Re: OBJ Economics: Inevitables

["James R. Olson, jr." <jhavok@xxxxxxxx>]

At 04:30 PM 9/17/97, Mason A. Clark wrote:
>
>1.  Growth of population, rate uncertain  ( perhaps 1.01 % )
>

>4. The non-zero cost of using the Earth as a resource.
>    replaces  4.  The finite material contents of the planet Earth
>
>5.  The confinement of Earth inhabitants to that planet
>     NB: I will not respond to any challenge to this.
>
These three premises taken together lead to a depressing conclusion, the
inevitable and imminent end of global human society.  It's too bad you are
so adamant about your flat-earth premise.  You might want to look at the
Science and Business section of September's issue of Scientific American.

>6.  Advancement of science and technology

This premise contradicts #5.  In fact, #5 throws your whole claim towards
objectivity into doubt.

#4 also needs to address the limited ability of the Earth to absorb human
waste products, although perhaps that can be considered as part of the
non-zero cost.