Discussion:
Movie review: ZPG (Zero Population Growth) and 1970s overpopulation craze
(too old to reply)
David Brown
2021-07-26 23:14:48 UTC
Permalink
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
Lynn McGuire
2021-07-26 23:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"

https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/

"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."

Lynn
David Brown
2021-07-27 00:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Kevrob
2021-07-28 21:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
RAH scenarios:

https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
--
Kevin R
Quadibloc
2021-07-29 02:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
I remembered both "Tunnel in the Sky" and "Farmer in the Sky".

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-29 03:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
I remembered both "Tunnel in the Sky" and "Farmer in the Sky".
I've read all of them at least once. (Several were subsequently
filed as "never again.") But I still like _The Star Beast._
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Michael Dworetsky
2021-07-29 09:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable
(impossible?) physics.

Widespread contraception is a lot cheaper and more effective.

--
Mike Dworetsky
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
J. Clarke
2021-07-29 10:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author
who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for
what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable
(impossible?) physics.
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Widespread contraception is a lot cheaper and more effective.
Given that widespread contraception is only about 50 years old, the
returns aren't in yet on that one.
BCFD36
2021-07-30 00:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
Steve Dodds
2021-07-30 01:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of progress.
pete...@gmail.com
2021-07-30 03:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.

Pt
James Nicoll
2021-07-30 03:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Dodds
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how
many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a
day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of
progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.
Also nowhere in reach of chemical rockets to send them to.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
James Nicoll
2021-07-30 03:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Steve Dodds
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how
many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a
day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of
progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.
Also nowhere in reach of chemical rockets to send them to.
For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Dimensional Traveler
2021-07-30 04:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Steve Dodds
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how
many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a
day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of
progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload
via chemical
rockets.
Also nowhere in reach of chemical rockets to send them to.
For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
Oooooo, Lynn's gonna get you for that! :P
--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2021-07-30 10:51:51 UTC
Permalink
On 30 Jul 2021 at 05:49:25 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Steve Dodds
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how
many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a
day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of
progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload
via chemical
rockets.
Also nowhere in reach of chemical rockets to send them to.
For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
Oooooo, Lynn's gonna get you for that! :P
Pfft. He'd love the chance to hide in a bunker from all these invaders.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Communicating badly and then acting smug when
you're misunderstood is not cleverness.
-- http://xkcd.com/169
Quadibloc
2021-07-31 07:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
While not a practical solutiion, that was funny. More seriously, perhaps Canada
could consider dedicating, say, Baffin Island to the relocation of excess populations
which we don't wish to accept as immigrants. Terraforming of a sort would be required,
as it's too cold for effective agriculture at the moment, but it would be much easier
than what Venus or Mars would require.

John Savard
John Halpenny
2021-08-01 01:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
While not a practical solutiion, that was funny. More seriously, perhaps Canada
could consider dedicating, say, Baffin Island to the relocation of excess populations
which we don't wish to accept as immigrants. Terraforming of a sort would be required,
as it's too cold for effective agriculture at the moment, but it would be much easier
than what Venus or Mars would require.
Perhaps we could terraform Earth so that these huge cold areas could support vastly more people? We could call the project "global warming".

John
smw
2021-07-30 05:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by ***@gmail.com
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.
Also nowhere in reach of chemical rockets to send them to.
Honest John Barlow might have some ideas to help with that.

- Steven
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Steven Winikoff |
Montreal, QC, Canada | "The cure for boredom is curiousity.
***@smwonline.ca | There is no cure for curiousity."
http://smwonline.ca |
| - Dorothy Parker
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-30 13:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.
Plus the fact that building and provisioning the ships at that rate
would be a task that put to shame the US war production effort during
WWII.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Isaiah 58:6-7
Robert Carnegie
2021-07-30 16:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by BCFD36
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
[stuff deleted
Post by J. Clarke
As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works".
As Bullwinkle said to Rocky, "This time for sure!"
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)
The problem with offloading your excess population to the stars is just how many you would have to send. The Earth's population increases by 700,000 a day, so you would have to be shipping over a million a day to make any kind of progress.
As I said, these numbers need to be updated from time to time. The numbers have never
been that high, and are now around 221,000 per day. Still too high to offload via chemical
rockets.
Plus the fact that building and provisioning the ships at that rate
would be a task that put to shame the US war production effort during
WWII.
Well, we won't be shorthanded. ;-)
Paul S Person
2021-07-29 16:08:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable
(impossible?) physics.
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.

