🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Qq-dnX7Ii8fTWcPeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
>> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
>>>
>>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
>>
>> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
>>
>> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
>> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
>> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
>> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
>> drinking water.
>
>
> 60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
>
> North Dakota will pay you to move there if you have kids and they have a 
> very high tech school system with lots of computers.   They have been 
> losing population as kids move away after graduation.
>
> The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
> jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
> California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to 
> and from work.
>

   Ultimately urban planners want to plan for a shrinking city.  They are 
also frequently anti-population.