough Already wrote:
> Robotic, banal quotes like these make the news every day in America:

I agree there are too many people. Set the example - kill yourself.

This has been a public service message.

R

george conklin

2006-03-16, 5:21 pm

sanjian

2006-03-16, 5:21 pm

george conklin wrote:
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1142535433.292057.116470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Malthus said this 200+ years ago. Imagine.

Though he's been proven wrong. Though, to be fair, the circumstances that
did so could not have been forseen in his day. Damn dismal economists.

Matt Barrow

2006-03-16, 7:21 pm

"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dvck79$e9n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> george conklin wrote:
>
> Though he's been proven wrong. Though, to be fair, the circumstances that
> did so could not have been forseen in his day.

Not true. When Malthus wrote his work in 1799, the English economy was
growing exponentially for over 200 years (Thank you, Enlightenment, and it's
child the Industrial Revolution). All it took was extrapolation and some
abstraction...something humans had been doing for thousands of years.

Doing so, he would have seen the world of mankind as dynamic, not static.
Had he been creatvie, rather than staid (typical Bishop/churchmen) he would
have picked up the trend

> Damn dismal economists.

Damn dismal churchmen nad modern day nutcases (see Paul Erlich and the
environuts) that keep running with that garbage. Seeing that
environmentalism is a modern religion, the links are unmistakable.

RicodJour

2006-03-16, 7:21 pm

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Damn dismal churchmen nad modern day nutcases (see Paul Erlich and the
> environuts) that keep running with that garbage. Seeing that
> environmentalism is a modern religion, the links are unmistakable.

Do you shit in a bucket and dump it out your window? No? Well then,
why do that with the planet? Oh, right, I forgot - it's inconvenient
to pick up after yourself.

R

Micha³ Gancarski

2006-03-16, 7:21 pm

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:12:29 +0100, RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com>
wrote:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Do you shit in a bucket and dump it out your window? No?

Of cource he does and so do you and I. We just use modern plumbing systems.

--
Micha³ Gancarski
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that
it can bribe the public with the public's money" Alexis de Tocqueville

Matt Barrow

2006-03-16, 8:21 pm

"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:VmkSf.13316$S25.12996@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1142535433.292057.116470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Malthus said this 200+ years ago. Imagine.
>
>
>
>
> Malthus said this 200+ years ago.
>
What Malthus meant was "I'm okay, you're okay...everyone else is surplus".

>
> Why not get rid of growth by getting rid of yourself?

I notice they never, ever follow that course, but it's the logical
conclusion.

george conklin

2006-03-16, 8:21 pm

george conklin

2006-03-16, 8:21 pm

"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote in message
news:AUlSf.26$rN1.759@news.uswest.net...
>
> "sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dvck79$e9n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
> Not true. When Malthus wrote his work in 1799, the English economy was
> growing exponentially for over 200 years (Thank you, Enlightenment, and
> it's child the Industrial Revolution). All it took was extrapolation and
> some abstraction...something humans had been doing for thousands of years.
>
> Doing so, he would have seen the world of mankind as dynamic, not static.
> Had he been creatvie, rather than staid (typical Bishop/churchmen) he
> would have picked up the trend
>
>
> Damn dismal churchmen nad modern day nutcases (see Paul Erlich and the
> environuts) that keep running with that garbage. Seeing that
> environmentalism is a modern religion, the links are unmistakable.
>
>
>
Paul Ehrlich placed many personal bets on his dismal predictions and he lost
them all, and quite a bit of money in the process. He is an excellent
example of how to be really wrong.

RicodJour

2006-03-16, 8:21 pm

george conklin wrote:
> Paul Ehrlich placed many personal bets on his dismal predictions and he lost
> them all, and quite a bit of money in the process. He is an excellent
> example of how to be really wrong.

Meaning that he didn't have any leg to stand on re: overpopulation or
that he couldn't predict the future on a timetable?

