Regarding progress in taking care of a larger population, I note that
there is already a shortage of safe water in many parts of the world.
They are treating sea water in the Near East, with the resultant increase
in greenhouse gases. But there are additional problems like Myanmar at
the present moment, and the area of the Chinese earthquake. A little
disruption and many people have their supply of clean water disrupted. As
to food production, a drought can reduce the food in large areas of
Africa. On the other hand, I just saw a report that an area in the US is
late getting the corn planted because the fields are too wet, with the
consequence that the yield will be reduced even as demand increases. As
an additional problem, there is talk of using corn stalks, straw and
other crop residue to produce ethanol. But this reduces the humus in the
soil, with a negative effect on fertility and conservation. I suspect
that every optimistic prediction can be countered by a pessimistic
report.
As for colonizing other planets, you can cook on Mercury and Venus, get
crushed on any of the gas giants, but maybe get a purchase on Mars. There
is a vanishing likelihood on some minor planets. Assuming that Mars can
be made habitable, how do we transport billions of earthlings there? I
recall an estimate that a trip to the nearest star in a possible time
would require fueling a space ship with the mass of the earth. I don't
think there is any hope of getting out of the solar system except in
science fiction.
My guess for a solution to the population problem is more likely to be an
epidemic. I note that we seem to be losing the battle against bacteria,
which are more and more resistant to all antibiotics. Then there are
zoonoses like AIDS and bird flu. Anybody want to toast eternal progress?
Dave (ASA)
On Sat, 17 May 2008 22:21:30 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
Dave W. -- if the eschaton is delayed a billion years into the future, I
doubt we'll have to worry about overcrowding the earth. We'd have
colonized other planets by then and we'd probably have learned how to
upload our minds into computers. I'm getting old and cranky though, so I
don't think the Lord will tarry a billion years.
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
wrote:
David Opderbeck wrote:
Ken, it seems to me that the Smail article just rehashes the Malthusian
fallacy that technology must remain static while population grows. For
example, Smail says this: /"Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be
able to support a population of 10 to 15 billion people for an indefinite
period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not
only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false." / Why is this so
clear and certain? Smail doesn't say. (Rhetorically, whenever someone
uses the words "clearly" and "certainly" in the same sentence, it's
likely that the actual evidence is neither clear nor certain).
It's quite possible that agricultural biotechnology will indeed enable us
to feed 10 to 15 billion people indefinitely; it's also quite possible
that communications technology will facilitate a global economy in which
that many people; and it's also quite possible that new technology will
substantially change the "peak energy" curve. The market demand for all
this will continue to grow (with population growth), and market demand
tends to drive technological progress. At the very least, it seems
impossible to say what is "clear" or "certain" to be the case 50, 100 or
150 years from now technologically. Moreover, technological progress and
diffusion tends to result in a reduction in average birth rates, as
people move from traditional agricultural societies into more advanced
technological ones.
David
I think your dismissal of population growth is too facile. Sure
technology may enable us to feed 10 to 15 billion people on the earth but
lets consider the scenario that the earths population continues to grow
by a very modest amount of 1% a year and that the eschaton is delayed for
a billion years into the future. I think it is clear that the earth
could not sustain the population sometime during that period. Certainly
companies can not grow their profit by 10% for an indefinite period, lots
have tried and failed. In a physical world exponential growth or die off
is not containable after suitable periods of time. If you disagree
maybe you could give me 1 cent on the first square of a chess board, 2 on
the 2nd, 4 on the 3rd, 8 on the 4th and so on.
Seriously if the return of Christ is delayed then Christians would need
to consider how to control population either from a total die off or from
an explosion. I suggest this is a topic worthy of consideration on this
list.
Dave W
(I have changed my email address for this mailing list as I was regularly
missing email from David O, Rich, PVM... but others were coming through
just fine. My old email addresses work fine as far as I can tell for
other mail, just not for the asa list, certainly Rich can through fine
when he sent me mail offlist. The support staff at hotmail ignore pleas
for help and do not even answer my emails. For some reason now I do not
seem to get a copy of posts that I make but I can see them on the
archieve so I assume they are getting through.)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
-- David W. Opderbeck Associate Professor of Law Seton Hall University Law School Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.Received on Sat May 17 23:41:19 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 17 2008 - 23:41:19 EDT