In a word: Extremely.

Forget Global Warming. How many humans can this planet sustain? Do you think the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth? Does China have the right idea with the one-child policy?

Before you answer, watch this video series and do the math:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F-QA2rkpBSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F-QA2rkpBSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh, well, the skscapers fans would probably say we need to build up and up to put increasing numbers of people.

Maybe before implementing a one child policy, they should start by reducing the numbers of illigitimate children, children born purely so the parents can stay in the US, unwanted children and pregnancies and teenage pregnancy.

I think we should restrict the number of slow wits....lets get started....
Where's the Republican voters lists...lol

I think this is and will continue to grow as a huge problem. i often wonder what the earth will be like when i have grandchildren.

Face it, how to you slow down a centuries-old culture of machismo - more children, more masculine? Get ready, the 3rd world countries will probably want developed countries to fork over a few hundred billion to help.

Face it, how to you slow down a centuries-old culture of machismo - more children, more masculine? Get ready, the 3rd world countries will probably want developed countries to fork over a few hundred billion to help.

So, what...we do nothing and just overpopulate until critical mass is reached and suffer the consequences?

So, what...we do nothing and just overpopulate until critical mass is reached and suffer the consequences?

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

So you say we do nothing then and suffer the consequences?

Screw yourself because you think some poor bastard might get some of your money?

OK. Lets just keep on breeding and doing nothing. You'll be dead and gone by then maybe, but your kids and grand kids will pay. But hey, at least some third world scum of a human being didn't get in your wallet...that's all that matters, right?

Let's just wait for Walmart to move us to big spaceships and let robots clean up our mess:

http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/images/wall-e.jpg

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

Ok...let me guess you dont have a clue do you?
You have never been to a 3rd World Country, or even seen a film clip...right?!
They have children so they can help with the labor of the farm, or having at least one child to survive, the mortality rate is high.
Are you really this clueless or are you parroting some blabber from Rush, or your local militia group...dumba**

So you say we do nothing then and suffer the consequences?

Screw yourself because you think some poor bastard might get some of your money?

OK. Lets just keep on breeding and doing nothing. You'll be dead and gone by then maybe, but your kids and grand kids will pay. But hey, at least some third world scum of a human being didn't get in your wallet...that's all that matters, right?

HVAC, its getting where they are getting MOST of my money once the Dems finish what they are starting. The Obama admin. is bad enough but then the UN wants a world tax, and huge cash transfers to pay for the cost of a still-questionable CO2/Global Warming issue. Then they will want more to "educate" people to not have children? The money just isn't there anymore after worldwide capital losses of more than $5 trillion dollars in the last year. Just exactly what do you expect people to live off of when they retire?

And by the way, chill out a bit. Its a conversation, not a fistfight.

And by the way, chill out a bit. Its a conversation, not a fistfight.

How in the world did you come up with that notion?


HVAC, its getting where they are getting MOST of my money once the Dems finish what they are starting. The Obama admin. is bad enough but then the UN wants a world tax, and huge cash transfers to pay for the cost of a still-questionable CO2/Global Warming issue. Then they will want more to "educate" people to not have children? The money just isn't there anymore after worldwide capital losses of more than $5 trillion dollars in the last year. Just exactly what do you expect people to live off of when they retire?

Go get your last tax return and do the math and see what percentage you actually paid after deductions. Bottom line to bottom line. Ever actually done that? I have. Do it and you'll find you are not actually paying as much as you think you are, and nowhere near what the Rushbots think they actually pay. We pay extremely low taxes in the United States, especially with 2 wars going and the economy in the tank. How much tax pain are you feeling as a result of the billions being expended in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long do you think we can keep it up?

Why is it when a problem that we all understand effects all of us like global population growth that folks worry about their money so much? You think you can take it with you when you are dead? Think it will do your grand kids any good when life on the planet becomes unsustainable?

We cannot just keep whining and repeating the conservobot media talking points about taxes and deferring taking action to keep life sustainable on Earth. The time for solutions is now, because there is less time remaining to fix it than you think. If we don't fix it, nature will with disease famine and wars over remaining resources. Would you pay a little more now to avoid that? Or is your money worth more than your children and grand childrens future?

I think if a tax must be levy if there's a war of choice, in addition to a draft, I wager it would be less likely to happen..

How in the world did you come up with that notion?



Go get your last tax return and do the math and see what percentage you actually paid after deductions. Bottom line to bottom line. Ever actually done that? I have. Do it and you'll find you are not actually paying as much as you think you are, and nowhere near what the Rushbots think they actually pay. We pay extremely low taxes in the United States, especially with 2 wars going and the economy in the tank. How much tax pain are you feeling as a result of the billions being expended in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long do you think we can keep it up?

Why is it when a problem that we all understand effects all of us like global population growth that folks worry about their money so much? You think you can take it with you when you are dead? Think it will do your grand kids any good when life on the planet becomes unsustainable?

