Re: Who to send back
Marcel Popescu wrote: > Irrelevant. We're not interested in bacteria, but in humans. And we're not > interested in 7 billion years from now on, but in (at most) the next hundred > years. Given the current technology, we could feed probably 1,000 billion > people, and there's room for much more than that *without* leaving the > Earth. There's no way we could make 1,000 billion people in the next hundred > years. QED. wrong. I must quote from memory since I don't have the book here, but if you want title, author and ISBN, just ask: at the current standard of living for canada, we would ALREADY need two ADDITIONAL earths to sustain the CURRENT world population. even without a change in standards of living, given current growth and the nature of exponential functions, we will exhaust this planet's resources ca. 200 years from now. both of us will be dead by then, but it's still close enough to matter. it's got nothing to do with crypto, however.
Re: Who to send back
> >at the current standard of living for canada, we would ALREADY need two >ADDITIONAL earths to sustain the CURRENT world population. > >even without a change in standards of living, given current growth and >the nature of exponential functions, we will exhaust this planet's >resources ca. 200 years from now. > > >both of us will be dead by then, but it's still close enough to matter. >it's got nothing to do with crypto, however. Actually, it _does_. Strong crypto is the means by which those of who have money and talent will keep our money away from the billions of Third World Mutants who seek to glom onto it. There is basically no way that Zimbabwe or Chechnya or Bangla Desh or Romania is ever going to catch up to the West. The challenge is to make sure that they "die the good death" without contaminating us. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Janet Reno Needs an Exploding Dildo
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Patrick Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> As far as the raid goes, I support it. A 6-year-old child belongs > >> with his father or mother. The uncles and cousins had no standing, > >> period. > > >You're a fucking idiot. > > Please don't call Tim a "fucking idiot." I happen to disagree with his > position on the Elian issue too, but this list would be a lot more > bearable if more people contributed as much original thought as Tim > does. I do find some of the spam entertaining though. ;) I used to love reading Tim May's posts. How would you feel if Murray Rothbard suddenly started to advocate state intervention in private affairs? [Yes, I know he's dead.] This post was simply incredible, and if I could have found a more strong term to use, I would have used it. We have Clinton and Janet Reno (yes, WE have, what they do is affecting me) and we don't need Tim May to help them. > >A 6-years-old child is quite capable of knowing what he wants. > > Maybe in instinctive, reactional terms, but the age of six is still too > young to know what is in one's long-term best interests. Unless crystal balls are common in the US, nobody can KNOW (as in "for sure") what's in his long-term best interest. "Prediction is hard, especially about the future" (approx. quote from Niels Bohr). The child is old enough to know that he was better treated in the US than in Cuba. Mark P.S. Once again - the father's rights regarding his son come before anybody else EXCEPT for the rights of the son himself. I don't care how old the son is - we don't kill two months old children just because it would make us better. [Well, some of us at least.]
Re: Who to send back
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yep. Good bye. Look, everyone, I'm putting him in my killfile too! [I can't do that without saying it publicly, this would ruin the effect, right?] Tim, I used to admire you. Sadly, it looks that I'm the only fucking anarchist left on Earth. [Even Murray Rothbard advocated *for* copyrights, as I understand...] Well, I'm not very certain about David Friedman and Walter Block, though if Tim May supports state intervention, everything else is fair game... > There is basically no way that Zimbabwe or Chechnya or Bangla Desh or > Romania is ever going to catch up to the West. The challenge is to > make sure that they "die the good death" without contaminating us. Actually, there is a way. We just have to wait until the US becomes as socialist as Romania. Which seems quite likely, especially with Tim May advocating state intervention in private affairs... X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You sure are turning into a communist sympathizer lately Tim. Which, were I not to read those emails myself, I would have bet my life against. X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Craig Brozefsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hmm, how is your theory about the under supply of labor reconciled > with a global unemployment (just counting work force, not every single > mouth) hovering around 33% for the last few years? My source is the > International Labor Organization's annual report on unemployment > around the globe. Since human wants are infinite, unemployment is clearly NOT caused by a lack of (potential) jobs. Read some economics (not Keynesian - Austrians', or David Friedman's) books: most, if not all, cases of unemployment are caused by state intervention in the market. For example, a mandatory minimum wage will mean that all those who aren't that valuable for their employers will remain without a job. X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Tom Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrong. I