« Yes, the Earth Will Have Ample Resources for 10 Billion People-Becker | Main | The U.S. Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies—Posner »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

an observer


Dude is you think Judge Posner is the "best judge" you got some serious issues

Take a moment and list all his cases where he has made the lives of every day citizens better. Put the list up His grave stone will read, here lies a judge who never helped anyone

He has only one worthwhile opinion, AMPat/Midwest, his only decent fraud case, which I am sure you detest

You are talking about one of the chief enbablers of the financial crisis, along with Easterbrook. Read DeLeo, which is a farce (accountant concern about reputation will control greed---now that's fantasy) and Decatur Ventures, LLC v. Daniel, 485 F. 3d 387 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2007 (appraisers are free to scheme to defraud home buyers)

Who was the Judge who had the good sense to shut him down.


Judge Posner,

Same off-topic as my previous post.

I listened to the arguments again of the en banc panel, and didn't understand why that other judge interrupted you by asking the appeallate attorney if he had finished answering the question. You asked that attorney to explain why it makes sense to use a multi-factor test (a la Justice Breyer) rather than your proposed simple rule of what is a tax (versus a fee or surcharge) for purposes of the TIA. Instead of answering your question, he kept referring to a Ninth Circuit case that involved a fee for service (the apple case). You gave the attorney two chances to respond, but he kept being evasive by not giving a reason in support of his position.

So, again, that other judge was way out-of-line by publicly going against you on the eb panel. I think he is a bully, and the chief needs to take him behind the woodshed and let him know he can't do that again to a colleauge. And if he has a problem with judges asking probing questions, then he should get off the court.

You did the right thing Judge Posner.

Xavier L. Simon aka Xavier

My apologies to the broader audience, and the Judge and Professor! Attempting to illustrate my basic thesis I unfortunately allowed myself to be distracted by a debate over provincial peeves. Please permit me to return to the basic premise of my argument. It might explain the huge spread in the various projections of population growth. The history of the world has been one of continuous conflict with over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Unless we find better ways to govern ourselves, what I call the human dimension of organizational technology, the 21st century with its much larger populations will continue to be plagued with conflict that promises to be even bloodier.

The best solution is some mix of political institutions, government, and market forces that work together effectively. Today they don’t with few exceptions. Fukuyama has it right when he writes that successful wealth producing market economies and democracies “rest on a hidden institutional foundation of property rights, rule of law, and basic political order” that rest on a “strong,” I prefer “effective,” hierarchical government. (“The Origins of Political Order,” 13) Yet many countries lack even the rudiments, others have population growth that is overtaking what has already been achieved and may therefore revert to forms that will destroy the gains, and yet others that are more advanced are developing distortions that are dividing them internally and slowing their growth and capacity to lead.

What I have tried to address with my theory, which I presented in the first comment of this series on
05/09/2011 at 01:59 PM, is how to achieve the required effectiveness of the market, government and institutions, in other words, how to achieve the “basic political order” of which Fukuyama writes. Let me repeat the core of that theory yet again.

The best form of governance is democracy that includes free markets, but democracy in its more limited form of representative republic; that such a form happens more by accident than design; that it can sustain itself only when certain structures, properties, and processes function relatively well and persist; and that the right circumstances for these to occur are much more likely to happen initially in and evolve from small groups. Because in a democratic society there are more unimpeded locations of change, innovation, and adjustment, a democracy is more likely to persist and grow for longer periods.

The properties, structures and processes that are more important include change and innovation; a capacity to reconcile the differences that arise from change; a capacity to relieve the stresses of change and to adjust to the compromises that it requires; an ability to learn from that change and to devise the new rules and institutions that it calls for; an ability to disseminate all of these (through continuous education) to achieve a minimum working level of homogeneity; and a capacity to discard what no longer works, becomes distorted, or never worked well in the first place. The rules generated are integrated into a social glue that has to be flexible for the whole to function well, a glue that in the West is quite secular but historically included a strong religious component, and that has to evolve.

