X-Message-Number: 7294
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: For Thomas Donaldson
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:04:17 +1100 (EST)

Thomas wrote,

>Yes, there are places where poor politics is wrecking a country. No, that
>is not universal and we have no reason to believe that it will become so. In
>fact, the people of such countries are not happy with what is going on, and
>their governments will (one way or another) have to deal with that.

I'm afraid that such faith does little to allay my concerns. That
over-populous countries can be run efficiently, either by democratic
means as per India, or by totalitarian means as per China, is not in
question. Whether or not such efficiency leads to happiness is also not
in question. What is in question is whether technological gains in
agriculture can keep pace with exponential population growth, or whether,
like yeast in a vat, we must reach a point where population pressures
affect our ability to maintain our technologies, and we spiral into dieback.

We can say that the signs, at present, are not good: global declines in
fish stocks are being experienced, formerly self-supporting areas like
China are now importing food, and arable land, from which almost all our
food supplies derive, is being lost at frightful rates to the ecological 
impact of unsustainable agricultural techniques. 

Yet these signs, while alarming, are also not truly in question.  What
we need to understand is the ongoing relationship between technological
development and human population growth. This relationship is treated in
some detail in a paper on Jay Hanson's website; while this doesn't take
exponentiating technologies like nanotech into account, it's a nice
attempt at a formalism - you can find it at

http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page74.htm

>You are also completely, flatly wrong about when infanticide has been used.
>It's true that Western societies have not used it for hundreds of years, but
>the Greeks [and Polynesians] did. 

Both civilizations were island-based, and so experienced the threat of
starvation. But I readily concede that neither, in historical records,
experienced any full-blown dieback. Island-based societies that let their
populations grow until ecological calamity, however, did indeed starve and
experience dieback that wiped them out - Easter Island being the best
known example.

>Frankly, anyone who wants to argue that growth of population will lead to
>a catastrophe would have to argue very very hard to convince me. 

Or me; this isn't my concern. My concern is that the ecological impact
of unplanned population growth may accelerate beyond our ability to 
deploy technological solutions. Many natural species, such as lemmings,
are geared to cycles of boom and bust in their populations; I'm concerned
that the great gains we've made in decreasing infant mortality may place
us in a similar cycle unless we can develop exponentiating technologies
that direct our growth outwards. 

>One bomb, destroying one American city, though it would certainly be a 
>tragedy for those involved, will not lead to a passive response by the
>United States (or any other nuclear power, for that matter). 

Indeed it would not. In fact I imagine that America, by the time ecological
pressures could drive any nuclear-technology conflict, will be quite 
unassailable. There are other weapons of mass destruction, especially
biological weapons, that might prove far less easy to prepare for, but
this isn't truly my concern either; I worried that, once the rest of the
world had been ecologically trashed and atomically bombed, America would
have to become entirely self-sufficient; then one drought and it'd be curtains.

>And incidentally, if you are worried by African overpopulation, you might
>consider that AIDS is now all over Africa, and a much higher proportion
>of the population has it than in any developed country. NO, that's not
>good. But any idea that Africa will become overpopulated right now
>looks bizarre. The problem more likely may be underpopulation.

Regrettably (?!?) AIDS is not adequately virulent to curb population growth
in Africa. Even if you examine the impact of the worst plagues man has 
endured, the black plague in the middle ages and the worst influenzas,
you'll see that human population has a habit of shrugging such things off.
And such plagues are no respecter of education - in fact, as educated
people tend towards serial polygamy, they're more at risk than the ignorant
breeders.

>Sure, there will be places laid waste. That's not unusual in history.
>But there will also be plenty of places NOT laid waste. And those are
>the places where we hope to be. And also the places where technological
>progress will continue.

Indeed. However we can't ignore the fact that no country on earth is
self-sufficient; as a global civilization, we are in the same situation
as the island dwellers. Whether we end up as an idyllic global
polynesia, or whether we are going the Easter Island route, remains a
pointed question. The only way to alter the odds on this, I think, is to
concentrate our efforts on exponentiating technologies, but I suspect
biotech does not truly fall into such a category - still, have a look at
that URL above and see whether you think it relates.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7294