R

Matt Barrow

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:6MmSf.13386$S25.1484@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote in message
> news:AUlSf.26$rN1.759@news.uswest.net...
> Paul Ehrlich placed many personal bets on his dismal predictions and he
> lost them all, and quite a bit of money in the process. He is an
> excellent example of how to be really wrong.
He lost to Julian Simon, and he STILL barfs his old lines and the MSM
swallows it.

Bill

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1142535433.292057.116470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Robotic, banal quotes like these make the news every day in America:
>
> "One of the fastest growing regions in the country..." "Unprecedented
> housing starts have boosted tax revenues..." "Immigration will assure a
> robust economy for the next fiscal year..." "Regional job-creation has
> remained strong with no end in sight..." "Sprawl has presented some
> problems but economic growth must be sustained..."
>
> Absent from those glowing reports are two fundamental facts in a finite
> world:
>
> A) Population growth depletes finite resources at a faster rate and
> makes it more difficult to sustain renewable ones. Read any
> (non-industry) article about water supplies, global fisheries or old
> growth timber if you doubt that second point.
>
> B) Population growth increasingly alters the landscape, making it less
> natural and more crowded. Because growth never ends, "balance" between
> Man and nature has yet to be achieved.
>
> Population growth is still framed in neutral to buoyant terms by most
> observers. Negative side-effects are brushed aside by mass marketers
> and land developers. After all, there's money to be made in any pyramid
> scheme until its final days. This one's just been going on for awhile,
> thanks to fossil fuels. Economic growth is treated like Popeye being
> fortified with spinach but it's really more like steroids.
>
> Here are some questions that growth-addicts can't or won't answer:
>
> 1) Which came first, more people or more jobs?

You ask too many questions to answer them all. I'll just try the first batch.
As humans moved out of africa they moved into an area with no humans and no
jobs. So the people came first.

>Would the latter be
> necessary without the former?

Yes there are people who do jobs not directly supportive of humans - e.g.
anmial rescue.

> Would the GNP need to grow each year
> without more consumers?

Yes as new inventions come about and there is more time available. Many of the
jobs that existed in 1800 and 1900 have been automated to a large degree. So
even with no population change, the pervious workers could work in new
technologies producing new kinds of goods that were not previously available.

>What about the quality and pay of newly created
> jobs?

You have previously postulated a non-growing population so I'm not sure what
frame work you are talking about.

>How secure is an outsourced service economy that makes less of
> its own stuff?

Less secure, IMHO. But if you have big armed forces it is more secure. That
worked for Sparta for a while.

Your questionnaire is too long and someone else will have to look at the rest.

Bill

>
> 2) Is the world a better place with less wilderness acreage each day?
> Is an increasingly artificial planet a more pleasant one? How many
> city-dwellers would be content if they could never fully escape the
> suburbs?
>
> 3) Aren't open spaces fundamental to America's heritage as a new land
> with "unlimited" freedom? Other than accommodating more people (~3
> million per year), what purpose is served by filling up these lands and
> destroying their mystique?
>
> 4) Does it make sense to build homes on farmland which will inevitably
> be needed to feed more home-buying families? How many times have you
> heard people blame "agriculture" for growing water shortages? Do they
> plan to eat Soylent Green when the time comes?
>
> 5) Can traffic congestion EVER be reduced with more people driving more
> cars all the time? Please use common sense here.
>
> 6) RE so-called Smart Growth: if we do manage to build denser cities,
> will it do anything to reduce the crowds when all those people leave
> their driveways? Or will we force them to wait at home, metered by
> green lights like a freeway on-ramp? Even if we could do that, they'd
> all end up somewhere by Saturday. Metering a flow barely helps if its
> gross volume keeps rising.
>
> 7) Is the introduction of more congestion and noise in rural areas
> improving their quality of life? Don't people move or vacation there to
> escape such things? NIMBY would be a rare term without constant growth.
> A nice view could actually stay that way.
>
> 8) Don't you tire of things being more crowded all the time? Apply that
> generically to almost any public place. Instead of complaining about
> long lines for X or waiting forever for Y, ask yourself "Y" it keeps
> getting worse. Who taught you that it was inevitable?
>
> 9) Why are we so quick to control population spikes in other species
> (wildlife management) while ignoring limits to our own massive growth
> of 75 million annually worldwide? Birth control is easier to use than
> ever. What's our excuse, aside from willful ignorance of limits?
>
> 10) On a FINITE Earth (not some Cornucopian dreamland) how can there
> ever be more physical wealth PER person? Are rising debts mere
> abstractions? Money is an imperfect concept, but it's trying to warn us
> that we're living beyond our means. A sustainable economy would
> function much like nature and have almost zero long-term debt.
> Population growth keeps us constantly wanting, taking and borrowing
> more.
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
>

