Obamavision

[amicus]

A few days ago, covered by the news, the Democrat candidate for the Presidency chided Americans for being three percent of the world's population while consuming twenty-five percent of the worlds energy.

He said we were spoiled, driving our SUV's, keeping the thermostat at 72 degrees and eating what we wanted, when we wanted.

Typical left wing liberal hatred of American values and lifestyle, nuttin new there, honey.

But then, as his words tumbled around in my noggin, I got to thinking....I wonder just how he would have us live?

Would it, should it be third world style in mud thatch huts, or up a step to adobe walls? Would he have us walk or ride donkeys? Would the diet be rice and vegetables and no meat, or corn tortilla's, dog meat and water?

Or does he envision us on the bicycles of European social democracies, happy with the mass transit and long waits, content with the guaranteed health care, secure job and full safety net social services, the comfy little concrete flats, all for the small price of individual choice and freedom?

I do wonder, really, what the left wing liberals really see in the future...

Ami....

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

A

I do wonder, really, what the left wing liberals really see in the future...

Do you think that the rest of the world ought to live like we do in America?

A) If you DO, understand that there aren't enough global resources (land, petroleum, fresh water) for 7 billion people to live like we do.

B) If you DON'T, what makes Americans so special that we are entitled to a standard of living vastly more comfortable and enriched than the rest of the world?

This isn't a left/right thing, it's about looking at the world, crunching the numbers, and facing cold, hard reality.

 

[amicus]

Actually, in reality, Malthusian addicts notwithstanding, there are sufficient resources to support a population of 50 billion in a lifestyle suitable to Americans.

I know, without asking, that you do not believe that and consider it the ultimate foolishness.

But, I swear, it is truth. Cavemen did not quit making stone tools because rocks became scarce, they discovered and exploited metals. Thus the chain of discovery and innovation, when men are free to think, solves the false problem you see, of scarce resources.

An American style economy, given free rein in Mexico and Central America, would take less than a generation to turn Latin poverty into prosperity. The free market, no government intervention, strong property rights and laws and minimal taxes have done and will do amazing things for people everywhere.

Amicus...

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Actually, in reality, Malthusian addicts notwithstanding, there are sufficient resources to support a population of 50 billion in a lifestyle suitable to Americans.

I know, without asking, that you do not believe that and consider it the ultimate foolishness.

50 billion people? That would give every person a 3 meter square of land, that's assuming nothing but residences and that every 3 meter square on the planet is habitable.

I find it hard to believe someone could not see your claim as unbelievable and foolish.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Actually, in reality, Malthusian addicts notwithstanding, there are sufficient resources to support a population of 50 billion in a lifestyle suitable to Americans.

I know, without asking, that you do not believe that and consider it the ultimate foolishness.

I'm a full-on Smithian, I agree that people generate wealth, but fundamentally we're still dependent upon a finite amount of natural resource. As population goes up, the labor pool expands, and that's wonderful and beneficial. The brain pool expands, and that's wonderful and beneficial. But the fundamental raw material that we are dependent on is still finite, and no amount of labor and ingenuity can create arable land, fresh water, and fossil fuel out of thin air.

But, I swear, it is truth. Cavemen did not quit making stone tools because rocks became scarce, they discovered and exploited metals. Thus the chain of discovery and innovation, when men are free to think, solves the false problem you see, of scarce resources.

To a point, but there is a law of diminishing returns on everything, human intelligence included.

 

[amicus]

Ah. a couple to true non believers, pessimists and doom and gloomers here, eh?

"Trust me..." He said, with a glint in his eyes, you haven't a clue as to the possible sources of raw materials and arable land in the future.

Over half the food you purchase at the supermarket are genetically engineered and that all took place in the past thirty years and was unknown before that time.

Crop yields, disease and insect resistant food grains have doubled the production of each acre of land. Aquafarming has added thousands of tons of protein to the market place, agribusiness has multiplied the production, harvesting, processing and distribution of food almost beyond comprehension.

Do you blithely imagine that growth and innovation will stop simply because you cannot see into the future? Neither could Malthus and he made a fool of himself.