We cannot just keep whining and repeating the conservobot media talking points about taxes and deferring taking action to keep life sustainable on Earth. The time for solutions is now, because there is less time remaining to fix it than you think. If we don't fix it, nature will with disease famine and wars over remaining resources. Would you pay a little more now to avoid that? Or is your money worth more than your children and grand childrens future?

I pay a low personal rate of tax because it is my business to reduce taxes for the wealthy and I apply what I do to my own situation. Most people in my income bracket pay significantly higher taxes because they don't seek proper help.

My statements were concern for the future and paying for the unpayable deficits this administration is building up. My criticism of them now is that the economy is showing a turn for recovery yet they are still talking of "spending our way out of the recession", new stimulus plans, using paid back TARP money to "stimulus" new jobs into existance, etc. If they really wanted to create jobs, it would be done with a tax deduction for new job creation aimed at business of all sizes.

My fear is income tax rate hikes that are certain to come will reach far beyond "the wealthy" making more than $200K/yr. It will reach down to anyone making much of anything. Heap on top of that additional taxes to pay for some sort of health plan. Heap on top of that more money out of our pockets to give to 3rd world countries under the guise of CO2 reductions that will just go into some corrupt politicians pockets. Heap on that more money the 3rd world will want to help them reduce their birth rates. Again, there simply isn't enough money to do all of this.

Simple economic theory shows that if people don't have money to spend, the economy will falter. "Reaganomics" worked because it put money in people's pockets and they spent it, taking us out of the early 80's recession. Right now, this recession has been so deep and so long lasting because people are simply tapped out. There is no more money to spend. There is no way in hell increasing taxes and taking money from us all to pay for all the programs this administration wants to undertake is going to be positive for this ecomony.

The problem with sending money to "underdeveloped" or "third world" countries is that is usually ends up doing nothing more than lining the pockets of whatever dictator is in charge and never makes it to the intended recipients. We already send way to much to them already that is not serving it's intended purposes, so forking over billions of dollars to these people does nothing to advance population control or reducing carbon output.

Count me as one who sees no value in the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to the select few in developing countries in the name of those two agendas. We already do enough of that having moved most of the backbone of our nation there in manufacturing and now service industries...and for the most part, people have to choose on their own not to have children, the Chinese gov't is not as successful with their method as they like to claim.

As I said earlier, in so many cultures, its a "macho" thing to have more and more children. Try seeing how "ugly" American's start being painted if we try to instill on them that we don't want them to have more.

Oh, well, the skscapers fans would probably say we need to build up and up to put increasing numbers of people.

Building "up" needs a certain class of people. Look at S. Central LA/Compton at the high-rise projects. Crime traps. It's become so bad they've been torn down in many cities and replaced with more manageable low-income housing. But the projects and their gangs will always be the projects, tall, spread out, whatever. Can you imagine Zimbabwe with Mugabe's thugs running high-rise buildings for the poor? EGAD! In fact, most of Africa. Hate to say it, but it's true.

As I said earlier, in so many cultures, its a "macho" thing to have more and more children. Try seeing how "ugly" American's start being painted if we try to instill on them that we don't want them to have more.

No, in so many cultures it's the "hey, we need labor to help our subsistence farms" thing to have more and more children. Machismo has little to do with it, agrarian societies have more kids because it leads to more hands to work.

I pay a low personal rate of tax because it is my business to reduce taxes for the wealthy and I apply what I do to my own situation. Most people in my income bracket pay significantly higher taxes because they don't seek proper help.



Wrong. You pay a low rate of tax because of United States tax law, just like everybody else here.

So, your answer is that we should let global population grow until we eventually have to kill each other to survive because of personal greed and your fear of possibly having to pay higher taxes?

The problem with sending money to "underdeveloped" or "third world" countries is that is usually ends up doing nothing more than lining the pockets of whatever dictator is in charge and never makes it to the intended recipients. We already send way to much to them already that is not serving it's intended purposes, so forking over billions of dollars to these people does nothing to advance population control or reducing carbon output.

Count me as one who sees no value in the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to the select few in developing countries in the name of those two agendas. We already do enough of that having moved most of the backbone of our nation there in manufacturing and now service industries...and for the most part, people have to choose on their own not to have children, the Chinese gov't is not as successful with their method as they like to claim.

What does your post have to do with solving global overpopulation?

You don't want to pay anything to solve the problem. We see that. So, how do we resolve the ever increasing global population increase? How do we feed the global population with finite energy resources?