Matt Barrow

2006-03-16, 9:21 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1142553198.839235.239060@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> george conklin wrote:
>
> Meaning that he didn't have any leg to stand on re: overpopulation or
> that he couldn't predict the future on a timetable?

Meaning that his entire thesis was faulty.

george conklin

2006-03-16, 10:21 pm

"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote in message
news:SWnSf.62$go2.5939@news.uswest.net...
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142553198.839235.239060@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Meaning that his entire thesis was faulty.
>

Ehrlich was like Malthus: 250 years wrong.

sanjian

2006-03-17, 12:21 am

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dvck79$e9n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...

>
> Not true. When Malthus wrote his work in 1799, the English economy was
> growing exponentially for over 200 years (Thank you, Enlightenment,
> and it's child the Industrial Revolution). All it took was
> extrapolation and some abstraction...something humans had been doing
> for thousands of years.

In the late 1700s, output growth had just recently begun to pull away from
population growth, such that people could live above the susistance level.
There was no real reason to believe that it would continue to be the case.
Unlike other technological advances, the industrial revolution did not have
the courtesy to plateau so that population growth would have time to catch
up with it.

Of course, the negative birth rate in many modern nations completely
buggered Malthus's expectations.

> Doing so, he would have seen the world of mankind as dynamic, not
> static. Had he been creatvie, rather than staid (typical
> Bishop/churchmen) he would have picked up the trend

At his point in time, the trend looked like nothing more than an unusually
large bump (remember that they did not yet have a reliable way to measure
national output, so while we can see a trend with our statistics, people of
that time would have had much more difficulty).

Matt Barrow

2006-03-17, 2:21 am

"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dvdaik$j6n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> In the late 1700s, output growth had just recently begun to pull away from
> population growth,

Oh, only about 125 years.

> such that people could live above the susistance level. There was no real
> reason to believe that it would continue to be the case. Unlike other
> technological advances, the industrial revolution did not have the
> courtesy to plateau so that population growth would have time to catch up
> with it.

What technological advances "plateaued"? Virtually ALL technological advance
had been stagnant for 2000 years up to the time of the Renaissance. Using
that as a baseline, sat about 1550, technology was in a long upswing for
over 250 years and gaining momentum. If Malthus had written his book 300
years earlier, he might have been somewhat correct, but he did not
understand that sustainment and population went hand-in-hand. it was the
breaking the mindset of the Dark and Middle Ages via the
Enlightenment/Renaissance that provided that long running boost. But again,
Malthus was 200 years late and even then he recanted his 1799 work just a
few years later.

>
> Of course, the negative birth rate in many modern nations completely
> buggered Malthus's expectations.

The trend actually started to reverse in the late 1950's. Get ahold of some
of the numbers from right after World War II and see just how much
prosperity has been leading people to have smaller families. The old bugaboo
of child mortality has led people not to REQUIRE having eight kids so that
two would live to adulthood. Also, technology has negated the need for eight
sons to work the farm (as was the casein my fathers family, my father being
born in 1904).

