overpopulation

Overpopulation is indeed a problem. I think the poverty, hunger, and disease proove that.

It's not a matter of "God" or natures will, it's a matter of surviving when a few hundred years down the road we've grown to half a trillion people. How will we keep up with the need for resources when we use them faster than they can be reproduced? Until we get Star Trek type replicators (or more realisticly nanotechnology), I think the population needs to slow down.

Look at all the population spikes in history. When it got too big poverty, disease and hunger struck, wiping out thousands (and even millions) at a time. You need to look at facts, not some God(s) whom may or may not exist. 19th century London was a prime example of overpopulation. And look what happened there.

 

And yet how many times do we hear that there's plenty of food to feed everybody, it just isn't distributed very well. I think most people, have enough food, most of the time. The problem is, poor land ownership laws to benefit even the poor denying the poor clear title to land, such that they build overcrowded shantytowns on land they don't technically "own" fearing that it may be bulldozed or they be forced to move. But what if they had clear title to land somewhere suitable? Might that help them build nicer homes, if they could better expect for their property to be respected? And the problem with food, is, that poor people don't have the money to buy food, when their crops fail during the occasional drought. Better agricultural development, GMOs, and of course, economic reform could help with that.

I believe a half trillion people, would not only "barely" survive, they would thrive all the more. By then the skies ought to be a-buzzing with flying cars like on The Jetsons cartoon. (Oh but those nuclear-powered flying cars, are probably quite quiet?) And highrise buildings by then, may have become "commonplace" in order to find plenty of room for spacious housing units in the prime areas to live, by expanding somewhat into the vertical dimension, as the sci-fi idea of population archologies suggests.

The problem with "waiting" for Start Trek type food replicators, is this idea I read of in anti-population rhetoric, of "Well let's wait and see. If resources expand, then we can multiply later." That may seem logical, but actually it is foolishness. For there is a saying that "Necessity is the mother of invention." We may never get "food replicators," until we actually "need" them, and then so many creative minds might actually go to work on the problem, with far more advanced technologies by then, than we could hardly dream of now. In other words, the population phobic "wait-and-seers" would really in effect be saying, "Well let's expand human population, oh, about the day after hell freezes over." I think things could never be so good, that they would suddenly and mysterious take to "liking" more people after all. Of course by then, many of the population naysayers will be gone anyway, due to lack of breeding?

It makes more sense to take a "wait-and-see" attitude to some of the new technologies like this new trendy HD digital TV that Congress is now cramming down our throats. Oh sure, I got me one, but only because my old 19-year TV, quit working, and so I didn't want to replace it with a cheap TV that would be obsolete in just a few years. But what if we don't go buy every new trendy technology gadget? We might have more free time, and more money, and life would go on anyway. We might even have more time to breed, and to spend with our families doing somewhat more social events anyway, like playing board games. We don't have to buy all those things, as the naturally growing human population, will see to it that there are more people out there to buy all those things, regardless, to keep the technology advancing.

BTW, the mainstream demographers aren't predicting there to ever be a half trillion people. More like 8 or 9 billion within the next century. Maybe "stabilizing" after that (stagnating due to rampant contraceptive peddling), or perhaps slowly creeping ever upwards to 14 or 30 billion, in the next century or two or so. Maybe crashing in a runaway birth dearth of increasingly elderly populations, as people become more selfish and distracted and forget their duty/opportunity to breed.

Human populations have always been both gradually but also steadily and relentlessly growing throughout most of history. Human populations only seem to have grown slower, because of deliberate distortions of just some 6000 years or so since Adam & Eve, to "millions and billions" of years in defense of a hokey evolution theory.

Plagues and famine sometimes struck, not at all because of naturally growing population, but because humans often ignored important principles found in the Bible. Like one is to bury that which comes from thee, in the ground. Why? So human populations may grow denser without spreading disease, but of course. And yet, it wasn't until recently, that humans actually got serious about building some robust plumbing and sewage treatment systems, and purifying their drinking water. Why did we wait so long? Because people went their merry way, and didn't study the consequences and alternatives enough. I even hear from somebody from India, that the more Christian region, is also cleaner.

And didn't Israel manage to turn largely desert, into useful living and crop-growing space? How exactly did they do that?

One of the things so sorely missing from so much of the population debate, is a fair consideration of "the weight of numbers." For if the population size doubles, twice as many people then may be around to enjoy life, for only the comparitively trivial growing pains, of temporarily growing perhaps a little more "crowded" as housing and infrastructure expansion, may sometimes temporarily lag behind when there are economic problems and such, not managed so wisely.

