J. Clarke said:

HeyBub wrote:
Greg G. wrote:

Slight correction.

Yeah, right. Of course...

We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation.

If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would
fit in a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion
cu ft = 15 billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)

Yes, I want to live stacked like cordwood. That's a pleasing thought.
Sounds like China and many other places in the world.

If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population
density of Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 =
410,000 sq mi required. Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia
and Ethiopia. You could fit ten times the earth's population in the
United States.

I also don't want to live at the horrific densities of Hong Kong - or
New York City, for that matter. Good God, man, do you not realize the
problems China (and others) have faced concerning overpopulation?
What kind of distopian future do you want your children to inherit?
And if I'd wanted to live like cattle in an AgriCorp facility I'd have
had Vishnu send me back as a cow.

Cripes. Timber, energy, food, water. Diseases proliferating and
adapting due to close proximity and monoculture. It's unholy, I tell
you. And what about open land? I personally like mountains, streams,
parks, trees, bears, butterflies, raccoons and birds. I wouldn't live
in a city for any amount of money.

A world without the variety of these natural things, dominated by
rats, roaches, crows and humans? Kill me now.


Therefo

Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980.
See the Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book,
Julian Simon of "The Ultimate Resource").

Uh - the first book warned that we _would_ run out and was overly
dramatic. The other opined that we _would not_, and that rising prices
would reduce demand of certain commodities forcing development of
alternate resources and was overly optimistic. To some degree, they
were both wrong - and both right. We have become more efficient at
extracting resources, which has kept the prices down, but that doesn't
mean they are unlimited. Only that while there is profit to be made,
they will be removed until gone or too expense to extract - with
absolutely no thought of tomorrow. The corollary to this is that only
the rich will be able to enjoy what we take for granted today. It
takes a non-pine tree 100+ years to grow to the size of those we now
harvest. What do you think happened to all that old grown, tight
ringed southern yellow pine and oaks and cedars? We cut them down and
they are now gone. The elms and chestnuts devastated by disease. Do
you want to build your furniture from the bones of dead politicians
(don't tempt me...), old milk bottles, or two year fast growth SPF?
I don't. I also don't want future generations to eat soylent green.


Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that
the fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of
the prophets of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).

Timber, energy, food, water - all being stressed at this point. There
are many countries where famine and drought are commonplace. I'm not
claiming that we are on the precipice of disaster at this point in
this country - we are lucky enough to have stolen a lot of arable land
- but one chink in the weather, one year of out of season rains, cold
or even an asteroid strike would press the US's ability to provide
food to its own citizens, much less the rest of the world. This season
alone was a disaster for many farmers due to unusual torrential rains.
By most reasonable estimates we have already reached peak oil - even
if not we are damned close. Do you really think the stuff is unlimited
and never ending? If we've only used up 30% of the black gold, we did
so in a scant 100 years. As reserves are depleted they become far more
expensive to extract, meaning that, again, the wealthy will be the
only ones to enjoy that which we take for granted today. No commuting,
no cheap crap at WalMart, no black walnut to build your casket out of.


So how much land does it take to feed all these people? Or are you one
these damned fools who thinks that food appears by magic in grocery stores?

OK - What have you done with the real J.Clarke who was bitching about
my other post? Or are you his doppelganger?



Greg G.