>
>
> At his point in time, the trend looked like nothing more than an unusually
> large bump (remember that they did not yet have a reliable way to measure
> national output, so while we can see a trend with our statistics, people
> of that time would have had much more difficulty).
If he had been looking more broadly, mainly to the nation-state's that
fostered the Renaissance and voyages of discovery he would have seen the
unmistakable upswing. that had been going on for over 200 years.

If Malthus had been a scientist, rather than a bishop who was aiming to
preach an ascetic lesson, he would have produced a vastly different work. If
he had even, at the very least, read Adam Smith, whose work was already over
20 years old, he would likely have reached a different conclusion.
Unfortunately he and Bishop Berkley were old curmudgeons. :~(

Jack May

2006-03-17, 3:21 am

"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote in message
news:8omSf.37$rN1.888@news.uswest.net...
>
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
>
> I notice they never, ever follow that course, but it's the logical
> conclusion.

Second generation immigrants do a very good job of getting rid of
themselves. The only major common factor between suicide bombers is they
are all second generation offspring's of immigrants and feel disconnected
from the society they are in and the society of their parents. Same for
Latino gangs.

Discovery channel had a show about the causes of gangs and suicide bombers.
The only common factor that has been found is the second generation effect.

Jonny

2006-03-17, 8:21 am

"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1142535433.292057.116470@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Robotic, banal quotes like these make the news every day in America:
>
> "One of the fastest growing regions in the country..." "Unprecedented
> housing starts have boosted tax revenues..." "Immigration will assure a
> robust economy for the next fiscal year..." "Regional job-creation has
> remained strong with no end in sight..." "Sprawl has presented some
> problems but economic growth must be sustained..."
>
> Absent from those glowing reports are two fundamental facts in a finite
> world:
>
> A) Population growth depletes finite resources at a faster rate and
> makes it more difficult to sustain renewable ones. Read any
> (non-industry) article about water supplies, global fisheries or old
> growth timber if you doubt that second point.
>
> B) Population growth increasingly alters the landscape, making it less
> natural and more crowded. Because growth never ends, "balance" between
> Man and nature has yet to be achieved.
>
> Population growth is still framed in neutral to buoyant terms by most
> observers. Negative side-effects are brushed aside by mass marketers
> and land developers. After all, there's money to be made in any pyramid
> scheme until its final days. This one's just been going on for awhile,
> thanks to fossil fuels. Economic growth is treated like Popeye being
> fortified with spinach but it's really more like steroids.
>
> Here are some questions that growth-addicts can't or won't answer:
>
> 1) Which came first, more people or more jobs? Would the latter be
> necessary without the former? Would the GNP need to grow each year
> without more consumers? What about the quality and pay of newly created
> jobs? How secure is an outsourced service economy that makes less of
> its own stuff?
>
> 2) Is the world a better place with less wilderness acreage each day?
> Is an increasingly artificial planet a more pleasant one? How many
> city-dwellers would be content if they could never fully escape the
> suburbs?
>
> 3) Aren't open spaces fundamental to America's heritage as a new land
> with "unlimited" freedom? Other than accommodating more people (~3
> million per year), what purpose is served by filling up these lands and
> destroying their mystique?
>
> 4) Does it make sense to build homes on farmland which will inevitably
> be needed to feed more home-buying families? How many times have you
> heard people blame "agriculture" for growing water shortages? Do they
> plan to eat Soylent Green when the time comes?
>
> 5) Can traffic congestion EVER be reduced with more people driving more
> cars all the time? Please use common sense here.
>
> 6) RE so-called Smart Growth: if we do manage to build denser cities,
> will it do anything to reduce the crowds when all those people leave
> their driveways? Or will we force them to wait at home, metered by
> green lights like a freeway on-ramp? Even if we could do that, they'd
> all end up somewhere by Saturday. Metering a flow barely helps if its
> gross volume keeps rising.
>
> 7) Is the introduction of more congestion and noise in rural areas
> improving their quality of life? Don't people move or vacation there to
> escape such things? NIMBY would be a rare term without constant growth.
> A nice view could actually stay that way.
>
> 8) Don't you tire of things being more crowded all the time? Apply that
> generically to almost any public place. Instead of complaining about
> long lines for X or waiting forever for Y, ask yourself "Y" it keeps
> getting worse. Who taught you that it was inevitable?
>
> 9) Why are we so quick to control population spikes in other species
> (wildlife management) while ignoring limits to our own massive growth
> of 75 million annually worldwide? Birth control is easier to use than
> ever. What's our excuse, aside from willful ignorance of limits?
>
> 10) On a FINITE Earth (not some Cornucopian dreamland) how can there
> ever be more physical wealth PER person? Are rising debts mere
> abstractions? Money is an imperfect concept, but it's trying to warn us
> that we're living beyond our means. A sustainable economy would
> function much like nature and have almost zero long-term debt.
> Population growth keeps us constantly wanting, taking and borrowing
> more.
>
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
>

