From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:05:04 -0400
Subject: Comments on pop
Population ultimately isn't determinable short of Jon pronouncing his view of how things are. I can see the models that some people subscribe to differ significantly and assume a far higher level of population growth through mass emmigration. I'll only say this: 1) I looked at the economics in FT of shifting large masses of people (enough to make a difference of say 1% to Earth's population). The amount of ship mass required even with unsanctioned packing densities is still outrageous. 2) I base my conclusions on Earth as not overpopulated (necessarily) on two things: 1) the fact the biosphere can probably comfortably support a fair few more people than we have now, 2) talks with Beth where we briefly touched on some UN population studies which suggest maybe our population will actually decrease (though that is pretty hopeful) to the idea that we'll peak out somewhere (IIRC) around 6-9 billion - which is fine given the advances in biological and energy technology we're talking about. The new technologies will become ubiquitious and cheap, thus solving a number of problems in the developing world - even if they are still 100 years behind the times, they should have food and water and be able to sustain trade. 3) Increasing life spans and economic prosperity kill birth rates. If people are positing 80 year lifespans (avg) in the colonies, figure that birth rates will be unlikely to encourage people to have 8 kids. Even in the colonies, it won't necessarily be economically expedient to have 8 children in 2183. The Earth itself, if it reaches a stage where people have life, work, etc and can see a better life by spending time in their lives doing something and who don't need to have 8 children to have 2 live and who live to an old age will combine to depress Terran birthrates. I forsee Earth as resource-damaged (we'll find new resources by exploration, we'll find new ways to harvest old resources and use new things, and we'll find more advanced recycling) but not depleted, as perhaps population stable or at least in slow growth in the 6-9 million range, and I see it as likely some areas will in fact be inhospitable. But the technology for cleanup of messes will be much much higher (they have radiation eating bacteria today) so I suspect the mess of places like Israel won't last forever. The cost of shipping people in statistically significant numbers off planet would be very high. The cost of protecting those shipments from your enemies would be back breaking. And only the ESU and a few others could do it "against the will" of the settlers. Further, based on the canon statements about the length of time it took to populate Albion to the level of England (which is a drop in the on-Earth NAC bucket... the three Americas have huge populations...) surely suggest something about the rate at which people from developing people are rushing to the colonies (ie not terribly fast) and even that growth was achieved with significant effort. Assuming that was a significant effort, you have a limited amount to expend on other colonies, so their growth is thereby limited. Now, sure colonization could have increased. But would it have increased to give the numbers some have suggested? YMMV. I don't think so. And as for Chris' comment - I don't forsee people having 8 kids in an environment where they live to 80 and where mortality does not claim six of those kids. Maybe even 4, but unlikley 8. And as an average? You must be using cloning vats. <which is, I concede, a possibility not accounted for> My suggestion is Earth's population is 6-9 Billion (maybe 10-11 if we want to assume some crowding). I'd suggest off-Earth population all together totals no more than 25% of the on-Earth figure. Beth, you must have something to say and some work to procrastinate....