must quote from memory since I don't have the book here, but if > you want title, author and ISBN, just ask: > > at the current standard of living for canada, we would ALREADY need two > ADDITIONAL earths to sustain the CURRENT world population. > > even without a change in standards of living, given current growth and > the nature of exponential functions, we will exhaust this planet's > resources ca. 200 years from now. I won't copy the entire text of "The Ultimate Resource" here. Anyway, the notion of "finite resources" is dumb. All resources are infinite. The Earth is round. Deal with it. [I can't stop wondering what kind of image do you have in your head: one morning, you wake up and discover that you no longer have food in your house. You go to the store to buy some more, but discover that *nobody* has food anymore. (Replace food with wood, oil, anything.) Yeah, that must be it...] Mark
Re: Who to send back
At 01:04 PM 4/25/00 -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote: >Irrelevant. We're not interested in bacteria, but in humans. The difference between bacteria and humans is that some humans think they're different. Meat is meat. And some of the humans think that, because a few percent has achieved z.p.g. and learned how to turn oil into food during the last century, there is no problem. Famine, plague, war, or birth control. Your choice. (Best to keep good defenses up against those who don't chose wisely, btw.) dh (That I should have to explain overpopulation to a Romanian is somewhat surreal, but whatever.. MP has been reasonable in the past)
Re: Who to send back
Tom Vogt wrote: > > Marcel Popescu wrote: > > Irrelevant. We're not interested in bacteria, but in humans. And we're not > > interested in 7 billion years from now on, but in (at most) the next hundred > > years. Given the current technology, we could feed probably 1,000 billion > > people, and there's room for much more than that *without* leaving the > > Earth. There's no way we could make 1,000 billion people in the next hundred > > years. QED. > > wrong. I must quote from memory since I don't have the book here, but if > you want title, author and ISBN, just ask: > > at the current standard of living for canada, we would ALREADY need two > ADDITIONAL earths to sustain the CURRENT world population. > Please, Tom. This is really getting tired. Malthus' theories were disproven years ago. Technology increases the population carrying capacity of the planet. Rehashing Malthusian theory, while it may serve the political purposes of the greens, is like arguing about the flatness of the earth. When most people talk about overpopulation that really mean overpopulation of "little brown people" -- an inherently racist position. Of those who are not secret racists what they really mean is that we have too many people living in poverty. Its a sad fact of life that, either through ignorance or intention societys have chosen suboptimal ecoonomic/political systems. A vast number of people starved in Russia when Stalin forced farm collectivism on the people. That Stalin didn't change his ways when millions began starving and proving that collectivism doesn't scale was probably more a testemant to his political goals. Starvation and privation in most of Africa is almost a stereotype. Stick with a minimal government and something approaching english common law and we have goods and happiness aplenty. For most people it doesn't matter why this works. It just does. Stop screwing with it. Look at the most properous nations on the earth (including your own) and some approximation of common law and free markets is what you will find. That some regions and population have not arrived there is indeed sad and unfortunate for them. If it pleases you, please go help them. jim
Re: Who to send back
At 12:42 PM 4/26/00 -0400, Jim Burnes wrote: >Please, Tom. This is really getting tired. Malthus' theories were disproven >years ago. Technology increases the population carrying capacity of the >planet. Polynomial vs. exponential growth. Exponential wins every time. Besides, the genes are maxxed out on the foodcrops.. [an article in Science in the last year]
Re: Who to send back
David Honig wrote: > > At 12:42 PM 4/26/00 -0400, Jim Burnes wrote: > >Please, Tom. This is really getting tired. Malthus' theories were disproven > >years ago. Technology increases the population carrying capacity of the > >planet. > > Polynomial vs. exponential growth. Exponential wins every time. > > Besides, the genes are maxxed out on the foodcrops.. [an article in > Science in the last year] > > That assumes that you have continous exponential growth in (1) industrialized countries and (2) 3rd world. Populations are regulated by food levels and land mass. I know we have enough land and tech in the US to handle future population growth, but unless the 3rd world adopts free market socio-economic systems they will stagnate once their level of population increase exceeds their socio-economic/tech curve. Free food to those regions just prolongs the pain. Sad, but true. jim
Re: Who to send back
