RE: Lest ye get too complacent

I typically avoid the rhetoric that this debate tends to drum up; I simply
like to point out the obvious every once in a while.  But occasionally
someone makes a statement like this that just irks me no end.

I won't go into the faulty economics that makes this particular statement
unsound, I'll skip straight to the heart of the matter: what most of the
arguments come down to is that once everyone has the same standard of
living, then life will be fine.

This is an untenable position.  The planet is vastly over-populated.
America has a tenth or less of the population density of other countries and
we can barely support a marginal lifestyle for 300 million people here in
the US.  Even with our phenomenal amount of resources per capita, we don't
have everyone in "the American dream", which is a single family home.

There's simply no way this planet can support six billion people living in a
home.  Not unless they're living about 15 to a house.  There are 80 million
single-family homes in America, with an average occupancy of 2.8 people (in
comparison, there are 8 million mobile homes).

To match these numbers, India would have to have 250 houses on EVERY SINGLE
SQUARE MILE OF THE COUNTRY.  This may not seem like a lot, but when you
realize that major percentages of the land go to things like rivers, lakes
and mountains and otherwise unlivable lands, and then another large
percentage needs to go to food, and more to commercial buildings, and more
to infrastructure, and you realize that density is simply impossible.  Think
of it this way: If we did that in America, we'd have ONE POINT FIVE BILLION
HOUSES.  Tell me you think we can honestly expand our houses 20-fold.

It would require 2 billion of those homes for the population of the world.
Get these figures clear in your head.  You're talking about spreading out
the wealth of America among 20 times that number of people.

To bring the point home, take a look at the following graphic:

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/plue/gpw/index.html

Take a look at those population densities, and then come back and tell me
where you're going to build the other 1.9 billion homes.  Unless you have a
realistic plan to build a large number of those 1.9 billion homes in Africa
(and the associated infrastructures) and relocate the world's population
there, you're whistling Dixie when you talk about economic leveling.

Either that, or you're talking about the end of the American dream, and
that's the part that nobody dares to say.  Simple math says it: Because the
rest of the world is massively over-populated, sharing the world's resources
equally means the end of the middle class as we know it.

Joe 




> From: qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Why is that? Because "75% of Americans" previously ~made~ the choice to
> shop at Wal-Mart, and make them successful so that local stores were run
> out, and eliminate present choices. Very simplified, I agree; but I feel
> there's truth at the core. What goes around, comes around.