So by the time, if ever or never, world population manages to balloon to a half trillion people, I think people would be quite used to being so populous, and much rather like being so populous. Much the same as most people today, generally want for world population to at least be as large as it is now, or even somewhat larger, in order that they may freely have their children too.

We may not know much how to accomodate a half trillion people, but by the time that becomes increasingly "inevitable" if ever, there is bound to be quite a lot more technology, and more ideas how it can be done, by then. So as with parents of large families, we mostly learn such things, by doing.

 

Yes, overpopulation is a problem. But the problem is not really the larger numbers of people, it's the negative side-effects that are associated with it. These are problems such as urban sprawl, over-development of rural and wilderness areas, and urban pollution caused by larger numbers of people in the already crowded cities, just to name a few.

Destruction of farm land threatens our nation's ability to feed it's citizens, and development sprawling into wilderness areas is threatening wildlife habitats. People need to understand that they are not the only species on the planet, but the earth must be shared by all species.

I do not however adovocate for population control. The best way to control our ever increasing numbers is by consious self-control, where people realize that they can live healthy and productive lives without having children and voluntarily decide to not procreate. If even a small number of people adopted this philosophy, the situation would dramatically improve.

 

Pronatalist, do you have any evidence that all those millions of metric tons of food that isn't being distributed properly, exists?

Population density is directly linked to the spread of diseases, the closer people are togather, the faster it spreads. That has shown repeatedly in studies. The black plague in Europe killed about 1/4 of the population. Mainly spread by rats because people had killed most of the cats, thinking they where linked to witchcraft.

Look at where population density is highest in the world and you will also find higher crime rates, higher amounts of water and air pollution, higher rates of disease and oddly enough lower fertility rates in humans. Go visit China and tell me how great densly packed people are living in a place where the air will make you sick to breath it.

In case you have not noticed, not everyperson born wants to be here. Suicide rates in only continue to rise. According to the World Health Organization, it is one of the three top causes of death for people 15 to 35 yrs old. Suicide rates have risen 60% worldwide from 1950 to 1995 for the total of all the countries reporting. 1 Million people commit suicide every year, worldwide.

 

Well actually, yes. Just look at the growing numbers of obese people throughout the world. Apparently, they must be finding food to excess?

Also, Brian Carnell, has made the point on one of his websites, animalsrights.com I think, although perhaps no longer active, that people eating meat, buys the human race "food insurance," because farmers then have incentive to produce far more food than is needed to feed the human race, to also feed the animals. In times of famine, we could always stop feeding the animals, and even eat the animals. Thus, rather than "waste" food production potential, as some vegetarians may claim, eating meat buys humans "food insurance." Also, animals such as cows, aid in converting the agricultural potential of poor lands good at growing little more than grass, into food for humans.

No doubt there are food stockpiles in famer silos or warehouses here and there. But much of it, is in untapped potential production. Think of it. Farmers aren't usually all that stupid. Why produce food to rot, that won't sell? But as the numbers of human mouths to feed throughout the world, gradually rises higher and higher, so too does the food supply and methods of food production, provided that people are allowed the freedom to accumulate wealth, and be able to buy food when they either can't or don't want to, produce their own food. And a far better way to prop up sagging prices for crops, than dumping food into the ocean, is simply to multiply the numbers of people alive, needing to be fed.

And yet the denser and vaster human populations spread, the more women there are of childbearing age, and the faster and faster babies can come. In some article I read years ago, "Supercities, Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," that the numbers of women of childbearing age are larger than they have been previously, was cited as the main factor in the world population situation. Well yeah, I agree with population phobics sometimes, on a few minor points. But I don't agree that the flourishing or blossoming of the human race, is to be regarded a "problem." Some PBS program claimed that by introducing such things as vaccines and modern public sanitation to the "unprepared" third world, we "upset" their population patterns. It showed babies receiving vaccines, and suggested so many babies were now surviving to adulthood, to now also reproduce, that they are growing "crowded" with people. But I don't agree with the so-called "lifeboat" ethic I read of in some government monopoly college textbook. It claims that helping the poor might be actually counterproductive. If we give (or sell) medicine and food to the developing countries, we supposedly reduce infant mortality, increase longevity, and encourage more childbearing, all of which serve to worsen their "overpopulation" and create even more needy people than before. But since more and more people would be glad to live, if somehow I could, why should it bother me to decrease infant mortality, increase longevity, and encourage more childbearing? I already believe human populations could in fact, grow denser and denser, so that more people may live, and so all countries should do their part, towards the common global goal and natural desire of humans, to help enlarge the entire human race, for the good of all, and the good of so many individuals. We aren't the socialist babysitters of these less developed countries. Who are we to say, that they aren't "allowed" to steadily grow ever more "crowded" with people, if they perhaps want to or can? Who are we, to dare criticize their pro-life, pronatalism? Who are we, to claim that populous nations can't somehow fit in, and find room for all the children that many large and "unplanned" families, may produce? What makes us so "smart," seemingly more "smart" (or arrogant is more like it) than God?