I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for all of these to function effectively, particularly the processes. And with respect to the necessary institutions, including the social glue, these have to be flexible in allowing change, including in them, and permeate fairly homogenously throughout society and its social structures. Excessive regulation and concentrations of power compromise that flexibility. The best examples have been those societies that have functioned better longer, including the Roman Republic, early Venice, Norman Britain and Scotland, and the US until recently when it began showing signs of developing large internal distortions and slowing down. There are other examples but these stand out and have served as a test bed for my theory.

The theory is an effort to understand and find constructive solutions to the problems that plague us and that unless addressed will only get worse with larger populations. Last night Charlie Rose interviewed the President of Mexico who candidly addressed the difficulties of attaining the minimum institutional structure. I highly recommend it—at Charlie Rose’s website—as an illustration of much of my theory and implementation problems. If you do watch, please pay attention to the efforts to revamp the whole federal law enforcement apparatus and the difficulties of getting the 32 states to do the same, and then extrapolate that to the importance of an effective federal system in the US and the difficulties it is facing getting countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and many others to do the same so that they don’t become launching platforms for terrorism or drug attacks on the West.

Daniel Gonzalez

Couple of points:
1. I noticed there's a fetishism with technology and a certain religious idolization of it as the solver of problems. The rate of technological advancement today is much lower than it was in the 50's and 60's (microwave,transistor chips,etc) yet for some reason here we are with a few people thinking that the same magical technology is going to solve the problems of a population that in many places will be 100 times as large as the historical norm.

2."Third, the more people there will be, the more high-IQ people there will be, and hence the faster the growth of knowledge will be" False. If the populations that are reproducing at high rates are substantially dumber than those which are not, as is the case in the U.N. projections (with nigeria, guatemala, afghanistan and the like having the highest birth rates and multiplying their populations to 5-10 times their current levels)The future mean intelligence for the world will be substantially lower, with a much lower proportion of geniuses than today (+145 IQ) as well a lower absolute number of them.

M Schwartz

***Third, the more people there will be, the more high-IQ people there will be, and hence the faster the growth of knowledge will be; though a possible offset is that the more evil geniuses***

If you look at the countries which are high growth they tend to have relatively low average levels of cognitive ability (see Heiner Rindermann's papers). These are also countries that tend to be significantly dependent upon foreign aid. So you're going to have a larger number of dependents and fewer aid donors.

Also, there will be increased pressure for people in these countries to migrate to richer countries. Helmut Nyborg has published a paper in Intelligence about the challenges this can create.



Observer: You've some good observations, but on these, I think you kinda missed it:

"Take Obama. An executive can only attack 2 or 3 major points, per Drucker. Obama totally blew his priorities. He did health care when what killed the country was not the fiscal crisis, alone but that oil reached $100 + a barrel in July 2008."

.......... He campaigned on H/C reform, the lack of which IS the monster that can gobble even more of the GDP than the current 17% --- which I think is up from 12% when President Clinton made his case that the "worst thing we can do is keep doing what we're doing". Of course the super-well capitalized "insurance" parasites trotted out millions worth of "Harriet" adds and NO reforms were implemented.

......... As for the President being prescient on oil prices? and proactively or even reactively doing something about it? Like what? My take IS that $50 of the price IS manipulated by speculators and even local brokerage hacks "putting (haha) "investors" into commodity futures" as IF they were assets to be counted upon for divvies or continued growth. There is some reform of the CFTC lagging along, but absent major changes in a "futures market" that is NOT reflecting the costs or supply and demand of oil, what is there for the President to do?

"Being extremely ineffective, he and the Democrats did not listen the American public and years were wasted, on health care rather than energy and the economy."