Okay, what happens if people go to rural areas to live and get away from
urban sprawl; and, the controlling local governmental authorities do all
they can to prevent any further growth and any business intrusions, rather,
promote seasonal tourism only?

Land and property values will continue to increase.
People who work for a living will have to go someplace else. The area will
die a slow and painful death, or succumb to change.

Fact: Our socioeconomic system is based on more. More people, more
business, more money, more land for development. Most touch on some of
these symptoms, you've got alot listed. But, never suggest a fix.
--
Jonny

george conklin

2006-03-17, 8:21 am

"Matt Barrow" <matt.barrow@sitefill.com> wrote in message
news:aNnSf.57$go2.6042@news.uswest.net...
>
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> news:6MmSf.13386$S25.1484@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[color=darkred]
> He lost to Julian Simon, and he STILL barfs his old lines and the MSM
> swallows it.
>

Chicken Little was more than just a nursery rhyme. It is a whole mindset.

george conklin

2006-03-17, 8:21 am

"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dvdaik$j6n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...

>
> In the late 1700s, output growth had just recently begun to pull away from
> population growth, such that people could live above the susistance level.
> There was no real reason to believe that it would continue to be the case.
> Unlike other technological advances, the industrial revolution did not
> have the courtesy to plateau so that population growth would have time to
> catch up with it.
>
> Of course, the negative birth rate in many modern nations completely
> buggered Malthus's expectations.
>
Urban in the time of Malthus were also net consumers of population. If
you look at the data from the demographic transition, it was not until
1860-1870 that the death rate in cites did not exceed the birth rates. So
cities then as now import people. Only today with nations urbanized heavily
the entire NATION must import people or shrink, as in Europe. Look at the
census population pyraminds for Italy and Spain. They are turned upside
down.

george conklin

2006-03-17, 8:21 am

"Jonny" <spamyourself@blackworm.net> wrote in message
news:XVwSf.5777$k75.1855@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> Okay, what happens if people go to rural areas to live and get away from
> urban sprawl; and, the controlling local governmental authorities do all
> they can to prevent any further growth and any business intrusions,
> rather, promote seasonal tourism only?

About 3/4 of the world's population would starve to death if we all
became small farmers again.

sanjian

2006-03-17, 11:21 am

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:dvdaik$j6n$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...

>
> Oh, only about 125 years.

Looking at world population vs production, things don't even begin to start
to change until around 1700, and even then, it would not have been
detectable given the data and methods of the time. It's shortly before the
turn of the next century that the rates really start divirging
significantly. Again, that wouldn't be detectable at the time.

>
> What technological advances "plateaued"? Virtually ALL technological
> advance had been stagnant for 2000 years up to the time of the

Crop rotation and irrigation, to name a few. Both gave increases in
production which were then compensated for by increases in population
growth. As Mathus had predicted, we continued to eat away our surplus.