The point to colonizing Mars is not to reduce the population of Earth.
The point is to not have all of our eggs in one basket. A basket
/known/ to experience a planet-killer every so often.
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Widespread contraception is a lot cheaper and more effective.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
pete...@gmail.com
2021-07-29 18:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable
(impossible?) physics.
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.
'Long ago established' sometimes means 'due for a periodic sanity
check'. One thing that's changed in the growth rate; in 1968 it was
2.09% pa, now its 1.05%, and the absolute number of people added pa has
been slowly dropping since 2013.

Many/most developed nations are now below replacement rates, and
it looks likely that, even without planetary emigration, the world population will
start falling by 2050.

In 'Tunnel In the Sky', the protag sees an endless crowd of Chinese,
crowding through a wide teleportation gate, an a desperate attempt
to reduce that country's population. He recalls that old 'Ripley's saw
that the population of China could not all march four abreast past a
single point. Even then, he knew this was false.

At some point, the population growth will fall to the point where we
*can* make a dent in the total with emigration.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2021-07-29 18:33:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky=20
On 28/07/2021 22:28, Kevrob wrote:=20
On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:11 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:=20
On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 4:29:23 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:=20
On 7/26/2021 6:14 PM, David Brown wrote:=20
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging =
here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s over=
population panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gav=
e some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I th=
ink Frederick Pohl was the author who went furthest overboard. The book whe=
re I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To m=
y recollection, that one at least projected that the global population woul=
d stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections ar=
e now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to be for what beco=
mes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences=
with treatments of overpopulation?=20
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3=
-one-where.html=20
David N. Brown=20
Mesa Arizona=20
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future=
=20
Paperback" =E2=80=93 by Harry Harrison"=20
=20
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/076=
5318857/=20
=20
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room=
!=20
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton=
=20
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."=20
=20
Lynn=20
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was b=
y all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth cont=
rol, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.=20
=20
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,=20
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic=20
RAH scenarios:=20
=20
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/=20
=20
=20
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via=20
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do=20
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,=20
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living=20
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new=
=20
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the=20
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable=20
(impossible?) physics.
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that=20
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation=20
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.=20
'Long ago established' sometimes means 'due for a periodic sanity
check'. One thing that's changed in the growth rate; in 1968 it was
2.09% pa, now its 1.05%, and the absolute number of people added pa has
been slowly dropping since 2013.
Many/most developed nations are now below replacement rates, and
it looks likely that, even without planetary emigration, the world populati=
on will
start falling by 2050.
In 'Tunnel In the Sky', the protag sees an endless crowd of Chinese,
crowding through a wide teleportation gate, an a desperate attempt
to reduce that country's population. He recalls that old 'Ripley's saw
that the population of China could not all march four abreast past a=20
single point. Even then, he knew this was false.
At some point, the population growth will fall to the point where we
*can* make a dent in the total with emigration.
Unless the fall is too precipitous, in which case off-planet emigration
may not be an option.

