Multiply vs Overpopulation

[FreedummyRing]

A lesbian told me the world is already overpopulation, why multiply?

But, when I was flying out west in USA last week...
I looked down from the plane, and saw nothing but land, no houses.
I saw trees, trees, water, water, but no houses...
There are million of acres of lands that are not in use.
I don't know if the wild animals live there...

So how can USA be overpopulation? And why we can't allow immigrants from Mexico to live here...? We got more rooms and spaces for everyone who want to move here in USA, even in Canada.

God said we suppose to multiply, because we got more enough land for many more people to live on.

 

[Endymion]

What about resources?

Think about a golf course. You might have enough room on the golf course to fill it up with thousands of people, but you really only have enough room for a few people to play a golf game. If thousands of people were playing golf at once on the course, people would be going to the emergency room all the time because of "The moron on hole forteen who can't aim and has to hit me in the nose!" The golf course would be too full.

If you're Thomas Malthus, maybe you'll say people will start fighting each other until the golf course is clear.

It's like that on Earth. You can fit quintillions of people on the planet, but the "game" of life means we have to feed people, give them the necessities, hand over electricity to the luckier people in the world (like you and me), and so forth. We don't have as much food as we do land, for example.

Earth is big, but it's tiny for the game of life, just like the golf course for the game of golf.




BTW, I LOVE your signature! It's hilarious!

 

[Endymion]

If you're interested, Wikipedia has an interesting page on overpopulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Off-point, but also interesting: population and growth also have some very interesting implications in urban economics. Did you know, for example, that the larger the city, the higher the taxes are generally?

 

[Roadrunner]

..for example, that the larger the city, the higher the taxes are generally?

*off-topic*

Logically, it doesn't sound right...the more people, the less we pay, yet, it's the other way around. What could you think is the reason for it--'higher taxes'? Isn't it obvious or is it greed?

 

[Sugar Addict]

*off-topic*

Logically, it doesn't sound right...the more people, the less we pay, yet, it's the other way around. What could you think is the reason for it--'higher taxes'? Isn't it obvious or is it greed?

i think its due to more resources being used to go into funds for the needy such as cooling/warming centers, senior citzen centers, homeless shelters,

programs for the at risk youth, public schools, electricity, water for mroe people

and most of all, crime control so more police officers are needed and so on

 

[FreedummyRing]

Thank you Endymion, I also think the signature funny too, haha.

Thank for the explanation, now I understand. But it would be
more fun to have more people move here...

I live in a city where many people move out, and many businesses
closed and lost jobs and many people become poor and crimes increasing.

So I think if we have more people here in my city, then the city
will be running again.... You know what I mean.

I kinda welcome the immigrants who came in my city, I was like
oh boy, PEOPLE!!!!

Well if the city grows larger, then they have to split the city in half...
Especially in Los Angeles, who wanna buy $500,000 for an ugly old
house there???
I might as well live in North Dakota, middle of no where and buy a $500,000 house with 10 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms and a big kitchen.

 

[Roadrunner]

i think its due to more resources being used to go into funds for the needy such as cooling/warming centers, senior citzen centers, homeless shelters,

programs for the at risk youth, public schools, electricity, water for mroe people

and most of all, crime control so more police officers are needed and so on

*off-topic*

Yes indeed, those are some of the things that'll push taxes higher. Also, the more people, more things to manage and oversee which requires more money to carry out such tasks. Which also explains the difficulties some cities face when the only option is downsizing various city departments like the fire, police departments, etc.,....when taxes incurred isn't enough to cover such resources.

 

[Endymion]

*off-topic*

Logically, it doesn't sound right...the more people, the less we pay, yet, it's the other way around. What could you think is the reason for it--'higher taxes'? Isn't it obvious or is it greed?

Good question, RR! I'm going to oversimplify for the sake of illustration. What I've heard is this:

Imagine the city of Bogus Nameus, Oklahoma. Bogus Nameus has a population of 20,000 and two elementary schools, fifty stoplights, and a city hall with two receptionists.

After two years, Bogus Nameus grows to 30,000. Of these new 10,000, there are 1,000 children. Bogus Nameus builds another elementary school, hires The Wicked Witch of the West, Ed.D. for the principal, and purchases loads and loads of textbooks and hires ten new teachers. (Ouch, ten teachers for 1,000 new students? Poor teachers!)

Bogus Nameus also adds twenty five new stoplights, hires one new receptionist, and so forth. All that makes for a fun change in the costs department! They also expand their fire and police personnel, hire new city street maintenance crews, and so forth.

This is reflected in the taxes.

Now think about it this way. If you're Jim Bob and you live in the North End of Bogus Nameus, you're still paying taxes for the new elementary school at the South End of Bogus Nameus. This is true even if your kid is going to North End Elementary, where Glinda the Good Witch, Ed.D. is principal.

