Slashdot Mirror

If you up the density to the average of all five boroughs of New York City, we'd all fit on the land mass of Texas. The rest of the arable land in the US could feed everyone else. And the Columbia River alone would provide all the freshwater needs of everyone. References contained here. We're not running out of resources, we have a growing problem with distribution.

Overpopulation is still a risk.

If you have the time, read this. I'm curious what you think.

You could fit the entire world population into the state of Texas with a population density roughly the same as NYC. The world is not in danger of overpopulation anytime soon.

Hey, someone reads my site! Yes, you can fit the entire World's population inside Texas at acceptable density. And you can feed and water them no problem with just the EXISTING (no need to make more) farmland of the US, and half the water from the Columbia River. Power? Solar in the Mojave desert would provide all the power needs.

Yes, we'd dramatically change the environment in the US - but the rest of the world - Canada, Mexico, all of the other 6 continents, all the oceans - would be completely devoid of human life.

We have plenty of land and space and resources; what we do not have is a decent distribution system and that is a political - not scientific - problem.

The overpopulation myth. Bottom line - we could provide for every single person living on this planet with just the resources inside the US. Never mind the rest of the world. We're a LONG way from overpopulation... We have a distribution - not resource - problem to solve.

If people were boxes that needed to be stored in a warehouse, then the math would be solid. But that's simply not the case. Furthermore, even if such a state is possible and sustainable, that in no way means that it's desirable. I don't want to live in Texas with the population density throughout the entire state as dense as NYC. That sounds horrific.

Another thing that is completely neglected is future population growth. The reason people like you think that overpopulation is a myth is because you're only thinking within the timeframe of your own life. It's that old, "won't be a problem until after I'm dead" shrug off of a problem. Some people actually care about future generations, even if they won't be around to enjoy their company.

And finally, the environmental impact isn't taken into account at all. Waste management, air pollution, water pollution, and the preservation of natural ecosystems are all neglected.

Quality of life is important. It's not like growing corn where the more you can grow in a single field the better. Ears of corn don't have feelings and desires and integrity and morality. My favorite quote from that paper is in the very beginning:

I am an engineer, so I actually understand numbers, rather than merely pushing them around.

His definition of 'understand' and mine must be different.

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

The overpopulation myth. Bottom line - we could provide for every single person living on this planet with just the resources inside the US. Never mind the rest of the world. We're a LONG way from overpopulation... We have a distribution - not resource - problem to solve.

Bottom line? When you build a complex, resource-intensive society of ~7 billion people, and run that society really close to the margins of earth's carrying capacity (as we are today), then arbitrarily messing around with a bunch of climate parameters is a stupid idea. It might work out okay, or it might not.

We're not even close to Earth's carrying capacity. A little basic research should set your mind at ease, unless of course basic facts and logic don't carry weight with you.

The problems we have with starvation and dehydration and "overpopulation" are purely political - not scientific or production - in basis. Unfortunately, for much of the world food and water aren't considered basic items for everyone but as tools to be used by the powers-that-be to further subjugate or reward their people, at the whim of the despot. See Zimbabwe for a perfect example, where a once prosperous, thriving nation that was a net exporter of food to the rest of Africa has now become a destitute basket-case that cannot even produce enough food for its own people, let alone export (at the same time as its population has been decreasing).

Nine billion people really is not too many, the Earth can support considerably more than that. We have the resources to easily do so; what we do NOT have is the political ability to properly distribute those resources. Having a "global tyrant" would most likely cement the current inequalities in distribution, I fear...

The original question was "What will produce 1 million jobs in the next three years"? I don't know. But, I suggest that there have been very few times in history when "we" did know the answer to this question. But, that's the great thing about capitalism -- somebody, someplace, has an idea for something revolutionary and is starting up a company to take advantage of it. They see the opportunity to make money, so they're going after that opportunity.

You hit it right on the money. What will create 1 million jobs is small business, not big business. And to do that, your best bet is to release the liquidity sitting on the sidelines (by some estimates, $14 trillion is sitting and waiting).

.
Solution: eliminate the capital gains tax. Permanently. It's a $100 billion annual revenue stream (chump change on a $4 trillion budget), but I guarantee you'll immediately free up 10 times that amount annually to invest in new technologies via small businesses. Right now, we penalize the reward you get for the risk; in a jittery economy, that penalty is a double whammy in that the exact thing you need to stabilize the economy (jobs) is the very thing you are preventing by punishing investment (capital gains).

.
To add liquidity to the startup funding market - which is where the vast majority of net new jobs come from (NOT from the big multinationals) - you need to make it attractive to invest in those startups. And the biggest thing the Federal Government could do would be to eliminate the capital gains tax.