........... While the current hue and cry IS that of lamenting real world features of the H/C reform (which admittedly does not go far enough and should have offered the "public option" instead of herding us all into the waiting maw of the existing "insurance" parasites) we all know, and have known since Nixon and others tried to create a universal H/C plan that we HAVE to do something about the mess before we all sink into the deep morass.

As for:
"Now, with the World recovering, somewhat, commodity prices and oil are up to $100 and he remains in trouble politically. Such is entirely of his own fault and making."

....... with emphasis on the "somewhat" and unsteady as a newborn colt, demand for oil is NOT what has more than quadrupled its price. And "fault and making?" IF........ you'd favor continuing with a claim of demand outpacing supply........ what was the President to do about it? Surely it was reasonable and dutiful for regulators to review the safety (and lack of) in the industry after the multi-billion buck Gulf disaster, and equally surely the dab of oil not produced is hardly an explanation for $100 plus oil prices.

Lastly, while I too would have favor moving faster while the iron was hot, not all Dems are alike, and even they can't afford to be too far out ahead of the pack.

The transition to more alternatives and considerable conservation IS the path, but along that path there ARE oil and coal constituencies to consider -- example? the fairly "liberal" Rockefeller standing fast for his WVA moutain top blowing coal producers despite the myriad problems he knows as well as any, with burning coal.

Paul Ciotti

The notion that a rapidly growing population is better for the world because there will more smart people seems plainly absurd to me. For every super-smart person we get, we will also get a dozen more more on welfare, on drugs or in prison.

I can't think of any any of our current problems that are made better by more people. Here in California if you want to climb Mt. Whitney there is exactly one day in February where you can apply for a random drawing to get permission. Is that the kind of world we want to live in--where if you want to go to the beach, or the Sierras, you have to apply by random drawing four months in advance?

I can't even get in to my local pizza restaurant these days unless I go in the middle of the afternoon. Sometimes it takes five changes of the traffic light just up the street from my house before I can get on the freeway.

This world needs more of a lot of things but one of them is not people.

an observer


You are often worse than Xavier. You just make stuff up. Tell me something I don't know, for once. I voted for Obama and even support the health care bill, albeit it is deeply flawed, but it is a start.

Unless we have another Demo candidate, I will vote for him again.

However, I have the honesty and ability to admit that Obama botched the entire health care overhaul effort, wiping our house majority in the process. He also wiped out the Demo part in my state (and in effect wiped out the state, but that is another story)

I also have the honesty to admit that we Demos have been less than effective on other fronts (especially energy).

Are you ever going to develop some altitude and perspective, or are you just going to play at being a liberal but with the behaviors and attitude of someone on Freerepublic

an observer


Give it up


Daniel -- I too was suspect of the theory of high population creating a higher EFFECTIVE intelligence and higher tech or better solutions to our human problems including that of, for the lack of a better term, world government and relative peace.

But! I don't think you, nor anyone else, has established a link of "dumbing down" from "bottom breeding". If such were the case we'd likely have devolved long ago.

My concerns are these:

One, we know that native intelligence can be damaged by poor nutrition and vitamin deficiencies in the developmental years.

Two, given a normal bell curve of intelligence if the best use of it in a particular society is that of tending a subsistence farm, or even that of working on an assembly line in mfg., is a higher level of tech and problem solving made more likely?

Three, IF there is an "American exceptionalism" (the jury remains undecided) is it due to the "best, brightest, more adventurous, energetic taking on the often arduous trek to the new world and leaving "the culls?" behind? Or, as I suspect is more the case, that we have, or had, an economic system less hampered by tradition, caste, benefiting from a freer, meritocracy that rewarded the creativity that would have been smothered in a more rigid, older society. And......... of course had the great fortune of a nearly complete compliment of natural resources and the oceans that doubled as a moat protecting us from such as Hitlers tanks.

In short, as we know from history, the arts and sciences flourish when the onerous tasks of feeding ourselves and making war on our neighbors takes smaller fractions of our energies than in the past. So without, the suspect theory of "bottom breeding/dumbing down" one can question whether more people, mean more intelligent people that means higher tech and better problem solving.

