Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Farming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mcg404 who wrote (1071)	5/5/2008 5:22:14 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4443

So your view is "Let them starve, and decrease the surplus population?" If you don't know whom I am trying to quote, just googling "surplus population" will probably work. For me, it represents quite an intellectual challenge to discover anything good about George W. Bush, but his rather quick (if somewhat token) response to making more food available to needy countries was welcome. Obviously, the human presence on the planet ought to be limited or even diminished. It is no great source of suffering to a married couple to raise one child well rather than six children badly. I don't know how well the Chinese are managing this, but at least they are trying. Many years ago I used to suggest something like the land bank program: pay women to lie fallow. But then people called me a racist so I stopped making that suggestion.

To: mcg404 who wrote (1071)	5/5/2008 5:56:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4443

Economies of scale are not exactly a central focus or concern of many economists. But they are real. They diminish at a certain point (which various a lot depending on the good or service being produced, and other circumstances), and you can even have diseconomies of scale, but certainly moving away from a predominately peasant agriculture system, can result in more food being produced by less people. More food means less starvation (and often more variety). Less people needed to produce the food, means you free up labor to produce other goods and services. Remaining in a primarily substance farming pattern is one of the reasons large parts of Africa have remained so poor. As for turning more of the population in to human biomass - If your concerned about runaway population growth, well that doesn't seem to be in the cards. World wide population will grow, but growth is leveling off, even ending as countries develop. And the substance farming paradigm may if anything encourage people to have more children, as the children are used as labor on the farm, and support in old age, while in a more developed economy children are more a cost than an asset (in direct financial terms, I'm not including the emotional aspect, or even more indirect financial benefits such as children paying the taxes for public pensions). Of course maybe if all those children starve you won't have to worry as much about population growth, but that isn't my favorite method of population control.