Generally the taxes in each case depend on the ratio of taxes received and necessary city expenditures, but the rule of thumb is that the bigger the city, the bigger the taxes.

 

[Roadrunner]

Good question, RR! I'm going to oversimplify for the sake of illustration. What I've heard is this:

Imagine the city of Bogus Nameus, Oklahoma. Bogus Nameus has a population of 20,000 and two elementary schools, fifty stoplights, and a city hall with two receptionists.

After two years, Bogus Nameus grows to 30,000. Of these new 10,000, there are 1,000 children. Bogus Nameus builds another elementary school, hires The Wicked Witch of the West, Ed.D. for the principal, and purchases loads and loads of textbooks and hires ten new teachers. (Ouch, ten teachers for 1,000 new students? Poor teachers!)

Bogus Nameus also adds twenty five new stoplights, hires one new receptionist, and so forth. You can imagine their financing went up a lot! They also expand their fire and police personnel, hire new city street maintenance crews, and so forth.

This is reflected in the taxes.

Now think about it this way. If you're Jim Bob and you live in the North End of Bogus Nameus, you're still paying taxes for the new elementary school at the South End of Bogus Nameus. This is true even if your kid is going to North End Elementary, where Glinda the Good Witch, Ed.D. is principal.

Generally the taxes in each case depend on the ratio of taxes received and necessary city expenditures, but the rule of thumb is that the bigger the city, the bigger the taxes.

Good post--

Sooo...it must be 'greed', especially IF the 'Wicked Witch of the West' was indeed on the city's payroll!

 

[Cousin Vinny]

Generally the taxes in each case depend on the ratio of taxes received and necessary city expenditures, but the rule of thumb is that the bigger the city, the bigger the taxes.

Case in point... NYC. That city has a city tax in addition to state and federal taxes!

Also, you raise an interesting point; What happens if the population remains stagnant or aging? That, too, have huge implications on the existing tax base, especially if municipalities cannot raise ad valorem taxes any further. Have you ever heard of the Kelo v. City of New London [WikiPedia] case? In a nutshell, some sort of population increases may be necessary or beneficial. But, having too much of it would not be healthy either, I'll wager!

 

[Endymion]

Thank you Endymion, I also think the signature funny too, haha.

Thank for the explanation, now I understand. But it would be
more fun to have more people move here...

I live in a city where many people move out, and many businesses
closed and lost jobs and many people become poor and crimes increasing.

So I think if we have more people here in my city, then the city
will be running again.... You know what I mean.

I kinda welcome the immigrants who came in my city, I was like
oh boy, PEOPLE!!!!

Well if the city grows larger, then they have to split the city in half...
Especially in Los Angeles, who wanna buy $500,000 for an ugly old
house there???
I might as well live in North Dakota, middle of no where and buy a $500,000 house with 10 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms and a big kitchen.

LOL, you remind me of me sometimes.

One thing you might want to know is that if you want to boost your city, you don't want more of just anyone, you want more people with human capital. You can also create human capital by putting more money into education too.

You might have wonderful neighbors who, if they have the chance to take some classes on how to run a business at a local college, will start up a company that boosts the city's economy and helps improve the area. That's what human capital is about.

If more people in your city volunteered to help kids with their schoolwork, for example, human capital could rise and the city would benefit.

Awesome on the new people too. You're a people person, aren't you? Rock on!

 

[Endymion]

Case in point... NYC. That city has a city tax in addition to state and federal taxes!

Also, you raise an interesting point; What happens if the population remains stagnant or aging? That, too, have huge implications on the existing tax base, especially if municipalities cannot raise ad valorem taxes any further. Have you ever heard of the Kelo v. City of New London [WikiPedia] case? In a nutshell, some sort of population increases may be necessary or beneficial. But, having too much of it would not be healthy either, I'll wager!

Oooh! You just mentioned one of my favorite pet cases!

Population increase definitely has some benefit. No population means no doctors to cure cancer, for example!

This is on another tangent and it's actually somewhat a technical discussion, but you made me think of something I learned long ago! There is an excellent fundamental idea in macroeconomic theory taught to all economics majors. It's called the Solow Growth Model.

The mathematics get pretty complex, but the idea is a little easier. In an simple economy, there's capital stock, investment (for capital stock growth), and a rate of depreciation.

The idea is that the more capital stock there is, the higher the rate of depreciation of that stock (machines wear out, etc.). Eventually, an economy can grow to the point where growth in capital stock from investment cancels out exactly with loss of capital stock to depreciation. At that point, the economy doesn't really "grow" anymore. It's in what economists call steady state.

There are other ways you can grow capital stock after you hit steady state, fortunately. You can advance technology or you can grow population.

