🚀 go-pugleaf

"Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message 
news:tsch-53E9F5.18044825102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> 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.

Native-born Americans do not reproduce themselves anyway.