Population density, actually has very little to do with the spread of disease, especially at the present size and density of the world population already. Proper nutrition, proper public sanitation, moral behavior, and a proper medical care system, have much more to do with it. People seem to expend very little effort, to avoid the populous places from which they might encounter germs, due to largely, people already being equipped by God, with an immune system. We shop in stores, we attend schools and universities, go to concerts and sports events, humans increasingly visit vast crowds, and travel in "crowded" airplanes, some people traveling regularly.

And lets consider how "viruses" spread in computers. Although computer viruses would seem to have little to do with biological viruses, because are technically just malicious code written by humans, who have disregarded the proper etique of how computer programs must behave and obey and listen to the commands of their computer users, they actually have much in common. In this case, density has nothing to do with the spread of computer viruses, but rather the amount of unprotected "intimate contact." A computer can't catch a "virus" from another computer, unless it first downloads a program, and then runs it. Merely looking at data, won't spread the virus lurking within the data. Distance is irrevelant, but rather, accurate data communication, is what spreads the virus. Of course the problem is, that the distinction between mere data, and running programs, is blurring in modern operating systems. A macro lurking in a data file, can be much like a "program," that may automatically be run upon loading. Websites contain "programs" increasingly, so that we may play games and such, right in our browser windows. Currently, the "immune system" of computers, is very weak, as computers pretty much blindly follow orders, having no idea what might be the consequences of that. I expect that may change, with the more advanced computer operating systems of the future, that may grow more "intelligent." Surely a command from a website, to reformat your hard drive, should appear to a smart operating system, to be a bit "suspicious" or "suspect." As too, should be any request to look at files irrelevant to the website's apparent purpose. But in the case of computer viruses, the only problem that "density" causes, is that the MyCrudSoft Windoze system is so common, that it provides a popular target for virus-code writers. That's one reason that Macintoshes are almost "immune" to computer viruses. It's not that they are less "dense," but less of a target for malicious bad computer code. And Windoze unwisely allows too much "intimate contact" between other web-connected computers, that could then allow for such sabotage of their systems. Not all the "bells and whistles" of every website, such as a particular WYSIWYG editor, that works on Windows, is supported by the Mac OS. Some website games won't run on Macs. But then Macs don't get viruses so often as the common cold, either. Macs will display most websites, just as well as a PC will. But Macs tend to touch them with "protective gloves" so to speak, because the Mac OS is "foreign" to most of the malicious viruses, and so they don't know how to get in and infect it.

You already indentified the problem, it seems, to the shortage of cats. Let's go with that idea then? Also, wasn't improper disposal or treatment of human wastes, part of the problem? Microbes, were discovered after that time, and so it is becoming all the more apparent, that developing, increasingly densely populated nations, ought not to be pooping into their drinking water. So the remedy for that, is not condoms nor Catholic-tolerated rhythm at all, but simply more modern flush toilets and proper sewer and potable water systems and plumbing, as the world gradually but also hopefully steadily grow ever denser with more and more people. Of course the cat population grow more dense, along with the rising human population, more people wanting more pets, apparently. And could perhaps mice and rat populations be dropping now? I mean for cities to be infested with them, seems to be less common than in the past. No more new "Pied Piper" stories now?

But the correlation isn't conclusive. Many densely settled places, also tend to be modern and fairly clean, or getting cleaner. Look at Singapore, or Tokyo. I hear Singapore is obsessively clean, and they don't even allow gum chewing. Some decades ago, they were alarmed about their population growth, as their island nation is already quite "crowded," but now they try to encourage women to have more children, afraid of losing their work force due to the rampant spread of the global "birth dearth," when people become too busy working or being prosperous, to remember their duty or opportunity to bring more children into the world. Incorrectly labeled the "demographic transition," as if a more modern standard of living automatically reduces birthrates, it really is due more to rampant peddling of contraceptives, and excessive contraceptive availability. Some countries seem more "immune" to the so-called "demographic transition" though, such as Israel, where large family size is still quite "normal" even in a rather "modern" country.