> Renaissance. Using that as a baseline, sat about 1550, technology was
> in a long upswing for over 250 years and gaining momentum. If Malthus

Technology may have been, but so was the population. As predicted.

> had written his book 300 years earlier, he might have been somewhat
> correct, but he did not understand that sustainment and population
> went hand-in-hand. it was the breaking the mindset of the Dark and
> Middle Ages via the Enlightenment/Renaissance that provided that long
> running boost. But again, Malthus was 200 years late and even then he
> recanted his 1799 work just a few years later.

Recanting the work does not mean that they were not justifiable conclusions
based on the data available. The Industrial Relvolution was a significant
departure from the historical trends regarding the relationship between
production and population.

>
> The trend actually started to reverse in the late 1950's. Get ahold
> of some of the numbers from right after World War II and see just how
> much prosperity has been leading people to have smaller families. The
> old bugaboo of child mortality has led people not to REQUIRE having
> eight kids so that two would live to adulthood. Also, technology has
> negated the need for eight sons to work the farm (as was the casein
> my fathers family, my father being born in 1904).

Fine, but it has no bearing on my statement.

> If he had been looking more broadly, mainly to the nation-state's that
> fostered the Renaissance and voyages of discovery he would have seen
> the unmistakable upswing. that had been going on for over 200 years.

Upswing in production, yes. And it was largely mitigated by the upswing in
population.

Jonny

2006-03-18, 7:21 am

"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
news:iaxSf.5781$k75.5358@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Jonny" <spamyourself@blackworm.net> wrote in message
> news:XVwSf.5777$k75.1855@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> About 3/4 of the world's population would starve to death if we all
> became small farmers again.
>

Rural doesn't imply farming in this case. Alot of it former ranch country.
Imagine a region that consists of 5, 10, 20 and larger acre plots. Homes
are either custom built, or self built, private water wells and septic
systems as part of it. Most are retirees trying to get away from their
former source of income, the big city. Some of it within the boundaries of
a very small town with its own water system but no septic system. The
remainder outside this small town.
The prior inhabitants lived in the town, and its surrounding area. Median
to poor, self-sufficient to the most part.
The retirees, the ones with the money, are dead set against any ecomomic
development. Tourism only.
The prior inhabitants have children who need a source of income. Some form
their own businesses that source their incomes from either the retirees
needs, or building homes for new retirees, this is very limited. The
remainder are forced to either leave the area or drive to the big city for
work.

What's the fix for this?
--
Jonny

Bill

2006-03-18, 11:21 am

"Jonny" <spamyourself@blackworm.net> wrote in message
news:lJRSf.6311$k75.5701@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> news:iaxSf.5781$k75.5358@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Rural doesn't imply farming in this case. Alot of it former ranch country.
> Imagine a region that consists of 5, 10, 20 and larger acre plots. Homes
> are either custom built, or self built, private water wells and septic
> systems as part of it. Most are retirees trying to get away from their
> former source of income, the big city. Some of it within the boundaries of
> a very small town with its own water system but no septic system. The
> remainder outside this small town.
> The prior inhabitants lived in the town, and its surrounding area. Median
> to poor, self-sufficient to the most part.
> The retirees, the ones with the money, are dead set against any ecomomic
> development. Tourism only.
> The prior inhabitants have children who need a source of income. Some form
> their own businesses that source their incomes from either the retirees
> needs, or building homes for new retirees, this is very limited. The
> remainder are forced to either leave the area or drive to the big city for
> work.
>
> What's the fix for this?
> --
> Jonny
>

Not a fix but two suggestions. Many people have jobs which cause them to be
away from their family perhaps 4 nights a week or perhaps 2 weeks at a time -
e.g. those connected with airlines. A small office facility with perhaps 100
to 200 jobs would probably be OK - e.g. insurance claim processing.

