🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kIz7f.217$m81.164@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:

> "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. 

Sometimes it works.  The thing about this thread is that there are not 
going to be 60 million in 2040.  This is a microcosm repeat of the world 
population bomb scare of the 70s.  The other thing to remember is that 
SoCal is going South American.  The 10 million will be living the good 
life and the 35 million will be box dwellers of the Asunscion hillsides 
or Mexico City edge cities.  That's it, 45 million only about 8 million 
more than we see now.  Why?  Collapsing public ammenities, fiscal 
implosion, high prices, insane planning, aggressive defense of personal 
property rights, double demographics.  That last needs more; first the 
most recent batch of new Kalifornians won't reproduce or attract like 
the last batch, second the population is aging/educating/richer.  For 
tiny evidence look to Portland where bad planning and high housing 
prices are killing the schools.  Do it now for a whole state.  Oh and 
does anybody seriously think technology isn't going to revolutionize 
agriculture such that picking peppers isn't going to displace 200 hand 
laborers with a GIS coordinator and a CSU Davis engineer and a robot?  
Kill the entry level opportunities towards exploitation and 3/4ths of 
the projected population increase disappears.