I'm sure you know the haves and have-nots don't divide into equal parts. A very few haves consume far more than the majority of have-nots. So sure, you can stretch your allowance out if you put a progressive squeeze on folks proportional to their uptake.

But see, I'd like the have-nots to have more. I'd like my children, and their children, and on down the line to live increasingly richer lives. And I wish the same for everyone else as well. There's no way any of those things will happen if the world's population doesn't significantly decline. The only thing that could change that would be the invention of viable nuclear fusion power generation. Without that, it's only a matter of time before the well runs dry, no matter how much the top 10% conserve.

It's time to stop trying to see how many rats we can fit into one cage.

p.s. - The folks who talk the most about the need for the minority upper class to reduce their consumption are the chattering upper classes themselves. Meanwhile, the masses are trying to move up. So what happens when the top 10% reduce their consumption by say 50%, and the remaining 90% increase their consumption by 10% on an annualized basis? A big sucking sound.

Personally, I would feel neither materially nor spiritually gratified to live like a peasant. The goal is to address the world's problems without going backwards.

To you, the amount of consumption is a confounding variable that I've introduced as a rhetorical slight of hand. But, to me, I don't think the environment cares whether three billion humans burn X amount of fuel or if two billion humans burn the same X amount of fuel.

The only confounding thing about your argument is how you continue to abuse elementary arithmetic to support the preposterous notion that numbers don't matter. Hey I know, let's double the world's population, because according to you, it won't make a rat's ass bit of difference. And you have the temerity to call me anthropocentric!

What happens if you decrease the world's population and per capita consumption stays the same?! Gee whiz Beaver, total consumption goes down! See, we're both trying to get to the same place, but you would prefer to either use (1) magic or (2) poverty to get there. You claim to speak for the world's poor, but you forbid they elevate themselves. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who can't comprehend simple math. Enjoy your dharmic asceticsm and your empty cupboard, but don't begrudge the rest of the world their hope of advancement.

The problem is overpopulation. The best answer is education. The alternative answers are scarcity, death, war, and pestilence. Oh yes, and magical thinking.

Well, at least we're not arguing about numbers.

I never said a word about alternative fuels. I agree 100% that corn ethanol is not only wasteful, but harmful. I don't believe for a second that population control is the only thing we need to do. I support conservation efforts wholeheartedly. I ride a bike when I can, drive a small car when I can't, and buy local.

I do, however, think the population of this planet puts everyone in peril, and facing up to that should be our number one priority. If we can deal with that, and do all the other good things we should do, global prosperity is a real option. I want that.

I don't know much about most things, but I do know a lot about information technology. That's what I do. I've noticed that when I read the news - newspapers, magazines, ezines, whatever - that I find most of the articles interesting, informative, and intriguing, except for the tech articles. They are invariable shallow, poorly or completely mis-informed, slanted, and not worth my time. I wonder if economists feel the same way about the business news, if athletes feel the same way about the sports section, if chefs feel the same way about the restaurant reviews?

Jonathan, your article was very refreshing. I've come to expect nothing more than "ooh aah shiny object" reportage on tech, but you went deeper. Keep it up. This is important stuff, whether most people realize it or not. It's your job to help them figure it out, and your are the man to do it. Style, substance, relevance - you've got the whole package. Don't let anyone knock you down. Keep at it, you're doing the world a great service. Thanks.

Sure the democrats and republicans are all complicit in undermining our constitutional liberties. Big intelligence operations aren't run by any one person or agency. That's part of the problem - how do you ascertain any kind of accountability for something so amorphous? And who is the knight in shining armor who hasn't been compromised by the information collected, either personally or indirectly (close family, etc.)?

This article smacks of X-Files conspiracy idiocy. Just look at the scary cover image! Boo! There is no database uber alles; there are many databases, all interconnected using various ever evolving interfaces. Vast databases of information on ordinary Americans? You bet. An evil mastermind behind it all? Ridiculous. Public contempt for bureaucratic malfeasance? Not anytime soon. The President is not in charge of this. The VP is not in charge of this. Career unelected bureaucrats are in charge of this. The information collected is backed up, distributed, and all but indestructible, bet on it.

You don't have to break into someone's office to steal the files anymore, the files are all electronic. It's ever so much easier to be surreptitious these days. Breaking and entering is something ordinary Americans can sink their teeth into. Data mining and data warehousing not so much, even though the magnitude of what's happening is so much greater.

The big story here is one of mass technological illiteracy and a consequent apathy toward government run data mining programs; not that a small cadre of evil puppeteers runs a sooper sekret domestic surveillance program.