Then...... religions? I'd bet that a culturally unbiased IQ test in Pakistan or Afghanistan would depict an intelligence curve similar to our own, but if they fall prey to those "teaching" a distorted version of an ancient religion, in a dirt poor environment, we're not likely to see great advances in tech or civilization.


Observer "Honesty" is always good, but then you've really not said much.

For example you've nothing but your opinion on "botching H/C" and should understand getting what you can when it's possible. The train IS moving, and this is hardly its last stop. On balance? MORE H/C progress than any President in history.

As for "losing the House" look at history. The party in the WH typically loses a LOT of seats in the middies. Not sure why Americans who vote in the Presidential can't "manage" to show up for the most important, mid term or even local elections. Dumb.

As for Dems being "dumb" on energy, I tried to point out that many D's also suckle deeply on what ever Big Oil presents. But what IS it you think should have been done that wasn't ? Leading the sheep to a new era of energy is like fishing with light line, it has to be done steadily, but gingerly.

Shall we agree that Rove was pure genius in leaving FAR too much of a rancid nature on the plate of whoever had to mop up after the Repubs THIS time?


Paul Ciotti of CA: Indeed the flood of people coming to So Cal since my years there have made quite a mess of it!

Still the pop density is not that of the eastern seaboard. In the shoulda woulda column CA's were turning down mass transit in the early 70's....... leading to having since paved HALF of your land for the use of cars. Kinda nutty eh? that on a 10 mile commute you're driving past parking lots and roads for five of the miles?

And! How about that "clever" Prop 13 Jarvis scam that appears to "save" most CA voters just enough to leave the silly thing in place?

As you know those living in a home for many years are paying very low yesteryear property taxes while the new neighbor might be paying twice as much....... and of course long time holders of large properties get such breaks as W. Buffet commented on during the single day he was trying to advise Arnold.

Trouble is....... folks are locked in with such a tax scheme, oldsters who might move further from town stay on in an over-sized family home, leaving newbies to commute from OUT there where homes are cheaper. Soooooooooooo you get gridlock in BOTH directions all day and most of the night. Get rid of that tax scheme and GIVE yourselves the freedom to select the right home for each phase of life.

And your last:

"This world needs more of a lot of things but one of them is not people."

Reminds me of what happens when too many rats inhabit the same ill-planned warren. "Gawd! another person! get OUT of MY way!" as compared to the greetings of hikers meeting on a lonely trail? Ever asked yourself........... WHY? put up with it?

zebra s4m

many people have more thinking and good creativity. But! I as you, am concerned we've entered the age of structural unemployment that was somewhat hidden by a stockmarket boom and the housing bubble.

I will give another example---community banking. Most small business lending has been for many years home equity lending. Given the collapse in housing prices, community banks cannot make small business loans because there is no home equity available to secure such loans.

Xavier L. Simon aka Xavier

R.A., Daniel Gonzalez, M Schwartz, Paul Ciotti, zebra s4m, Regarding whether the relative number of high IQs will remain the same, decrease, or actually increase, I think you all mention important pieces of the puzzle but, together with Posner and Becker, miss the two most important: definition and evolution. Your more important points, at least according to the evidence and me, include:

- UN statistics showing a decrease in IQ
- Dependency on foreign aid and migration, more generally dependency on the state
- Increasing loss of freedoms which I would equate to loss of adaptability
- Poor nutrition leads to “dumber” leads to higher reproduction

These all point to a slow decline in man’s ability to cope with his changing environment. As Jarred Diamond of Guns and Germs, Ian Morris of Why the West Rules, and others tell us, there have been many cycles of rise and collapse of various peoples which they attribute primarily to climate change, geography, germs, etc. Ultimately, however, as those authors also recognize but don’t give as much weight to, it all comes down to man’s ability to cope and survive. What is of most crucial importance, and I think is insufficiently recognized, is that every time there has been a collapse as much as half or more of the population has been wiped out. I posit that these cycles have had the effect of eliminating more of the “weaker” and “dumber,” thus slowly contributing to a very long term increase in “IQ,” albeit unfortunately only through the “error” part of trial and error, and much loss of life.