Why do you think I am so pro-development? Because over 6.5 billion people, is a lot of rather needy people. As there gets to be more and more people, living closer together, obviously, pollution per capita, at some point, must start to decrease, because our neighbors are getting closer, and there are more people to be affected. Well that comes, pretty much automatically, with more population-driven technology, and the more options it brings. More flush toilets, and more modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, would be among the main things that growing cities, filling with more and more people, would need, to accomodate so many people, and yet keep things reasonably clean.

What do you expect of me? Can you "have your cake, and eat it too?" I am pro-life, and I am pro-population. What I propose, is the best, win-win situation for everybody. But can we have seemingly "unlimited" human procreation, according to God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, without the world increasingly growing denser with people? I believe God giving man dominion over nature and other creatures, was due to that humans were destined by God, to grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals. We wouldn't dominate merely because we are supposedly intelligent, nor because "we can," but because we would ultimately grow so incredibly numerous, that we would have to, having no other way to accomodate so many people. Many huge cities would likely become quite necessary, just to hold all the people somehow, someplace.

Yeah, the frontiers seem to be vanishing, and colonizing other worlds, doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. But there is a vast frontier, too often overlooked. And it could absord the countless billions perhaps to come, rather easily. And that frontier, is simply that of humans populating the planet denser and denser, and more efficiently. There could simply come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from people. More cities and towns and suburbs upon suburbs, can obviously be built, to find room for, or to make room for, so many, many people, so that people may go on, having all the children they were meant to have, regardless of the already "huge" population size. Building more cities, and enlarging present cities and towns, reduces the commuting distances between them, which I would also count as a "benefit" of human population growth. Why move to the city, when you can wait for the city to move to you?, one could joke. Actually, after humans have depopulated the countryside to crowd the cities in search of excitement or jobs or opportunity, I would consider it cool to see the people move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities as there gets to be so many, many of us. Sure, we have lost the reason to procreate, of filling an "empty" planet. There appears to be no "shortage" of people anymore. But what of all the other various compelling reasons to multiply? They continue that same as ever. That more and more people would be glad to live. That most everybody wants or ends up having children. That most every child is glad to come alive and be born. That human populations, especially with good and visionary and Godly leadership, naturally accomodate their own growth. That many people are having quite a lot of awkward problems with "birth control." That is sex is so wonderful as society makes it out to be, then why not have all the more penises and vaginas throughout the world, steadily populating closer together, to enjoy it? That parents with children already, are "experience" and among the best potential candidates then, for having still more children. That childen often rather like, having additional or baby siblings. That growing up in a large family, better socializes children to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. Because God says to humans to multiply. And only God can decide when the earth is "full." And on and on.

I don't know how else, to accomodate all the children people were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people already, other than to welcome global population density to naturally rise, in perhaps a seemingly "unchecked" manner, subject only to the time it takes human populations to grow, or to God's providence. It's quite a lot easier for people to "scoot over a bit" and make room for more fellow humans, and for nature to withstand the rising human "population pressure," than for humans to unnaturally struggle with awkward, anti-life contraceptives. Where to put all the people? Simple. Where we have always historically put them. In between all the people already living. The "obvious" answer, is to simply grow denser and adapt to mitigate any problems that growing denser would seem to create or irritate. For example, I really don't expect more and more flushing toilets worldwide, to in any way, "hurt" the planet. As similarly, I don't think nature could possibly be "threatened" by more disposable diapers going into landfills. The Bible already says to bury that which comes from thee, and throwing disposable diapers away, is but an example of that. Land is made of "dirt" anyway.

And I must remind people, I am mainly talking about increasing density, on the global level, not so much on the local level where it would be more noticable. People, as always, are free to spread out, to prevent any local "crowding," as they would like. Demographers predict a measly 2 or 3 billion more people to be added, within our lifetimes. I hope they have greatly underestimated, and that there would be no "peaking" of world population, but that people would enjoy having possibly many children, clear until the Biblical endtimes. But let's look at what that does to world population density. Ruling out Antartica, because few people are truly so desperate or "worried" about human population growth, to move to such a frigid place, currently the "huge" world population only on average populates 125 people per square mile, well below what would constitute a very sparse or rural population level. Add 3 billion more, and at about 20 people per square mile per billion, it rises to just around 185 people per square mile. That's hardly even "noticable" of an increase. It takes several 1000s of people per square mile, to qualify as "urban" density. Now how easy and "painless" can an advancing "planetary pregnancy" (of humans) be expected to be? Why all the global whining, about what so much benefits, so many people?

