From uakari.primate.wisc.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!taveme Mon Sep 11 12:48:19 PDT 1989

In article <19732@usc.edu#, chandy@brand.usc.edu (S. Chandra Shekhar) writes:
# In article <1989Sep6.011124.27553@paris.ics.uci.edu-# Wayne Iba <iba@electra.ics.uci.edu-# writes: article <9494@chinet.chi.il.us-# arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) writes:
# -#-# 
# -#-#There is a number (pick your own) of people that this planet can sustain  
# -#-#indefinitely.  Beyond this sustainable population, the ecosystem will be  
# -#-#destroyed along with the species.  There is a significant body of evidence  
# -#-#that we have long ago exceeded that number. But even if we haven't yet, we  
lines deleted

# 	I think you have not fully understood the implications of 
# 	exponential population growth. Let us assume that the
# 	present population of the Earth is 4 billion (4*10^9).
# 	Let us assume a modest annual growth rate of 2%, accounting
# 	for both births and deaths.
# 
# 	Then, in x years, the population of the world, assuming
# 	a constant growth rate, will be = 4*10^9 * (1.02)^x.
# 	
# 		#years x = 		population = 
# 		----------		------------
# 		  10			4.9 billion
# 		  100			29 billion


According to the National Academy of Science 30 billion is the absolute
limit even on a short term basis with massive loss of living standards.
10 billion is the limit (short term?) with moderate loss and *intensive*
management (i.e. not what we have now). According to Ehrlich and other
studies 1 billion is the level at which long term, no serious damage,
western life styles can be maintained. Just about any study you pick
would indicate that our generation and the next will see massive problems
surface that no population has faced before on this scale. We have no
choice but to deal with it our it will deal with us.

					Dave Mead


# 		  1000			1.6 billion billion (1.6*10^18)
# 		  10000			4 * 10^95
# 		  100000		infinity :-(
# 	







From usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!radio.astro!helios.physics!griffin Wed 11:53:14 PDT 1989

energy sources discussed.
Expires: 
References: <14845@kean.mun.ca> <5808@tolerant.UUCP> <2991@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <1989Sep7.181359.337@cs.uci.edu> <2995@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <5822@tolerant.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: griffin@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Keywords: population, CO2, pollution, industrialization