Now, I put “weaker” and “dumber” in quotations because, like “IQ” it is all a matter of definition and quite subjective. Keep in mind that IQ is only a number on a scale that man has devised according to certain parameters that he considers “important.” Yet what makes them important is highly subjective except for one parameter: survival. For sure there is a very high correlation between survival and IQ. Check the very long term statistics on life expectancy. If I am right then the whole thing is evolutionary: survival of the fittest where fittest is measured by the ability to survive.

Notice that the four key factors you mentioned that I picked out include “adaptability” in the third. If you go back to the theory I have been proposing you will note that ultimately it is all about man’s flexibility and capacity to adapt to a changing environment that include population growth, climate change, geography, etc, and technology or man’s own impact on the environment. In all cases of collapse identified by the noted historians there has been a huge drop in population, signaling at least to me that population became excessive, their IQs declined, these led to collapse, the fittest survived, that among their qualities was higher IQ and adaptability, and that they were thus more able to organize themselves for even bigger populations before they collapsed yet again.

If you further look at the arguments I have been making in the last few weeks you will note that the common denominator has been that man has been slowly losing his flexibility and capacity to adapt. The examples given by Paul Ciotti and zebra are minor pieces of evidence but they are among many millions, including some bigger ones that I have mentioned.

Thus, if evolution is indeed important, then for Posner’s proposition of more people with high IQ to hold we will also need large adjustments in population which in turn could put in doubt the 10 billion mark for 2100. This may be the trap that some historians, economists, and others mention. Yet we may just be deluding ourselves into believing that because we have more and better science we are finally overcoming the trap; just look at the four points above which are borne out by recent statistics. PS, what I try to do with my theory is explore possible ways of actually getting out of this trap.


Just one observation, if high IQ or the population getting smarter is the solution to the population increase and the problems it generates. Then why do we have the problems we have now? Considering that the current generations living are the best educated in the history of the world. Even given the UN study showing that there has been a general decline in intelligence world wide. The solution to the problem lies not in more and greater intelligence and more and better education, but in the greater application and use of the principle of "Praxis" (wedding theory and practice into one operational and effective whole). Politics will not supply the necessary and sufficient policies to these problems. What is required is a radical shift in our mind sets and paradigms...

Xavier L. Simon aka Xavier

Antaeus, re praxis and a radical shift in our mindsets and paradigms, check out Taro Okamoto’s Myth of Tomorrow mural in the Shibuya station in Tokyo—if nothing else this website has some very cool interactive pictures, much a la Google maps only with the mural and other cityscapes.


There are a lot of other interesting sites if you Google “Okamoto Mexico mural” or “Okamoto Myth of Tomorrow.”

As I understand it from one source, the Myth of Tomorrow depicts man’s collapse to an atomic bomb followed by a reemergence hopefully of a better people. The part about better people I haven’t been able to confirm but I first heard it in a documentary on Okamoto on NHK Japanese television. Sort of like the population and IQ dynamic that I conjecture and hypothesize in my comment of 05/12/2011 at 10:30 AM almost immediately above.


Xavier sez:

"If I am right then the whole thing is evolutionary: survival of the fittest where fittest is measured by the ability to survive."

Let's do a bit of review: Spencer essentially bastardized that which Darwin never posited. Darwin studied adaptation to the surrounding environment as this from Wiki:

"Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape". Hence, it is not a scientific description."

......... Indeed. Even in the animal kingdom "fit" would mean fit enough to reach the age of procreation with most of the young carrying on their long tradition of hunting......... and adapting, as most species did not, to changing environments.

