Gale Pooley, I read much of your book superabundance and I agree with the idea that resources get cheaper and more abundant (as opposed to scarcer) with more people. So from a resource perspective, I agree with you. But the bigger question I am wondering is would a lot of overcrowding be worth it just because everything was cheaper. A lot of people still want personal space and if the population never quit growing it seems areas would get quite congested.
Overcrowding can be a problem if people are forced to live in restricted spaces.
Zoning and other government regulations can do this.
In most cases however, people voluntarily choose to live close to one another.
This is due to a variety of reasons including having more choices and services.
Think about New York City. Lots of people, but they have chosen to live there because it offers so much value.
The Continental U.S. (i.e. lower 48) has about 1.9 Billion acres and the vast majority is undeveloped as only 69.4 million acres, or about 3.6% is urban.
I also forgot to mention in my earlier comment that I liked watching your interview on Jordan Peterson's show. I believe that resources are infinitely abundant but I still haven't been totally convinced that land and living space is infinitely abundant. I know that there is lots of undeveloped land in the U.S. but it seems that eventually it would all be taken up if the population always increased. And it seems like we would want leftover space. For example, BYU consistently has one of the best teams in the NCAA for men's and women's cross country. But if every city eventually became the size of New York City, there would be no place for cross country courses. Am I missing something?
Jordan Peterson's interview is one of our favorites.
The density of Manhattan, a borough within New York City, is 74,781 people per square mile. The continental United States has a population density of approximately 113 people per square mile. The U.S. population of 340 million would have to increase by a factor of 662 be as crowded at Manhattan. According to the US Census Bureau U.S. population is expected to peak 2080 at 370 million. This 9 percent growth will occur mostly in cities. We will still have lots of wide-open spaces to enjoy if we choose. In the mean time we can go to cities to shop and get health care. Thanks for reading.
I understand this but I thought your position was that the population should always grow or that it is okay if it always did. I once calculated that if the U.S. had the population density of Manhattan the U.S. would have 252 billion people. If everyone had 7 kids like you do it seems like it wouldn't take very long for a significant rise in the population to happen. Even if everyone had 3 kids which most don't consider to be a large family, the population would always rise and eventually get to this point (though it could take hundreds of years). Do you think as the population increased, we would find other areas to live such as sea colonies or people living on Mars like Elon Musk has suggested? If you don't want to respond to my comments publicly you can email me back.
Please take a look at Fertility Rates. Replacement is 2.1. The world is currently at 2.2. This would put put global population at around 10 billion in 2125. The U.S. is at 1.62, well under replacement. We only increase in the U.S. due to immigration. Utah was 1.801 in 2023.
Our model suggests that wealth creation is a function of population and the freedom to innovate. This is why we are so concerned with fertility rates.
I know that the main problem right now is low fertility rates and they seem to just get lower and lower. I'm just wondering if you think an ever growing population would also be problematic (if that were the case). Pronatalist.org says they are not in favor of a forever-expanding human population, they just want countries that are below replacement level fertility to get back to replacement level fertility.
I know you believe that resources are infinitely abundant, but do you believe that living space is infinitely abundant? I don't believe that living space on earth is infinitely abundant. I do however lean toward thinking that the universe is infinitely abundant when it comes to living space.
While I believe it is impossible to run out of resources, it does seem possible to run out of living space on earth. If the population were to rise dramatically on earth people could move to other planets. With more humans, we could have more knowledge to figure those things out and to create advanced technology to do it.
Gale Pooley, I read much of your book superabundance and I agree with the idea that resources get cheaper and more abundant (as opposed to scarcer) with more people. So from a resource perspective, I agree with you. But the bigger question I am wondering is would a lot of overcrowding be worth it just because everything was cheaper. A lot of people still want personal space and if the population never quit growing it seems areas would get quite congested.
Good observations my friend.
Overcrowding can be a problem if people are forced to live in restricted spaces.
Zoning and other government regulations can do this.
In most cases however, people voluntarily choose to live close to one another.
This is due to a variety of reasons including having more choices and services.
Think about New York City. Lots of people, but they have chosen to live there because it offers so much value.
The Continental U.S. (i.e. lower 48) has about 1.9 Billion acres and the vast majority is undeveloped as only 69.4 million acres, or about 3.6% is urban.
https://johnmjennings.com/how-much-of-the-u-s-is-inhabited/
I also forgot to mention in my earlier comment that I liked watching your interview on Jordan Peterson's show. I believe that resources are infinitely abundant but I still haven't been totally convinced that land and living space is infinitely abundant. I know that there is lots of undeveloped land in the U.S. but it seems that eventually it would all be taken up if the population always increased. And it seems like we would want leftover space. For example, BYU consistently has one of the best teams in the NCAA for men's and women's cross country. But if every city eventually became the size of New York City, there would be no place for cross country courses. Am I missing something?
Jordan Peterson's interview is one of our favorites.
The density of Manhattan, a borough within New York City, is 74,781 people per square mile. The continental United States has a population density of approximately 113 people per square mile. The U.S. population of 340 million would have to increase by a factor of 662 be as crowded at Manhattan. According to the US Census Bureau U.S. population is expected to peak 2080 at 370 million. This 9 percent growth will occur mostly in cities. We will still have lots of wide-open spaces to enjoy if we choose. In the mean time we can go to cities to shop and get health care. Thanks for reading.
I understand this but I thought your position was that the population should always grow or that it is okay if it always did. I once calculated that if the U.S. had the population density of Manhattan the U.S. would have 252 billion people. If everyone had 7 kids like you do it seems like it wouldn't take very long for a significant rise in the population to happen. Even if everyone had 3 kids which most don't consider to be a large family, the population would always rise and eventually get to this point (though it could take hundreds of years). Do you think as the population increased, we would find other areas to live such as sea colonies or people living on Mars like Elon Musk has suggested? If you don't want to respond to my comments publicly you can email me back.
Please take a look at Fertility Rates. Replacement is 2.1. The world is currently at 2.2. This would put put global population at around 10 billion in 2125. The U.S. is at 1.62, well under replacement. We only increase in the U.S. due to immigration. Utah was 1.801 in 2023.
Our model suggests that wealth creation is a function of population and the freedom to innovate. This is why we are so concerned with fertility rates.
Try this fertility rate calculator: https://fixed-fertility-calculator.netlify.app/
I know that the main problem right now is low fertility rates and they seem to just get lower and lower. I'm just wondering if you think an ever growing population would also be problematic (if that were the case). Pronatalist.org says they are not in favor of a forever-expanding human population, they just want countries that are below replacement level fertility to get back to replacement level fertility.
I know you believe that resources are infinitely abundant, but do you believe that living space is infinitely abundant? I don't believe that living space on earth is infinitely abundant. I do however lean toward thinking that the universe is infinitely abundant when it comes to living space.
While I believe it is impossible to run out of resources, it does seem possible to run out of living space on earth. If the population were to rise dramatically on earth people could move to other planets. With more humans, we could have more knowledge to figure those things out and to create advanced technology to do it.
Maybe God created the universe to be infinite so that the human population could never quit growing so we could always have living space.