At 03:34 AM 26/04/00 -0400, Tom Vogt wrote: >Marcel Popescu wrote: >> Irrelevant. We're not interested in bacteria, but in humans. And we're not >> interested in 7 billion years from now on, but in (at most) the next hundred >> years. Given the current technology, we could feed probably 1,000 billion >> people, and there's room for much more than that *without* leaving the >> Earth. There's no way we could make 1,000 billion people in the next hundred >> years. QED. > >wrong. I must quote from memory since I don't have the book here, but if >you want title, author and ISBN, just ask: If he doesn't want the title, author and ISBN for this (from memory) quote below, >at the current standard of living for canada, we would ALREADY need two >ADDITIONAL earths to sustain the CURRENT world population. I certainly do, so I can see what sort of drivel you've been mushing up your skull with. >even without a change in standards of living, given current growth and >the nature of exponential functions, we will exhaust this planet's >resources ca. 200 years from now. At which time, we become a space faring race, or die. *shrug* Show me the quote. >both of us will be dead by then, but it's still close enough to matter. >it's got nothing to do with crypto, however. But as Tim said, "However, importantly, it is clear from recent discussions on the list and from at least one recent physical Cypherpunks meeting, that an increasing number of participants "just don't get it." There was, for example, a proposal by some people at a recent meeting that Cypherpunks should set up their own "certificate-issuing authority." This is a terrible direction to go in. Apparently we are not discussing politics _enough_. "Cypherpunks write code" may be a nice mantra, but when Cypherpunks write code in furtherance of statist and centralized missions, the results are awful." - TCM (swiped from an onlist reply)
Re: Who to send back
At 04:09 PM 26/04/00 -0400, David Honig wrote: >At 12:42 PM 4/26/00 -0400, Jim Burnes wrote: >>Please, Tom. This is really getting tired. Malthus' theories were disproven >>years ago. Technology increases the population carrying capacity of the >>planet. > >Polynomial vs. exponential growth. Exponential wins every time. > >Besides, the genes are maxxed out on the foodcrops.. [an article in >Science in the last year] You aren't taking "global warming" and all the terrain that will become more habitable in siberia, canada and alaska, perhaps even antarctica into account. More arable land in the temperate zones, slightly harsher in the equatorial regions, if "global warming" comes to fruition. Or, we could kick NASA in the cajones and become a true space-faring race. Reese
Re: Who to send back
At 12:42 PM -0400 4/26/00, Jim Burnes wrote: > >Starvation and privation in most of Africa is almost a stereotype. > >Stick with a minimal government and something approaching english common >law and we have goods and happiness aplenty. There are some interesting issues normally neglected in the traditional libertarian analysis. For example, the "ecotone." This is a region of 50/50 survival, roughly speaking. A tideline is often an ecotone. The fact is, in alluvial flood plains like Bangla Desh (formerly East Pakistan), people move out onto the flood plains, where land is cheaper than elsewhere, and breed as rapidly as they possibly can (for various reasons). Every ten or twenty years, a cyclone (= hurricane) arrives and half a million die quickly and another few million suffer diseases and mold and all the stuff that too much water brings. And the capital, Dacca, sinks deeper into poverty. Sub-saharan Africa is much the same. Capitalism vs. Marxism has little to do with things. The issue is that these are regions of extremely high death rates (and hence high birth rates, via the generation-recombination equation) and nearly permanently "poor" living conditions. (Ain't no one gonna be dumb enough to build a wafer fab plant near Dacca, as but one example.) Fact is, the thriving capitalist/Protestant/Weberian societies are built in the loess of the temperate zones. An artifact of history. Neither taiga nor swamp nor desert. >For most people it doesn't matter why this works. It just does. Stop >screwing with it. Look at the most properous nations on the earth >(including your own) and some approximation of common law and free markets >is what you will find. And good soil, good rivers, good weather, good places for thriving. Those who live in dankness, in frozen wastelands, in fetid swamps, in the shadow of sand dunes, in clouds of tsetse flies and mosquitos...well, they fertilize the soil. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Who to send back
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "David Honig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 01:04 PM 4/25/00 -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote: > >Irrelevant. We're not interested in bacteria, but in humans. > > The difference between bacteria and humans is that some humans > think they're different. Meat is meat. I'm a Christian. These arguments don't hold water to me. Try Tim. > And some of the humans think that, because a few percent has achieved > z.p.g. and learned how to turn oil into food during the last century, > there is no problem. Who are they? I hate zpg. > Famine, plague, war, or birth control. Your choice. Intelligence. Love. Yeah, those who put themselves at the same level with bacteria might not know what I'm talking about. > (Best to keep good defenses up against those who don't chose wisely, btw.) Oh, an elitist... Who decides what is wise and what's not? [Don't say Tim.] > (That I should have to explain overpopulation to a Romanian is somewhat > surreal, but whatever.. MP has been reasonable in the past) Thanks. I am not aware of any overpopulation problems in Romania. Our population is too small for my wants - I still can't find someone to paint my house properly, for example. The only (well, the main) problem I have is the government - I'd earn more in Romania than I earn now from my US employer if I wouldn't have to pay ~75% personal income taxes, ~90% gas taxes, ~70% business taxes and so on. Mark
