Why not cut to the chase?
(after 50+ years' writings on population growth, the differences between geometric / other growth curves)
- that No one deems it possible even to rationally discuss the idea of an ~optimum biped-load/m\ufffd.
- that, even if 'discussed' - corporate religio will never concede the necessity of changing anything about its Perfectly-Revealed laissez-faire non-plan, since 'planetary survival' is irrelevant when you have 17 virgins waiting - Real Soon.
- that: simply, the species is unlikely to attempt any solution whatsoever, shall remain preoccupied with married homos and shopping - -
Isn't it about time to follow the blueprint already drawn (and with Jenny Agutter, yet?)
No problemo with the {truly} 'palm-sized' Indicator. Ez-peasy now.
30 may be a bit short - if anyone is to be ept enough to run the machines.
OK, nuke at 40: don't need no steenkin geriatrists: you get to live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse. Oh: number heard en passant, recently --
out of 98.000 US physician grads in 1998: 384 were geriatrists.
Clearly ... this ratio demonstrates conclusively that Logan's Run is already being worked-up for Operation Terrestrial Lebensraum. Rest case.
(Perhaps commenced just after the Captains of Industry emerge from the bunker, a few years after the Great ME<>Murican War - just a minor skirmish though; no major effect on the growth curve, so OTL resumes. The Animatronic Pope Altruism the First goes along.)
There: a Solution.
opTy