   The writer James P. Hogan makes what I believe to be a valid point about
the threat of overpopulation. Notice the pattern which has been evident in
the first world nations.
   Up until a couple of hundred years ago, families in the Americas and
Europe were usually quite large. This was primarily because in an
agricultural society it helps to have a lot of strong sons (no flames about
sexism, please, that was the attitude) to help on the farm. The population
grew as this exceeded the replacement birthrate for the life expectancy of
the time.
   As mechanization moved into the advanced nations of the time, more and
more people moved out of the farms and into the cities. The tradition of
large families still existed, and as life expectancy increased, and more
children lived to have families of their own, the populations increased
drastically. The economic incentive to have children, however, was no
longer as strong for the majority of the population, and the average family
size decreased. Even a farmer who hated children had to have eight or ten
of them, but a city family could do without, or make do with a male heir to
carry on the family name.
   Now in the advanced nations, the number of children born has dropped to
only about 1.5 children per married couple. This is below the replacement
rate, and these nations would find their populations decreasing were it not
for immigration from less developed countries. By the way, I don't know
about the numbers for the relative newcomers to the game, Japan and South
Korea. Does anyone know if the birth rates there have dropped below
replacement values?
   Finally we arrive at my point (you knew it had to be there somewhere!).
Our foreign policy at this point encourages population growth by providing
high technology (well, medium technology) medical care and food shipments
when they should also be actively encouraging the development of these
coutries.
   I realize that arguments to increase world industrialization are likely
to be somewhat unpopular on this net, but consider the alternatives:
1) We can continue our current policies, supporting the population
expansion resulting from the economic and industrial condition of the third
world countries. This trend extrapolates to ecological collapse,
starvation, and/or a quick war to trim growth. If the situation became very
grim, and the superpowers were facing starvation or concerted attack by the
less privileged nations, I wouldn't find it inconceivable that one of the
superpowers, or many acting together, mightn't "accidentally" contrive a
nuclear attack on some of the more prolific nations. Remember, those will
be flesh and blood people in command seeing what they perceive as a threat
to their families and to their country.
2) We can, as some suggest, revert to a purely agricultural society,
abandoning industrialization and scientific advancement as a failed
experiment. Even in the extremely unlikely event that any nation would
voluntarily set itself back to technology of the seventeenth century, can
you imagine that they wouldn't make an exemption for medicine? Population
growth would still be evident, and as we can see from the situation in the
Amazon rain forest, humans can destroy the environment without big machines
and factories, it just takes a little longer.
3) We can force the countries with net population growth to implement
population curbing measures. I leave the unpalatable means of doing so to
your imaginations.
   I don't believe that any of these alternatives is acceptible. IMHO, we
can only go forward. We should reduce the fraction of the population which
works in the fields by economic and technological aid. This would,
according to past experience, stem the population explosion which worries
so many people.
   Perhaps in contradiction to this proposal, we also have to move to
ELIMINATE all combustion of fossil fuels. The algebra is simple. If plant
biomass remains constant, then every carbon atom burned winds up in our
atmosphere. I introduce this apparently unrelated topic because I don't
want to be seen as someone who offers a theory, but no suggestions on
implementation. Coal and oil burning are causing problems, and it seems
that industrialization of the third world nations would exacerbate this
problem.
   The approach to take, then, is one involving energy production without
fossil fuels. We have an excellent opportunity to encourage the use in
countries which have no extensive energy generating capacities and hence
don't have a huge investment in fossil fuel technology.
   For completeness, I will list those viable alternatives which I see at
present. The list will likely be incomplete, and I would like to emphasize
the impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide.
1) Geothermal power. Fine, if you can get it. Central and South America
might benefit, but Africa and the Indian subcontinent don't have very many
suitable sites. Doesn't contribute to atmospheric CO2.
2) Solar power. I feel this is overrated. A city would require a solar
panel covering roughly the same area as the city itself, at current
technologies. We can't currently store large amounts of energy efficiently,
and I personally don't want a ten ton car battery in my basement, given
that they are prone to venting hydrogen gas. Having lights that work only
when it's sunny seems not ideal. Also, since plants don't grow in the
shadow of the panels, the plants which could be growing where we have the
panels are precluded, which indirectly increases CO2 content in the air.
3) Tidal and Wave power. Again, fine if you can get it. There are some
problems with destruction of the environment. I seem to recall a proposal
to dam up James Bay to make a huge tidal reservoir for a power plant, but
people felt it would interfere with the native sea life. Doesn't contribute
to atmospheric CO2, unless it kill large amounts of phytoplankton, which is
unlikely.
4) Cold nuclear fusion. Don't bet on it! Doesn't contribute CO2, neutrons,
experimental confirmation, etc.
5) ** Flame shields up ** Nuclear fission power. Compact, and doesn't
contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Fuel is easy to get. I refer you to the
thread in sci.energy for discussions of the toxicity and disposal of
nuclear waste products, but briefly, they are less dangerous than what
we're doing to our planet now. I also refer you to a scientific essay "Know
Nukes" by James P. Hogan in _Minds, Machines, and Evolution_, probably on
the science fiction shelf. ** Flame shields down **
6) Orbital solar collectors. Better than ground based ones. Solar radiation
is 40% higher there, and the extra power comes at higher wavelengths
(recall that photons of less than a certain energy don't photoactivate
solar cells, and produce almost no power in conventional photoelectric
cells). People might complain about the ecological impact of beaming
microwaves down to earth, but it would be less than putting the collectors
on the ground. If not in direct line between the earth and the sun, doesn't
contribute to atmospheric CO2, save the deforestation at the microwave
reception site.
7) Orbital nuclear generators. Might calm some fears of radiation leakage,
but would we be allowed to put kilograms of uranium or plutonium on top of
a big fire cracker? This would be much bigger than the RTGs used in
spacecraft now. Again, beaming power down might upset some people. Same CO2
arguments as in (6).
8) Wind power. Fine in some places, where the wind is right. Unsightly, but
we shouldn't let that stop us if we face ecological disaster. The windmills
tend to work best in places with grass and scrub, rather than tall trees.
Since trees contribute more plant biomass per square metre than grass, this
indirectly contributes to atmospheric CO2 if used in places where
reforestation is possible.

   These are my opinions. Please, if you disagree, present some of your
own. People who flame without having any better answers to offer will be
ignored (by me). I stand ready to be convinced that I am in error.
-- 
   Christopher Neufeld     griffin@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
                           cneufeld@pro-generic
                              ( crash!pnet01!pro-generic!cneufeld )
  "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity"


From sdsu!usc!ginosko!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!dsill Wed Sep 13 12:00:23 PDT 1989

In article <1989Sep12.040654.26789@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> griffin@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (P Griffin) writes:
>   Now in the advanced nations, the number of children born has dropped to
>only about 1.5 children per married couple. This is below the replacement
>rate, and these nations would find their populations decreasing were it not
>for immigration from less developed countries. By the way, I don't know
>about the numbers for the relative newcomers to the game, Japan and South
>Korea. Does anyone know if the birth rates there have dropped below
>replacement values?

1.5 is obviously below the replacement rate, but what *is* the
replacement rate?  I guess it varies from country to country, so what
is the US rate currently?  And the birth rate?  How long would we have
to maintain the 1.5 rate to drop down to, say, 100 million in the US
(neglecting immigration)?  I should be able to calculate it myself,
but I'm out of practice.

>Our foreign policy at this point encourages population growth by providing
>high technology (well, medium technology) medical care and food shipments
>when they should also be actively encouraging the development of these
>countries.

First of all, I'm not sure "development" is a Good Thing.  At least,
the way it's been done in the past is recklessly and without proper
forethought.  I'm not convinced we know enough about the dangers of
technology to safely ease the Third World into a developed state.

Second, I don't think we should force our ideas on anyone else.  If
they come to us and say "We have problem X, what can you do to help?",
then we should give our best answer, not a pat "Become Developed, like
us."  It seems like that will only subsitute their problems for ours,
anyway. 

