|
Post by gbloco on Sept 7, 2004 4:19:06 GMT -5
not in absolute terms, but relative to their resources yes, which is why there are so many lining up to be suicide bombers. most societies have begun a period of urbanization following increases in agricultural productivity. the arab nations dodged this stage completely.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Sept 7, 2004 4:22:46 GMT -5
not in absolute terms, but relative to their resources yes, which is why there are so many lining up to be suicide bombers. most societies have begun a period of urbanization following increases in agricultural productivity. the arab nations dodged this stage completely. Ah, and so a food embargo would force them to settle down in the long run. Good thinking.
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 7, 2004 4:25:45 GMT -5
of course we'd have to get used to not having their oil, but the sooner we do that the better
|
|
ak47
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ak47 on Oct 18, 2004 19:44:19 GMT -5
The world is overpopulated? I don't think so. Maybe China, India and parts of SE Asia like Java are overpopulated. Europe's population is shrinking and getting old. Australia's population is getting old and grows only because of immigrants and their offspring. North America is not overpopulated. Africa is not overpopulated. The problem is the overuse of resources by a few wealthy parts of the world. My home State of Victoria is the size of England/Wales and has a population of about 5 million. It can support many, many more people, so can New South Wales and Queensland. The problems of Europe is the lack of reproduction due to the high cost of living, education, housing, and blatant self centreness. As far as the developed world, they should invest in the third world and make it produce everything and live off the proceeds. Let those people work and earn a decent living and induce them with good living standards to have fewer children. Just as people like Donald Trump own much property and businesses, employ indirectly many people, keep others in work, but actually do not produce anything themselves they do contribute to the US economy. The rich countries should do the same, own much property, businesses, employ many people in the third world, contribute to their economies, but actually produce nothing themselves and live off the hard work of the locals. It is a win/win situation and will slow population growth in those poorer countries. I think I actually agree with everything you said Graeme - Something like that is moreorless happening with globalisation today... 1. Whatever can be off-shored is being off-shored (Any job that requires working behind a desk/In a factory is a job that can be off-shored - Indian Call-centers/Programmers, Chinese manufacturing). 2. Whatever can't be off-shored or can be done by robots cheaper, is being done by robots (All Retail stores like WalMarts, McDonalds, and most jobs that don't require an einstein, will be totally robotized within the next 3 decades). 3. Whatever can't be off-shored and can't be done by robots (at the moment ), will be done by people. <-- The number of these jobs are begining to slow down and will decrease^^^ The above three points constitute to the US Jobless recovery. The economy booms, because everything is being done cheaper & more efficiently. but there becomes less jobs for people ('offshoring', 'robotization', 'mass unemployment' will be the big words of the 21st century).It's the only way to go. However the system will need to be adjusted to cater for the large unemployed population in the future. If they all had shares in these big companies (or the government gave people a stipend e.g. $1000/month), then they'd have money to puchase the goods these big companies produce, and help stimulate the economy. and yes everyone in the west could live like kings. but furthermore we could eventually get everyone in the third world to live like kings, once 90%+ of jobs are fully robotized.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 1:08:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 1:26:08 GMT -5
|
|
ak47
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ak47 on Oct 19, 2004 7:42:45 GMT -5
Take a look at this population density map. India is more densely populated than China. But most Chinese live in the Eastern 1/3rd of the country. So they're effectively as densely populated. Indian sub-continent is about 1.5bn strong. If you were to take those older boundaries (i.e. pre-indepedence times), then then the sub-continent (the desh) would be more populus than China.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 12:22:43 GMT -5
Take a look at this population density map. India is more densely populated than China. But most Chinese live in the Eastern 1/3rd of the country. So they're effectively as densely populated. Indian sub-continent is about 1.5bn strong. If you were to take those older boundaries (i.e. pre-indepedence times), then then the sub-continent (the desh) would be more populus than China. Great map! Population density is what really matters, isn't it? The map shows that most of the land is uninhabited. Something that nobody has considered so far in this thread is the possibility of building floating cities on the oceans. Isn't that a powerful argument against the overpopulation myth?
|
|
ak47
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ak47 on Oct 19, 2004 12:33:58 GMT -5
Great map! Population density is what really matters, isn't it? The map shows that most of the land is uninhabited. Something that nobody has considered so far in this thread is the possibility of building floating cities on the oceans. Isn't that a powerful argument against the overpopulation myth? yeah, or alternatively, we could build skyscrapers as high as the WTC on the tiny island of Jamaica, and fit the entire world population there. you know population density can be cool, im an urban fan. look at Northern india. imagine that area in 50 years time, it'll be crazy, probably a 500-million people conurban (in comparison the New York area is about a 30-million people conurban). China will also have crazy cities like that. I'd love to live to witness that.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 13:25:45 GMT -5
yeah, or alternatively, we could build skyscrapers as high as the WTC on the tiny island of Jamaica, and fit the entire world population there. My impression is that skyscrapers as high as WTC are very inefficient. Vertical growth is efficient up to a certain point only, although I couldn’t say exactly how high because I’m not an architect. But how about pyramidal buildings? “Crazy” is an understatement. Don't you think?
|
|
ak47
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ak47 on Oct 19, 2004 15:33:08 GMT -5
My impression is that skyscrapers as high as WTC are very inefficient. Vertical growth is efficient up to a certain point only, although I couldn’t say exactly how high because I’m not an architect. But how about pyramidal buildings? “Crazy” is an understatement. Don't you think? yeah i guess. more like coruscant style. yeah if u stacked lots of WTC sized buildings together, so you could walk from one to another, you'd have a big block (like say 10km by 10km by 1km high). there would be a lot of horizontal movement (e.g. if the place where you live, the place where you work, and the place where you play are on the same floor, you're not gonna be using the vertical lifts as often). so vertical movement would work out to be lower. or as you say pyramid buildings (i remember watching something on the discovery channel about that, super buildings/structures). well it's something for the future to think about atleast. - im a big dreamer.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 16:17:01 GMT -5
yeah if u stacked lots of WTC sized buildings together, so you could walk from one to another, you'd have a big block (like say 10km by 10km by 1km high). there would be a lot of horizontal movement (e.g. if the place where you live, the place where you work, and the place where you play are on the same floor, you're not gonna be using the vertical lifts as often). so vertical movement would work out to be lower. That's an idea! Although I was immediately reminded of the Borg's Cube. (Remember Star Trek's "resistance is futile" cyborgs flying cities?)
|
|
|
Post by deuceswild on Oct 19, 2004 22:57:36 GMT -5
yeah i guess. more like coruscant style. yeah if u stacked lots of WTC sized buildings together, so you could walk from one to another, you'd have a big block (like say 10km by 10km by 1km high). there would be a lot of horizontal movement (e.g. if the place where you live, the place where you work, and the place where you play are on the same floor, you're not gonna be using the vertical lifts as often). so vertical movement would work out to be lower. or as you say pyramid buildings (i remember watching something on the discovery channel about that, super buildings/structures). well it's something for the future to think about atleast. - im a big dreamer. Check this out, it's wild: media.dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/pyramidcity/interactive/interactive.html
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Oct 19, 2004 23:16:44 GMT -5
Great map. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Oct 19, 2004 23:23:37 GMT -5
Do you know if the "City in a Pyramid" project is on hold or was it definitely canceled?
|
|