Do you think that China grow from some 400 million people, to now over a billion people, in a matter of decades, just because commie Chaiman Mao, thought a large and growing population would make China strong? No, I rather doubt that. More likely, it was the Chinese people already naturally preferred to have their "traditionally very large" families, as I read somewhere. And now I am deeply concerned about the yearnings of some now maybe 400 million Chinese women of childbearing age, to also have "traditionally very large" families. That would rank among the most compelling of population expansion reasons. A practical reason to jettison any population "control" delusions, and go ahead and plan to eagerly rejoice at the official announcement of the Chinese "baby 2 billion" to come along perhaps in a few decades, hopefully. If they are going to be a population giant, then by all means, be proud to be a population giant, and make the best of the situation. Set a more optimistic tone as to how the human race may yet grow and grow, and adapt to our naturally rising numbers, rather nicely and deliberately. Why did China ever dare contemplate a 1-child policy? Was it really as they claimed, that they didn't know if they could feed more than a billion people? No, I think rich power mongers from the West leaned upon them to get their burgeoning population more "under control" lest China and India remain the "vanguard of the population explosion," encouraging other nations to also grow in a rather "unchecked" manner, and ultimately lead to a rather "crowded" planet. It was a sick global "control" experiment, to set precedent for spreading totalitarians and ushering in the Anti-Christ, throughout the world. Rather, I would look at it the other way. If the world goes on, not just with 1 "population billionaire" nation, but now 2, as India also joined the growing prestigeous "populalation billionaire" club in 1999, then couldn't the world go on still, in some future world of dozens of "population billionaire" countries? We, the U.S., should set a good example for a growing world, by growing ourselves, and showing how growth is best done. We should transition from population growing due to poverty, to growing on purpose, and stating the reasons why, and promoting wealth and freedom and responsibility, for all.

So in other words, 99.98% of the people in the world, don't commit suicide every year? The overwhelming vast majority, in spite of all the problems, very much choose to go on living, and trust that needed reforms may come later, if ever at all. That to me makes it look very likely, that most any baby imaginable, even those born into "huge" families living in "overcrowded" stantytowns or burgeoning megacities, very much is glad to come alive and live, with at least the prospect of a "better" life later.

 

oopps.. wrong thread :\

 

This argument is so flawed it's not worth debating. One big happy delusion.

 

Stop Makin Kidz And Realize That The Urge To Make Kidz Is Totally Biological And Totally Selfish!!!=====> Everybody Wants It's Own Genes To Take Over And Multiply And Be Most Numerous.... Go Beyond That, And You'll Reach One Step Higher In Your Personal Evolution And In The Universal ....
Peace

 

But most all people can obviously spread their genes, simutaneously, and grow more and more numerous, if people can simply learn to accept that in order to do so, they may have to live and breed just a bit closer to their many neighbors as in the past. And if people are supposedly progressing to some higher plain of morality, which newspapers suggest that they are not, then why can't they "scoot over" a bit, and make room for their many multiplying neighbors, as their neighbors do the same for them? There's no need for hostile competition, because there are the means already for human populations to grow together, side-by-side, working both for individual and common benefit.

For parents to deliberately enjoy sex naturally, and welcome more fellow humans to come to life as a result, is one of the most generous and loving and natural things they could possibly do. What's "selfish" is to try to deny the prospect of human life from the sex act, and deny pregnancy, a far greater and long-lasting reward for sex than merely the temporary and fleeting orgasm.

God didn't design for humans to try to divorce copulation from procreation, and we create all the more social ills, the more we try to make sex some unnatural hedonism, rather than a natural life-giving force that helps to grow our families naturally.

 

there is a huge overpopulation problem.. we're destroying habitats and species and the ozone layer... it's ridiculous and i don't feel that anyone is addressing the problem

 

You're right. Aside from the few of us who are speaking out about it, very little is being done. Perhaps as people become more aware of the issues involved, they will also become more active in preventing population-related problems.

