"Edgar" wrote in message
...

Agree entirely about overpopulation.

Now we get to the real point. The pressure on earth resources is caused by
population growth, and the demand by existing populations to improve their
standards of living. This demand raises prices, and raised prices stimulate
production (or harvesting) to use ever more expensive techniques.

Those techniques initially are not necessarily efficient in the long term -
Joe's original point - killing the Goose that laid that golden egg. Sadly,
there's always a lag between solving today's problem (fishermen losing their
jobs, struggling to gather more to keep themselves in business) and the
long term answer; which is to cull the fisherman much more sharply for a
decade or two by denying them areas of the ocean. And when the first long
term answer is implemented, immediate shortages raise prices, strongly
rewarding more intense fishing (illegal, as well as legal). So a second long
term problem evolves - how to deter the rule breakers.

It's not dissimilar to the economics of cocaine production, silly though
that analogy may seem. The demand is such that it pays handsomely to break
the law and import the stuff, and every new barrier to import raises the
price, stimulating more ingenious efforts to break the law.

So, how do we reduce demand for earth resources? Cull the populations? Have
universal 'one baby' policies? Deny improved standards of living? Increase
cigarette consumption? Encourage premature death through obesity?
Alcoholicism? Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.

'change is inevitable' - true

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

JimB wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .
how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.

'change is inevitable' - true


Two thoughts:

1. Not "stupid" or "ill educated" but "self centered" and/or "short sighted"

2. Combining your two statements -

"The end of the world AS WE KNOW IT is nigh"

Since we are being a little philosophical here I propose two questions:

1. What it the correct number of people to have a maximum human experience?

2. Why is it that this question is never debated?

This question is distinctly different from asking about the ultimate
"carrying capacity" of the earth. It asks about the kind of earth we
want to live on and what we value as human experience.

I recently heard a lecture on "urban farming." My city is losing
population and their are proposals to turn the abandoned lots into
gardens. Well and good. Then the discussion turned to "vertical
farming." 10-story glass pyramids of intensive farming in the city.
And there are serious scientist and support efforts to find ways to
manage the earths environment (e.g. mirrors in space.) I may be getting
old and stiff but that is not a future that I relish.

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...

1. Not "stupid" or "ill educated" but "self centered" and/or "short
sighted"

Yes. Nice.

"The end of the world AS WE KNOW IT is nigh"

and always will be . . .
------------------------------------------

1. What it the correct number of people to have a maximum human
experience?

2. Why is it that this question is never debated?

Frightening, isn't it? Implications of population control, denial of the
rights to re-produce, dreadfully non PC points of view. It will, of course,
evolve naturally, so perhaps it doesn't need to be debated. But the changes
involved will (and do already) terrify many whose lives will be changed.

'Stick your finger in the dyke, young man, we can't have a another flood . .
..'

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:17 +0000, JimB wrote:



"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .

how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that
there are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who
are too stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

fine...I lost my zen-mind for a moment...but there do seem to be a large
number of seemingly "educated" people who refuse to see both the forest
and the trees if I can put it that way...I suppose a definition of
"educated" or"smart" would assist


'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.


ah but not untrue if you happen to subscribe to the Millenial flavour of
Christianity...and these true believers want it to happen!!?!


'change is inevitable' - true


there's the rub...our environment changes because it does, and because of
what we do...but from my read of history, human nature has not changed and
our actions as a species do not indicate to me any coming change...and for
us, I think for humans, the self-limiting nature of our finite ecosystem
will find its expression in our self-induced extinction at worst
and extirpation at best...sadly because we are -to use your words- too
"ill educated" to survive ourselves.

mr.b wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:17 +0000, JimB wrote:


"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .
how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that
there are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who
are too stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

fine...I lost my zen-mind for a moment...but there do seem to be a large
number of seemingly "educated" people who refuse to see both the forest
and the trees if I can put it that way...I suppose a definition of
"educated" or"smart" would assist

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.


ah but not untrue if you happen to subscribe to the Millenial flavour of
Christianity...and these true believers want it to happen!!?!

'change is inevitable' - true


there's the rub...our environment changes because it does, and because of
what we do...but from my read of history, human nature has not changed and
our actions as a species do not indicate to me any coming change...and for
us, I think for humans, the self-limiting nature of our finite ecosystem
will find its expression in our self-induced extinction at worst
and extirpation at best...sadly because we are -to use your words- too
"ill educated" to survive ourselves.

Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false,
because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how
many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas
to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone.

Stephen

Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false,
because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter how
many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new ideas
to make our lives and our environment better and better for everyone.

Stephen

Steve,

I wasn't going to respond, I suspect that our world views are just far
to divergent to engage in a meaningful dialog. However, serendipitously
(being something of a Geek myself I love it when spell check lets me use
really big words) I came across the following. I offer this not to
insult or diminish you, but just because it was in my face. BTW I
freely admit to being a "doomer."

Panglossian Disorder: "The neurotic tendency toward extreme optimism in
the face of likely cultural and planetary collapse."

I have spoken elsewhere about the label "Doomer," and I've come to
believe that this frame is outdated. Instead, I would like to suggest
that we must stop asking ourselves, given the lateness of the hour, why
there are those pessimistic about the future, and begin asking, instead,
why there are those still blindly and enthusiastically optimistic about
it. We can easily see why those who might be gloomy about the future
could feel hopeless and take the path of inactivity. On the other hand,
this same fear of disaster can motivate constructive action in an
attempt to mitigate the effects. Not so, however, for those who see no
NEED to take action, because they live in the best of all possible
worlds. Indeed, I might argue that it is the very blind hopefulness and
inaction of the masses that leads many of my readers to assume a more
hopeless posture toward world events.

Full text:
http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html

hpeer wrote:


Our "finite ecosystem" is virtually irrelevant, not to mention false,
because mankind's creativity is infinite, and fortunately (no matter
how many people are blind to it) mankind will continue to create new
ideas to make our lives and our environment better and better for
everyone.

Stephen

Steve,

I wasn't going to respond, I suspect that our world views are just far
to divergent to engage in a meaningful dialog. However, serendipitously
(being something of a Geek myself I love it when spell check lets me use
really big words) I came across the following. I offer this not to
insult or diminish you, but just because it was in my face. BTW I
freely admit to being a "doomer."

Panglossian Disorder: "The neurotic tendency toward extreme optimism in
the face of likely cultural and planetary collapse."

I have spoken elsewhere about the label "Doomer," and I've come to
believe that this frame is outdated. Instead, I would like to suggest
that we must stop asking ourselves, given the lateness of the hour, why
there are those pessimistic about the future, and begin asking, instead,
why there are those still blindly and enthusiastically optimistic about
it. We can easily see why those who might be gloomy about the future
could feel hopeless and take the path of inactivity. On the other hand,
this same fear of disaster can motivate constructive action in an
attempt to mitigate the effects. Not so, however, for those who see no
NEED to take action, because they live in the best of all possible
worlds. Indeed, I might argue that it is the very blind hopefulness and
inaction of the masses that leads many of my readers to assume a more
hopeless posture toward world events.

Full text:
http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html

There is a very simple and clear reason for being optimistic about the
future. Throughout the history of mankind we have continuously been
coming up with new ideas to better the well being of mankind. There are
less innocent people being killed, tortured, abused, starved, etc, etc
than ever before thanks to better morality and better technology than
ever before. This improvement has continued through all of recorded
history and shows no sign of stopping now.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what condition makes you blind to this?

Stephen