Drive across the United States of America and up and down, if you have never done so...there is as much empty land as that being farmed. Yes, some is marginal, some needs water, small problems the market will solve when called upon, if only you will get the hell out of the way.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

50 billion people? That would give every person a 3 meter square of land, that's assuming nothing but residences and that every 3 meter square on the planet is habitable.

I'd be curious as to you arrived at that 3 meter figure.

I'm also curious as to how you think it would limit those who live on the second, third, fourth 200th and all the floors in-between.

I don't agree with Amicus that ingnenuity and technology will continue to provide ever-increasing resources because the Earth only has a finite amount of resources and the forseeable logistics of extra-terrestrial resources means that only a very few resources will reach the earth or Earthlings reach the resources.

Still, what may or may not happen in the future, the reality is that right now, and for the foreseeable future, Americans DO consume "more than their fair share" of resources -- especially energy resources -- and that disparity is at the root of many of our international difficulties. Failure to recognise that the disparity exists or, worse, arrogantly insisisting that it exists because of some "divine right of Americans" is going to do nothing except exacerbate the problems the US has with other countries.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

I'd be curious as to you arrived at that 3 meter figure.

Land area of the Earth in km^2 (148300000) divided by 50 billion times 1000.

I'm also curious as to how you think it would limit those who live on the second, third, fourth 200th and all the floors in-between.

I was assuming he referred to the American ideal of a family in a house with a lawn and neighbors rather than a hellish dystopian cityscape of apartments rising into the sky.

 

[amicus]

Still, what may or may not happen in the future, the reality is that right now, and for the foreseeable future, Americans DO consume "more than their fair share" of resources -- especially energy resources -- and that disparity is at the root of many of our international difficulties. Failure to recognise that the disparity exists or, worse, arrogantly insisisting that it exists because of some "divine right of Americans" is going to do nothing except exacerbate the problems the US has with other countries.

~~~

WH, that disparity exists, not because Americans live better than some; it exists because of the form of government and the amount of individual freedom afforded people under those governments.

Iran, for example takes in billions and billions a year from State owned oil resources and yet the people still live in poverty. As before, in history, the Indian people lived in squalor while the Rajah's slept in Jewel and gold encrusted bedrooms.

The Russian people under the Soviets, starved in the cold while the Commissars lived in luxury.

Disparities in standards of living exist because men are not free to better themselves, to realize the dreams they have.

Mexico, another example, Nationalized and stole the wealth of those who created the oil industry and the people remain so poor the come to America just to make a living.

When sugar cane was the only source of sugar and molasses, sweets and rum were expensive so man exploited sugar beets, which now account for half of all the sugar the world consumes.

I know I beat the same drum, over and over again and that drum remains human individual freedom. The source of all inventions and creations and solutions to problems that face humanity.

State planning, like most of this forum desire, just don't get it.

Set man free, get the hell out of our way!

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Land area of the Earth in km^2 (148300000) divided by 50 billion times 1000.



I was assuming he referred to the American ideal of a family in a house with a lawn and neighbors rather than a hellish dystopian cityscape of apartments rising into the sky.

~~~

Your assumption is without merit. I once lived in a suite of rooms on the 14th floor of a condo in Waikiki.

I rather enjoyed it.

Amicus...

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

A few days ago, covered by the news, the Democrat candidate for the Presidency chided Americans for being three percent of the world's population while consuming twenty-five percent of the worlds energy.

He said we were spoiled, driving our SUV's, keeping the thermostat at 72 degrees and eating what we wanted, when we wanted.

Typical left wing liberal hatred of American values and lifestyle, nuttin new there, honey.

But then, as his words tumbled around in my noggin, I got to thinking....I wonder just how he would have us live?

Would it, should it be third world style in mud thatch huts, or up a step to adobe walls? Would he have us walk or ride donkeys? Would the diet be rice and vegetables and no meat, or corn tortilla's, dog meat and water?

Or does he envision us on the bicycles of European social democracies, happy with the mass transit and long waits, content with the guaranteed health care, secure job and full safety net social services, the comfy little concrete flats, all for the small price of individual choice and freedom?

I do wonder, really, what the left wing liberals really see in the future...

Ami....