 

When I was a kid there were 4 billion people. Now there are 6 billion. It took millions of years to get to 4 billion and only 35 to get to 6 billion.

YES, there is a population crisis!

 

What an issue. And no, not too many people are adressing it. I Have not yet read the entire thread but a comment made towards the beginning propted a response. Only the strongest survive. Thats a fact with just about every species save ours. We save our dieing, help our sick survive a few more precious years, even encourage those to have more children, who also might be sick. On that matter specificly, I really think thats what makes us human, our ability to have compassion, and motivition to help the sick or injured. Its a trait I am thankful to the depths of my soul for, for I have a daughter that without *intervention* might not be here now. For that matter, without *intervention* neither of my beautiful, intelligent, joyful children would be here, and I cannot imagine that. BUT, that being siad I think that people should be more free to make the choice to die if they need to. (thinking of terminal patients, things like that) To be even more direct, had my twins been born prior to 24weeks, I would not have chosen to have any measures taken to continue their lives outside of the womb. After educating myself to the chances in that, I decided not to use those recourses. (the gods were smiling when I decided this, they were born at a sound 32 weeks)Maybe thats thread theivery, but I think a person should be able to draw a line reguarding the measures they are willing to take for themselves or their children.

I don't know what the solution could be.

In part I think nature takes care of it. But we are quick creatures, are we not? We seem ever more capable of cheating death, and ever more capable of reproducing against the odds.

 

I just got the news report a minute ago. They are saying the U.S. hit the 300,000,000 population mark today. I watched the report on Fox, wich was saying that unlimited growth is a good thing because of ecomonic benefits from the ever expanding workforce.

I say ecomonics is a foolish reason for creating a social disaster.

And just out of curiosity, how are we going to provide jobs for all these extra people?

 

Yes and no. Better health care leads to longer life expectancy and less infant mortality. I believe that we do OVERUSE with little regard for the long term viability of our planet's resources for the most part as a species.

That being said because of the way we live our lives....atleast in most western cultures we are exposed to more disease then ever before....more cancer...more diabeties...more heart disease exc.....things that are for the most part a direct result of our food choices and the pollution & toxins that we put into our bodies. It wasn't long ago that these things were unherd of and in some countires they still are. More disease = more death. People...especially western peoples....are also waiting long to have children & having less children. So generally I believe it cancles itself out....we are about even.

 

"The student sat and listened until the master was through. Then he rose, put his sandals on top of his head, and slowly exited the sanctuary."

Which is to say, I don't know whether to laugh, cry or vomit. Did you ever live in Los Angeles? How about Calgary? You may deserve what's going to happen in the next hundred years, but the rest of us don't. Fortunately I will die before Calgary expands the 60 miles westward to the Rockies. This is something I will be spared of.

 

Los Angeles has some serious population issues, but I had no idea the same thing was happening in Calgary.

Most Americans don't see Canada as having population problems, mostly because your national population is so much lower than ours. But I guess it's all a matter of the specific area where you live and and how local growth affects the people in that area.

 

It's good to know the U.S. just hit 300,000. I was afraid it might be 300,000,000. Last time I checked it was about 230,000,000, and I wouldn't have expected a 70,000,000 increase this soon.

I was brought up in Los Angeles, and at the time I left there were about 77 incorporated cities in Los Angeles county, 2,700,000 people in City of Los Angeles, and 13,000,000 in southern California (counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino, Orange and San Diego). I don't know what the year 2006 figures are, and I don't really want to know. Let's just say I don't live there.

One more thing: I don't have any children. Ecologically speaking, the best thing I can do for this world is to leave it, which should happen 20 years from now or so if I'm lucky.

There's no need to visit Los Angeles. Los Angeles is coming to you.

 

I didn't even notice the mistake until you pointed it out. The correct number is 300,000,000. I should have just typed 300 million.

It's amazing what difference 3 little zeros can make - both on paper and in real life. 300 thousand people is a long way from 300 million.

P.S.
I went back and corrected the number in the original post. It now reads 300,000,000.

 

Say Woodsman:

I appreciate that half a million people spent three days at Woodstock, New York in 1969 hearing good music and balling and getting rained on and generally having a good time.

They also destroyed the crops on several farms, refused to pay admission in many cases (by tearing down fences), and left one hell of a mess. Wavy Gravy admitted the producers took a big financial loss on the thing, for whatever that's worth. This is all evident in the Woodstock video. No, I wasn't there.

DIRTYDOG