Posted by: "Eric Pfeiffer":An assumption pushed by most people and especially by
the environomental groups claims that more people means more
energy expended. Is this so? Underlying this assumption isa social mores, that
wealth should be distributed to some degree.
Yet observing the rapid decline in medical availabilty in the US,one should ask:
"why won't this occur with energy?". If the US
is comfortable with 50 mil people without medical access and climbing rapidly,
why not 50 million people without access to the energy distribution network
also, and allow that number
to climb rapidly. One merely needs to use the same method of allocation as used
with our medical framework: allow rates to
climb rapidly. Under this formula, one can then shut down the coal fired plants
without replacement, as advocated by many,
and reallocate remaining electricity by a fierce bidding war....Thus a greater
population can equal far less energy used.
That would collapse the US govt, push all of our debt instruments into default,
collapse our largest employer:Medicare and Medicaid, and take down ultimately
most of our universities,and the UN, but we have the health care model to use as
our moral compass and guide.
##Eric: Interesting logic. It follows that the more people the less potential
energy usage. That would then mean less resource depletion, the less ecological
degradation, the less all those "growth" problems that threaten sustainability.
Richard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]