Lastly, how would you propose doing that without increasing the load
on the US?  I think our aid to other countries should take the form of
information and trade.  The old cliche about giving a man a fish
versus teaching a man to fish *does* have an element of truth.  And
trade, of course, benefits both sides.

>... I wouldn't find it inconceivable that one of the
>superpowers, or many acting together, mightn't "accidentally" contrive a
>nuclear attack on some of the more prolific nations.

More likely would be some type of engineered biological plague.  Even
more likely is the combined effects of our technology abuse catching
up to us.

>2) We can, as some suggest, revert to a purely agricultural society,
>abandoning industrialization and scientific advancement as a failed
>experiment.

I don't think technology is a failed experiment.  I think we're more
like the sorceror's apprentice.  We know enough to get into big
trouble, but we don't understand the ramifications of our actions.  We
should think long and hard before we implement any new technology on
more than a research level.

As for abandoning our techie ways, I wouldn't expect it to happen any
time soon.  We're addicted to technology.  We develop it faster than
we can use it, much less understand it.  The First World today is
technology driven.  The first answer to every problem is always some
emerging technology.  So what if we don't understand *its* risks,
it'll solve today's problem.  Only recently, with the world in its
death throes, have we started to say, "Whoa, let's give this a second
thought."

I think the parallels between our abuse of technology and drugs are
quite illustrative.  To the addict, it appears that drugs are the 
answer to all his problems.  If he takes too much speed, downers are
the solution.  If he feels like shit or just wants to feel better, he
needs more drugs.  The outsider, of course, sees that drugs are
actually the cause of most of his problems.  And drugs aren't
necessarily evil.  They improve the quality of people's lives when
they're used responsibly.

We need to work on understanding our technological "drugs".  We need
to administer them in controlled doses after we've made an informed
diagnosis of the ailment.  We also need to understand that there are
some things drugs can't fix, and that some things are easier avoided
than treated.

>   I don't believe that any of these alternatives is acceptible. 

I'm sure there are dozens more.  Ceasing the reckless implementation
of new (less than 1000 years old) technology and foolish reliance upon 
technological solutions to technology's problems would be a start.
Let's stop making backward progress ourselves before we try to help
others move forward.

>IMHO, we can only go forward. 

It depends on how you define progress.  I think in the past 100 years
we've made many steps forward *and* backward.

>We should reduce the fraction of the population which
>works in the fields by economic and technological aid. This would,
>according to past experience, stem the population explosion which worries
>so many people.

Where'd you get the idea that that the population explosion is a
result of the need for farm workers?  It seems more likely that the
cause of the population explosion is that we've eliminated many
threats and greatly extended the life expectancy through medicine and
better nutrition.

>   Perhaps in contradiction to this proposal, we also have to move to
>ELIMINATE all combustion of fossil fuels. The algebra is simple.

Indeed.  But the implementation is not.  Nor is convincing everyone
that you're right.  Back to the drug analogy, we need to develop rehab
programs to cure the addiction, methadone treatments (less dangerous
tech solutions), etc.  And, of course, most effective will be
education/prevention programs.

>2) Solar power. I feel this is overrated. A city would require a solar
>panel covering roughly the same area as the city itself, at current
>technologies. 

Oh, so if solar can't power an entire city it's no good?  Why not make
use of the wasted rooftops?  Cities are abominations anyway, at least
when they reach the size of New York, Tokyo, LA, Chicago, etc.  Cities
that big should tell us that our population is out of control.  I saw
an interesting story on 60 Minutes Sunday about the deterioration of
the infrastructure of New York City.  100-year-old water mains,
subways, bridges, etc.  Current estimates are that it will cost $50
billion to fix everything.  And of course NY isn't the only city
falling apart.

>Having lights that work only when it's sunny seems not ideal.

Perhaps not, but it sufficed for millions of years.

>3) Tidal and Wave power. Again, fine if you can get it. There are some
>problems with destruction of the environment.

Diddling with Mother Nature again.  We may one day understand the sea
and Earth well enough to implement a workable, large-scale wave-power
system, but we sure as hell don't today.  For example, only within the
past few months did researchers discover that viruses in sea water
form the "new" bottom course of the food pyramid.

>5) ** Flame shields up ** Nuclear fission power. Compact, and doesn't
>contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Fuel is easy to get. I refer you to the
>thread in sci.energy for discussions of the toxicity and disposal of
>nuclear waste products, but briefly, they are less dangerous than what
>we're doing to our planet now. I also refer you to a scientific essay "Know
>Nukes" by James P. Hogan in _Minds, Machines, and Evolution_, probably on
>the science fiction shelf. ** Flame shields down **

The lesser of two evils, perhaps, but not a desirable solution.  We
haven't even pinned down the nuclear processes and the subnuclear
particles, for Pete's sake.  When we know enough to convert matter to
energy cleanly, then we'll be ready for nuclear power.  By "clean" I
mean no net production of radioactive or toxic waste.

[Please don't post followups wherein the technology/drug analogy is
shown to be false by extending it to something that doesn't apply.]
-- 
Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)