What he really meant was that hundreds of millions of people all over the world are envious of the people in the USA. That's one of the reasons so many of them are trying so hard to come here. When I was a little girl, I was envious of some of the other kids who lived in better houses or who drove better cars. What I did was to work hard and study hard and now I live in a nice house and drive a nice car. Sometimes I think liberals want everybody to adopt the style of living of the poorest. I can't imagine anybody doing that on purpose.

 

[amicus]

How pleasant to read rational thoughts.

ami

 

[Weird Harold]

Disparities in standards of living exist because men are not free to better themselves, to realize the dreams they have.

Men are not "free to better themselves" because other men are greedy and have enough financial, political or military backing to take what they want from those who don't have the financial, political or military backing to keep it.

That's a fact of human nature you cannot wish away with the abolishment of government interference in the "free market." Enlightened self-interest for would-be capitalist robber barons means don't squeeze money out of the peasants faster than it can be spent on luxuries.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

~~~

Your assumption is without merit. I once lived in a suite of rooms on the 14th floor of a condo in Waikiki.

I rather enjoyed it.

Amicus...

And if you wanted that for 50 billion people you would have to destroy every forest on the planet (giving us some 60% of the planet to use) and replace it with a 50 story apartment building. I imagine having no view, no commercial sector and no industrial sector would make it slightly less fun.

If you wanted fancy American things like hallways, malls, employment, electricity, plumbing, media, garbage disposal, education or medical facilities then your 50 billion people would either have to raise their apartments into the hundreds of stories (this is across the entire planet mind you so they'll have to be making building via alchemy) or cramp themselves into ever smaller cubes.

 

[S-Des]

I was assuming he referred to the American ideal of a family in a house with a lawn and neighbors rather than a hellish dystopian cityscape of apartments rising into the sky.

Here in Chicago, people pay about a million dollars for one of those "hellish dystopian cityscapes" (at least in the two bedroom variety). I'm still awfully skeptical of your math. There are 7 billion or so right now, multiply that times 7 and there'd be a person every 3 meters? I don't have the time to figure it out, but something is WAY off.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Here in Chicago, people pay about a million dollars for one of those "hellish dystopian cityscapes" (at least in the two bedroom variety). I'm still awfully skeptical of your math. There are 7 billion or so right now, multiply that times 7 and there'd be a person every 3 meters? I don't have the time to figure it out, but something is WAY off.

I didn't factor in apartments or basic land needed for agriculture. After adjusting for both of them (see above your post) it does become rather hellish.

 

[amicus]

Men are not "free to better themselves" because other men are greedy and have enough financial, political or military backing to take what they want from those who don't have the financial, political or military backing to keep it.

That's a fact of human nature you cannot wish away with the abolishment of government interference in the "free market." Enlightened self-interest for would-be capitalist robber barons means don't squeeze money out of the peasants faster than it can be spent on luxuries.

WH, not sure what world you live in, most of the people I have met, here and abroad are kind, generous and helpful and do not live off the product of others.

I am surprised you use the old canard, 'capitalist robber barons', a day or so of research would show you that supposed era never existed save in the mind of yellow journalism.

Human nature is basically self interest and reality dictates that the self interest is rational and cooperative with others. War and conflict is not productive, even you should realize that.

"Girls Just Want to have Fun", people just wanna be free.

Get the hell out of our way.

Amicus

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Here in Chicago, people pay about a million dollars for one of those "hellish dystopian cityscapes" (at least in the two bedroom variety). I'm still awfully skeptical of your math. There are 7 billion or so right now, multiply that times 7 and there'd be a person every 3 meters? I don't have the time to figure it out, but something is WAY off.

Land area of the Earth in km^2 (148300000) divided by 50 billion times 1000.

Here is how it was done. Dividing the land area of the Earth by 50 billion and multiplying the result by 1000. That was wrong. A square km is not 1,000 square meters. It is 1,000 meters square. That makes it a million square meters in a square km, not a thousand. Instead of being three square meters it is 3,000 square meters.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Land area of the Earth in km^2 (148300000) divided by 50 billion times 1000.

Here is how it was done. Dividing the land area of the Earth by 50 billion and multiplying the result by 1000. That was wrong. A square km is not 1,000 square meters. It is 1,000 meters square. That makes it a million square meters in a km, not a thousand. Instead of being three sqwuare meters it is 3,000 square meters.

Curse my sleeping in math class.

Nonetheless, the planet cannot support that many people under any realistic circumstances.

 

[amicus]

[Q

UOTE=The_Fractal_King;27326028]And if you wanted that for 50 billion people you would have to destroy every forest on the planet (giving us some 60% of the planet to use) and replace it with a 50 story apartment building. I imagine having no view, no commercial sector and no industrial sector would make it slightly less fun.

If you wanted fancy American things like hallways, malls, employment, electricity, plumbing, media, garbage disposal, education or medical facilities then your 50 billion people would either have to raise their apartments into the hundreds of stories (this is across the entire planet mind you so they'll have to be making building via alchemy) or cramp themselves into ever smaller cubes.

[/QUOTE]

