From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Dec 03 1999 - 04:43:07 MST
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Geoff Smith wrote:
> However, there is a counter point to this which is that most of Canada
> is tundra and ice, not a great place to live, and impossible to farm. I
> think the main argument for overpopulation is that there is not enough
> room to grow all the food, not that there is not enough room to house
> all the people.
The food argument is probably first on the list. The shortage of
healthy water, second. The eco-degradation argument is probably third
and the limited supply of "essential" materials (chromium, palladium,
platinum, etc.) { ignoring substitutions } is probably fourth.
Ultimately (anticipating nanotech) you want to look at the annual
solar insolation. That should determine the ultimate land values.
I strongly suspect that mid-latitude desert land and arctic
tundra are very good investments. What would be very interesting
is a good economic analysis of the shifts in things we consider
valuable now (skyscrapers in large cities) to the things
likely to be valuable in the future (large land areas with
high solar insolations).
> Until we can grow meat and vegies in labs, stacked on top of one another
> into huge food-producing high-rises, I still see this as a valid point,
> *if* we actually make it into the 100's of billions of people, which I
> doubt we will.
I think the current predictions are for the population to level off
someplace between 10-20 billion. But again they are based on *no*
technologigical change.
What happens to population growth rates, when there is commonplace
knowledge that inexpensive computers exceed human brain capacity
(circa 2020-2030)? Do you want to have a child when you can
go out and buy a computer and load it up with a child-program
that is designed to produce in you all those warm-and-fuzzy
feelings that you would get if you had a real child?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:56 MST