Shift it to humans? The social animal? And we've the "selection" of high infant mortality, disease, poor nutrition and, of course, the ever popular warmongering that "deselected", was it 40 million in the last century? and 10% of our brave and able young men in our own Civil War? Pretty hard to ferret a "fitEST" out of that, unless we're "selecting" for those born to privilege in recent centuries, draft dodgers, or those resistant to malaria but carrying the sickle-cell anemia prone genetic disposition.

More? The "Good Samaritan Paradox". Why should anyone do anything for society in general or for anyone else sans the substantial, and ever increasing "compensation" apparently required for today's CEO class to answer their alarm? How explain higher rates of charity from lower paid folk of our nation? much less the sacrifices made by poorly paid military forces, including that of falling on a grenade to save squad members known only since advanced training?

Well, who knows? But surely one answer is that of man being the social animal and that in terms of evolutionary adaptation those tribes who had brave, selfless hunters who'd risk throwing themselves under a huge animal to make the killing thrust, being more successful that the tribes operating on a ME-ME-ME philosophy of devil-take-the-hindmost Spencerian capitalism.

So to your list:
- UN statistics showing a decrease in IQ

........... more born into dire, IQ dropping circumstance. Not so hot for our Prof's "more is better" theory.

- Dependency on foreign aid and migration, more generally dependency on the state

................ Political. Even in this richest of nations we've had tens of millions fall into welfare dependent poverty over the last 8 years, a reversal, BTW from the prior 8 of folks climbing out of poverty with the related federal costs dropping substantially.

........... and dire poverty in those nations from which the wealthy extract oil, diamonds and rare metals? Should they arm themselves "appropriately" so as to join the wealthier nations of the Nukie club?

- Increasing loss of freedoms which I would equate to loss of adaptability

.............. This one seems too far-fetched for comment in its present form. Surely, in our Prof's more crowded world concept there are bound to be more land-use/zoning and general "getting along" rules than we'd need here in AK where we've a square mile per person.

- Poor nutrition leads to “dumber” leads to higher reproduction

.......... Kinda my response to our Prof's "more is better". Seems "we" (the world) should get out ahead of nutritional shortfall curves, though even in America's "democracy" very few are actively guiding it's direction, and the Intel's and MSFTs need only a tiny percentage of higher IQ technocrats, which they are able to select out of the entire pool of 7 billion.

As we see in this richest of nations, good nutrition for all, is no longer being enhanced by "The Market" which continues to amass inequality in the topmost 1% and even .1 who are hardly driven to feed the less fortunate. No....... those basics of food and H/C are much more of a WE commitment than that of "The Market" leaving "them" to die by the roadside for "lacking fitness".


"As for Dems being "dumb" on energy, I tried to point out that many D's also suckle deeply on what ever Big Oil presents."

Note on this very day of considering the token $50 billion tax break for the five largest oilcos well on track to "earn" a trillion in this decade, of my own Sen Begich, a bright guy who knows better, having to knuckle under to his "oil feeds my family" constituents, along with the similarly cornered Sen Landrieu of LA whose hold on her seat is precarious at best.

Assuming........ as I suppose we may as well NO Republicans, at all, stepping into the breach we'll continue to ladle out more pork to one of the richest of corporate sectors who continue to gouge us at the gas pump. Just ducky.

Xavier L. Simon aka Xavier

Jack, I am afraid that your being so wed to the reductionist approach—my comment of 05/02/2011 at 02:02 PM (on the Becker side)—not to mention your unhealthy fixation on CEOs, the rich and other shibboleths, blind you from seeing the forest for the trees. The situation of each tree is indeed variable and even complex but when they align in certain ways under certain circumstances they can make the forest be very different. If you were to use your great knowledge and understanding of each to analysis and understanding of when and how they act in concert your vision would grow immensely.