~~~

As I tried to illustrate before FK, you are using current and past technology to look into the future, the same mistake Malthus and the rest of the pastoralists made and are making.

I envision a domed city, housing 25 million people, totally self sufficient with exports of whatever commodity they choose to specialize in. The City (Clifford Simak gets the credit and he wrote that in the 40's) recycles everything, utilizes a non polluting, perhaps renewable energy source and is fully air conditioned day and night. The City is also located on land that has no other use, such as a desert or high mountain plain.

A dozen of those would provide for the entire population of the US at this time and occupy less actual real estate than Delaware. (thas tiny)

Amicus...

 

[The_Fractal_King]

~~~

As I tried to illustrate before FK, you are using current and past technology to look into the future, the same mistake Malthus and the rest of the pastoralists made and are making.

I envision a domed city, housing 25 million people, totally self sufficient with exports of whatever commodity they choose to specialize in. The City (Clifford Simak gets the credit and he wrote that in the 40's) recycles everything, utilizes a non polluting, perhaps renewable energy source and is fully air conditioned day and night. The City is also located on land that has no other use, such as a desert or high mountain plain.

A dozen of those would provide for the entire population of the US at this time and occupy less actual real estate than Delaware. (thas tiny)

Amicus...

So there's a flaw in working off what we know about but no flaw in making wild assumptions about the future? There was just a thread up that showed how foolish people have looked trying to do that.

 

[Weird Harold]

Land area of the Earth in km^2 (148300000) divided by 50 billion times 1000.

148,300,000 km^2 / 5*10^10 == 0.002966 km^2.

However, one Km^2 contains 1,000 *1,000 m^2 or 1,000,000 m^2 not 1,000 m^2, so 0.002966 Km^2 is 2966 m^2 per person, not 2.966 (~3) m^2.

Earth's population would have to reach 50 T[/i]rillion (50 *10^12) to reach the population density you calculated. (or the internet and international news media would have to adopt the English definition of "Billion," which is unlikely to happen.)

 

[amicus]

So there's a flaw in working off what we know about but no flaw in making wild assumptions about the future? There was just a thread up that showed how foolish people have looked trying to do that.

~~~

You know damned well they are not, 'wild assumptions', but actual working plans for the future. The mechanization and automation of most of the tasks being performed by men is taking place at a startling rate if we can just retire the fucking union members who seem to love physical labor and hate modern technology. They seem to love the pick and shovel culture.

amicus...

 

[The_Fractal_King]

148,300,000 km^2 / 5*10^10 == 0.002966 km^2.

However, one Km^2 contains 1,000 *1,000 m^2 or 1,000,000 m^2 not 1,000 m^2, so 0.002966 Km^2 is 2966 m^2 per person, not 2.966 (~3) m^2.

Earth's population would have to reach 50 T[/i]rillion (50 *10^12) to reach the population density you calculated. (or the internet and international news media would have to adopt the English definition of "Billion," which is unlikely to happen.)

My serious failings in math have been addressed

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

148,300,000 km^2 / 5*10^10 == 0.002966 km^2.

However, one Km^2 contains 1,000 *1,000 m^2 or 1,000,000 m^2 not 1,000 m^2, so 0.002966 Km^2 is 2966 m^2 per person, not 2.966 (~3) m^2.

Earth's population would have to reach 50 T[/i]rillion (50 *10^12) to reach the population density you calculated. (or the internet and international news media would have to adopt the English definition of "Billion," which is unlikely to happen.)

You're right, but I beat you to the answer.