Bill

george conklin

2006-03-18, 4:21 pm

"Jonny" <spamyourself@blackworm.net> wrote in message
news:lJRSf.6311$k75.5701@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> news:iaxSf.5781$k75.5358@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Rural doesn't imply farming in this case. Alot of it former ranch
> country. Imagine a region that consists of 5, 10, 20 and larger acre
> plots. Homes are either custom built, or self built, private water wells
> and septic systems as part of it. Most are retirees trying to get away
> from their former source of income, the big city. Some of it within the
> boundaries of a very small town with its own water system but no septic
> system. The remainder outside this small town.
> The prior inhabitants lived in the town, and its surrounding area. Median
> to poor, self-sufficient to the most part.
> The retirees, the ones with the money, are dead set against any ecomomic
> development. Tourism only.
> The prior inhabitants have children who need a source of income. Some
> form their own businesses that source their incomes from either the
> retirees needs, or building homes for new retirees, this is very limited.
> The remainder are forced to either leave the area or drive to the big city
> for work.
>
> What's the fix for this?
> --
> Jonny
>
People have been leaving the rural areas for the city since the first
census was taken in the USA, and it is happening all over the world. Most
of the population will be concentrating in the USA near the two coasts.
Rural residents without an independent income have always left rural areas
once agriculture proved to be a crummy way to earn a living. As a worldwide
pattern, nothing can stop it.

Just Cocky

2006-03-18, 4:21 pm

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:27:41 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu>
wrote:
>
>As a worldwide pattern, nothing can stop it.
>

Actually, in the USofA at least, one is seeing the more affluent
moving away from cities and toward the suburbs. With the continued
growth of telework, this phenomenon is likely to increase.

sanjian

2006-03-18, 5:21 pm

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:27:41 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Actually, in the USofA at least, one is seeing the more affluent
> moving away from cities and toward the suburbs. With the continued
> growth of telework, this phenomenon is likely to increase.

Then you just get to hear people whine about ubran sprawl and the evil
suburbs. (what's so evil about them, anyways?)

george conklin

2006-03-18, 7:21 pm

"Just Cocky" <just@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:sqoo12d2vmop0o182ne6rrdtm5q58tbtak@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:27:41 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Actually, in the USofA at least, one is seeing the more affluent
> moving away from cities and toward the suburbs. With the continued
> growth of telework, this phenomenon is likely to increase.

You don't know your demography. Half of the counties in the USA actually
lost population from 2000-2004. You cut out the context.

Matt Barrow

2006-03-18, 8:21 pm

"sanjian" <millerkb@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dveikn$h7d$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> Looking at world population vs production, things don't even begin to
> start to change until around 1700, and even then, it would not have been
> detectable given the data and methods of the time. It's shortly before
> the turn of the next century that the rates really start divirging
> significantly. Again, that wouldn't be detectable at the time.

In Malthus' time, he would not have had any population or production data,
but there was plenty of observational data. The trend from the past 250
years in his day was unmistakeable.

>
>
> Crop rotation and irrigation, to name a few. Both gave increases in
> production which were then compensated for by increases in population
> growth.

Population grew because it COULD.

>As Mathus had predicted, we continued to eat away our surplus.

What "surplus"? It's called an "improved stand of living".
>
>
> Technology may have been, but so was the population. As predicted.

Population kept up with advances. That's a form of natural selection. By
1800, the famines that had devestated Europe for eons was pretty much over.
As mentioned, it grew because it could.
>
>
> Recanting the work does not mean that they were not justifiable
> conclusions based on the data available.

They were not justifiable conclusions then and never were.

> The Industrial Relvolution was a significant departure from the
> historical trends regarding the relationship between production and
> population.
And had been going on for

>
>
> Fine, but it has no bearing on my statement.

It has everything to do with it - get down to the fundementals.

>
>
> Upswing in production, yes. And it was largely mitigated by the upswing
> in population.
>

Not mitigating, but "in balance".

LinkBot