Xaiver -- I do exactly that. From a variety of sourced ranging from, not to be minimized, anecdotal observation, to more scientific measurements, and on up to the macro-view.

Trouble is for these revering "The Market" as the god of all solutions..... we see (at any level) MORE even in this richest of nations being plunged into poverty, the wages of the vast "middle" now "lower" income set being flat or declining while those of the topmost tiers GREATLY outpacing economic growth.

HAD the "rising tide" of productivity "lifted ALL of the boats" in a similar income/wealth relationship as was the case of the 70's and before, most middle class homes would have $10,000 more than they do today, with each tree and the forest being FAR different from the uneasy desperation and stagnating economy we HOPE can be revived today.

If you, or others here, have a theory as to how the once great American consumer market can soak up the excess capacity of the US and world, as soaring H/C costs and oil gouging etches away what little remaining discretionary income most folks have, I'd sure be interested in examining its fundamentals.

BTW this being something of a thread with hopes of growing populations ginning up more of high IQ's and other talents what do "we" think about having to "compensate" CEO's (and upper managers) with 400 times worker pay -- up from 30 times in the 70's to lure such rare "talent?"

Also, while it's risky to compare one era with another w/o trying to adjust for a number of changing factors, I'm noticing that GDP growth is not that of the former decades, as mentioned all too often the incomes and living stds of most households having not improved and at the "devil-take-the-hindmost" level that the min wage has not even kept pace with inflation, much less participate in any "rising tide" and that the stagnant incomes for those under $107,000 are failing to properly fund SS, with sagging tax revenues adding to the predictable deficits of deep recessions.

Do you see something that bodes well for the American worker and his std of living in the trends depicted in the second graph down?


Oh......... and lastly? If "we" are convinced that great talent is only to be lured by ungodly levels of "compensation" -- I wonder if we'd improve our public sector by increasing pay for decision makers ten fold? Though even that would put the Pres in the minor leagues at $4 million with Senators and House members "squeaking by" on less than $2 million, and with a similarly skinny golden chute, still likely to have to "turn pro" as lobbyists to round out a career?


Can a more crowded world afford to allow hedge fund managers to carve off a billion each?


And I was going to post about one of 'em being busted for insider trading but googled up a whole page of 'em! Can it be that our regulatory bodies have been revived in a new age of pest and predator control?



I guess it can be done:

Tokyo is a crowded city. Tokyo Metropolitan prefecture, with a total area of 2,168 square kilometers (837 square miles), has a population of about 12 million, or about 14,339 people per square mile. Many who work in Tokyo commute from neighboring prefectures, such as Saitama, Chiba, and Kanagawa, making the population of "greater" Tokyo, the area within a 30 mile radius of the city center, around 30 million. This is one-quarter of the entire population of Japan.
Tokyo is the headquarters of many political, economic, and financial institutions as well as the mass media. The city has many functions similar to Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. All the national and Tokyo Metropolitan government offices, as well as over half of the corporations with capital over 1 billion yen ($8.2 million), are in Tokyo. Over 31 percent of the GNP is produced in the Tokyo Metropolitan area. The three major newspaper companies in Japan--Yomiuri, Asahi, and Mainichi, the circulations of which are 9.9 million, 8.2 million, and 4.0 million respectively--send news every day to every part of Japan from Tokyo. Japanese believe that Tokyo can provide them with greater opportunities for careers and education than other cities in the country and that once within its bounds they can become better informed.

Ha! Anchorage with 160 per sq mile has a ways to go!

But our own Manhattan? a whopping 67,000 per sq mile.


.... and interesting considering all the political flack about immigration....... US ranks 178th in a list of population density.

Interesting to compare by densities:


Katalog firm

This article, post is very interesting and helpfull form me, thank you.


Since you know little about China's political process,please don't classify Mao with Hitler.Mao do contribute a lot to the unify of 56 nations and "the state",although he made some stupid mistakes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31