Population growth will increase economy output. In that sense, a reduction in population growth will decrease economy output (Yes, a basic concept and I used lots of fancy verbiage to explain it). Unfortunately, there's a drawback. Population growth will increase output, but it will not increase the average quality of life per individual. In essence, the income per worker stays the same.

This means that limited resources are consumed without an increase in quality of life per worker in the very, very big picture.

 

[Endymion]

Good post--

Sooo...it must be 'greed', especially IF the 'Wicked Witch of the West' was indeed on the city's payroll!

LOL. I would have loved to see my principal shout, "I'm melting! I'm melting!"

 

[me_punctured]

*off-topic*

Logically, it doesn't sound right...the more people, the less we pay, yet, it's the other way around. What could you think is the reason for it--'higher taxes'? Isn't it obvious or is it greed?

Hi Roadrunner. Don't mind if I tackle your question, even though Sugar Addict and Endymion already answered it. I may not have an in-depth understanding of how taxes operate as much as the latter does, but I can understand why higher taxes occur in bigger cities and why they are necessary.

Assume that there's a complicated intersection in the expanding town of Bogus Nameus that currently has a slightly bent stop sign constantly subjected to the abuse of drunk teenagers. This intersection is in dire need of traffic lights because the incidence of fatal car accidents occurs here more than anywhere else. It gets worse year after year.

Yet Bogus Nameus does not have enough revenue to implement a traffic light because the residents pay low taxes. The city apparently places a low dollar value on human life, even though the traffic light could significantly reduce the likelihood of causalities as a result of the car accidents from 3.1 to 0.5 percent. Now, would you want to live in this town?

 

[me_punctured]

Hi FreedummyRing,

Seeing is not always believing. There's no question about that our planet is already overpopulated and our natural resources are fast shrinking more than they can replenish themselves.

Overpopulation in general does not benefit anyone in the long run. In fact, overpopulation in the U.S. will exacerbate the catastrophes as a result of global warming. Why? Because the U.S. is the biggest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, which deplete the ozone layer, even though the nation only constitutes 4 percent of the world population (last time I checked). The standards of living in the U.S. may be very high compared to developing nations and even some 'developed' nations, but those standards are exorbitantly wasteful.

If more and more people lived here in the States and kept up the way we live now as well as pardon the power companies' destructive impact on the planet, we would only accelerate the apocalyse known as GLOBAL WARMING.

And what good would come out of it?

 

[sequoias]

There is a such thing as overpopulation.....the resources are running out and millions of acres of forests are lost to sprawling farms in the rainforest regions. Without the rainforest, we will suffer worse, the animals suffer, too. There's 6.4+ BILLION people worldwide. More people means more food to grow and more wild animals lose their homes to farms and stuff. Thousands of animal spieces have dissappeared due to overpopulation and pollution.

US is smaller country than China and there's 300 million people living in the US and most of them live in East US in the bulk. There's a lot of sprawl in Phoenix, Atlanta, and other cities.

India with 1.1 billion people is growing rapidly and it's gaining on China's population of 1.3 billion people and that country is smaller than China and much more crowded. Blame it on unwanted births or unwise management of growth control.

 

[Endymion]

There is a such thing as overpopulation.....the resources are running out and millions of acres of forests are lost to sprawling farms in the rainforest regions. Without the rainforest, we will suffer worse, the animals suffer, too. There's 6.4+ BILLION people worldwide. More people means more food to grow and more wild animals lose their homes to farms and stuff. Thousands of animal spieces have dissappeared due to overpopulation and pollution.

US is smaller country than China and there's 300 million people living in the US and most of them live in East US in the bulk. There's a lot of sprawl in Phoenix, Atlanta, and other cities.

India with 1.1 billion people is growing rapidly and it's gaining on China's population of 1.3 billion people and that country is smaller than China and much more crowded. Blame it on unwanted births or unwise management of growth control.

Interesting point! Here's something else to consider. You talk about animal species. I'm not trying to make an environmentalist argument, but there is something to consider.

Many animals really do help human society. Here's a great example:

There's a group of brain cancers known as gliomas. The most common type of glioma in adults is the especially devastating Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), striking people in the prime of their lives and killing them in a matter of months. Currently, there is no cure.

Yet, however, medical experts have found a likely treatment (among others) from the venom of the yellow Israeli Scorpion, Leiurus quinquestriatus. This venom, when slightly modified, specifically targets cancerous brain cells.

And this is only one case of many! As another example, expert industrial chemists can't produce money-saving catalysts as efficiently as the ones you learn about when you study the cells of your dog Fido.

 

[me_punctured]

I don't mean to be playing the devil's advocate... but here's another question. Does human society help animals?

 

[FreedummyRing]

Thank you all, wow wonderful posts made by posters.

Good idea, Endymion, sure I'll will help out my local colleges.
I am already an alumni of one of the local college here....
and they asked me to give them money to help
other future students...