https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
J. Clarke
2021-07-30 00:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:29:08 +0100, Michael Dworetsky
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
I got one more review on my blog that I decided was worth plugging here, a review of ZPG, a movie (and novel) from the late 1960s to '70s overpopulation panic. I already did a lot of editorializing on this. I also gave some thought to what books and authors suffered most from the craze. I think Frederick Pohl was the
author who went furthest overboard. The book where I think it fits most uncomfortably in hindsight is The Forever War. To my recollection, that one at least projected that the global population would stabilized at about 10 billion, which is where demographic projections are now. There's still a lot more wrong than there needed to
be for what becomes a "far future" novel. Anyone else have first or second hand experiences with treatments of overpopulation?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Michael Dworetsky
Post by Kevrob
Post by David Brown
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Brown
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2021/07/space-1979-random-pile-3-one-where.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona
"Make Room! Make Room!: The Classic Novel of an Overpopulated Future
Paperback" – by Harry Harrison"
https://www.amazon.com/Make-Room-Classic-Overpopulated-Future/dp/0765318857/
"Acclaimed on its original publication in 1966, Make Room! Make Room!
was adapted into the movie Soylent Green in 1973, starring Charlton
Heston along with Edward G. Robinson in his last role."
Lynn
I find Harrison more tolerable than other alarmists, because he was by all accounts a critic of the Catholic church and its stance on birth control, which wasn't really a matter of government policy either way.
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
The problem with all scenarios of dealing with overpopulation via
shipment of excess people to colonies on distant worlds is that to do
this requires vast expense of constructing and powering huge ships,
providing passengers with basics such as food, air, water, and living
space, and equipping colonies with the necessities for constructing new
towns, farms, and cities when they arrive. Heinlein's "Tunnel in the
Sky" avoids some of these problems but uses pretty improbable
(impossible?) physics.
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.
'Long ago established' sometimes means 'due for a periodic sanity
check'. One thing that's changed in the growth rate; in 1968 it was
2.09% pa, now its 1.05%, and the absolute number of people added pa has
been slowly dropping since 2013.
Many/most developed nations are now below replacement rates, and
it looks likely that, even without planetary emigration, the world population will
start falling by 2050.
In 'Tunnel In the Sky', the protag sees an endless crowd of Chinese,
crowding through a wide teleportation gate, an a desperate attempt
to reduce that country's population. He recalls that old 'Ripley's saw
that the population of China could not all march four abreast past a
single point. Even then, he knew this was false.
At some point, the population growth will fall to the point where we
*can* make a dent in the total with emigration.
If it has fallen to that point then there isn't much incentive for the
dent.
Quadibloc
2021-07-31 06:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.
Of course it is impossible to reduce the Earth's population by
sending people into space... quickly enough to avoid the need for
limiting reproduction in order to avoid mass famines and so on.

However, there is one point that is missed by simply showing that
there's no way we could launch people into space fast enough based
on how much it costs NASA. And, no, that point isn't Elon Musk and
his new cut-price competitors.

Remember that guy Gerard K. O'Neill?

We could send a small number of people out into space, and have
them set up permanent colonies. And these colonies could grow.

Given enough time, these colonies would grow using the resources
of the Solar System to support a population of *trillions*.

Then, while the Earth couldn't afford to export even a modest
population increase to space from its resources... the space colony
population could expend but a modest fraction of *its* vast resources
to achieve that end.

So if one takes good enough care of the Earth so that it will last for
a few more centuries, there _is_ a way out for all of us - or, rather, for
all of our descendants living there in that age.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-08-01 02:39:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.
Of course it is impossible to reduce the Earth's population by
sending people into space... quickly enough to avoid the need for
limiting reproduction in order to avoid mass famines and so on.
However, there is one point that is missed by simply showing that
there's no way we could launch people into space fast enough based
on how much it costs NASA. And, no, that point isn't Elon Musk and
his new cut-price competitors.
Remember that guy Gerard K. O'Neill?
We could send a small number of people out into space, and have
them set up permanent colonies. And these colonies could grow.
Given enough time, these colonies would grow using the resources
of the Solar System to support a population of *trillions*.
Then, while the Earth couldn't afford to export even a modest
population increase to space from its resources... the space colony
population could expend but a modest fraction of *its* vast resources
to achieve that end.
So if one takes good enough care of the Earth so that it will last for
a few more centuries, there _is_ a way out for all of us - or, rather, for
all of our descendants living there in that age.
So you're saying that the space colonists will forcibly transport the
savages out the park?

Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-31 14:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Overpopulation is background for some of the Heinlein juveniles,
notably "Time For The Stars." Jo Walton on some of the dystopic
https://www.tor.com/2008/08/05/juviedystopias/
Her concluding paragraph asks, in multiple ways, why he repeatedly
portrayed Earth as a dystopia. The way that I see it is that there
needed to be something to motivate the POV character to go out into
space and have adventures that cause him to grow up.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Loading...