What does your post have to do with solving global overpopulation?
I thought we were talking about using the developed nations tax dollars to help pay other countries to have fewer children...all in the name of "overpopulation"


You don't want to pay anything to solve the problem. We see that. So, how do we resolve the ever increasing global population increase? How do we feed the global population with finite energy resources?
Pretty much, there is nothing we can do short of population eradication that will "solve" an overpopulation crisis. We don't have "World Wars" anymore which effectively reduces the population by millions. Most diseases have been dealt with to a certain point to where we do not have a black plague sweeping through countries killing off thousands. I think there can be successful efforts in the "civilized" world but there are so many parts of this world that are considered "uncivilized" and as others have stated, those are potential laborers for them and therefore there is no incentive for them to not have them. Throwing money at other countries to stop having children isn't going to work, all their leaders are going to do is pocket the money and ignore their population and the reasons why they received the money. So in other words, money is not the solution but that is what their leaders always want to discuss anything that impacts the world...and they will continue to ignore the problem.

The problem is trying to apply macro solutions to solve micro problems.

I thought we were talking about using the developed nations tax dollars to help pay other countries to have fewer children...all in the name of "overpopulation"

No, that is NOT what we were talking about. That is what some people chose to interject because they have this irrational fear that it might actually cost them some money, time and percieved inconvience to solve the global over population problem. Here's the OP:


In a word: Extremely.

Forget Global Warming. How many humans can this planet sustain? Do you think the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth? Does China have the right idea with the one-child policy?

Before you answer, watch this video series and do the math:

Did you watch the video series and do the math? Apparently not given yours and others responses.

The video series is extremely educational and contains zero liberal or conservative fluff or rhetoric - Only simple mathematics that cannot be refuted.



Pretty much, there is nothing we can do short of population eradication that will "solve" an overpopulation crisis.

What a defeatist attitude! So, you have no sloution or reasonable suggestions? Surely we can come up with something.......


We don't have "World Wars" anymore which effectively reduces the population by millions. Most diseases have been dealt with to a certain point to where we do not have a black plague sweeping through countries killing off thousands. I think there can be successful efforts in the "civilized" world but there are so many parts of this world that are considered "uncivilized" and as others have stated, those are potential laborers for them and therefore there is no incentive for them to not have them. Throwing money at other countries to stop having children isn't going to work, all their leaders are going to do is pocket the money and ignore their population and the reasons why they received the money. So in other words, money is not the solution but that is what their leaders always want to discuss anything that impacts the world...and they will continue to ignore the problem.

Why is it that when faced with a global problem that is mathematically proven will cause human chaos beyond all imagination, the first thing many people think of is how much MONEY it will cost them? So what if it costs some money at some point? Would you rather die with a coffin full of money? Will you be any less dead? Will your grandchildren survive this generational conservative selfishness?


The problem is trying to apply macro solutions to solve micro problems.

Global over population and mass starvation is a micro problem?????

Wrong. You pay a low rate of tax because of United States tax law, just like everybody else here.

So, your answer is that we should let global population grow until we eventually have to kill each other to survive because of personal greed and your fear of possibly having to pay higher taxes?

HVAC - exactly how are you planning to stop someone in Bolivia or Burkina Faso or Indonesia from having sex?

I think we should restrict the number of slow wits....lets get started....
Where's the Republican voters lists...lol

Fascist. :poke:

HVAC - exactly how are you planning to stop someone in Bolivia or Burkina Faso or Indonesia from having sex?

Who said anything about preventing people from having sex?

Well, I am sure you already realize that for starters it kind of leads to pregnancy and children. Secondly, if you are headed in the direction of contraception, the Muslims and the Catholics don't accept that (I don't know if Hindu's, Bhuddists or other religions accept the use of contraception).

You're proposing a wholesale change in actions, beliefs and norms that have been entrenched in people for hundreds or thousands of years. There are millions Muslims out there who think nothing of bombing women and children into oblivion or using same to blow up other Muslim innocents (not to mention soldiers). How do you plan to get them to stop having children?

Well, I am sure you already realize that for starters it kind of leads to pregnancy and children. Secondly, if you are headed in the direction of contraception, the Muslims and the Catholics don't accept that (I don't know if Hindu's, Bhuddists or other religions accept the use of contraception).

You're proposing a wholesale change in actions, beliefs and norms that have been entrenched in people for hundreds or thousands of years. There are millions Muslims out there who think nothing of bombing women and children into oblivion or using same to blow up other Muslim innocents (not to mention soldiers). How do you plan to get them to stop having children?

Nobody said it would be an easy task. Nobody said it would be cheap. Deep down, EVERYBODY knows the planet can only sustain a limited numer of humans.

The solution is not to give up because it is too hard. It is going to take action. It is going to take education. It is going to take persistence. And yes, it is going to take money, yes, your tax money to some extent. Doing nothing because it is difficult is not going to work.

We have to start here first to set the example before insisting Asia, the Middleast and Africa do it first. That's what leaders do: LEAD.

#1 suggestion: Eliminate tax and social policy that encourages having chidren. No tax deductions for simply having children.

2. Cash or tax credits for voluntary sterilizations for both men and women.

3. Require 100% participation with a graded exam in a class like the one by the Professor Emeritus at the beginning of this thread as a requirement to graduate high school AND college.

You did watch all 8 videos, didn't you?

There's 3 suggestions for the beginning of a solution. No whining that it's too hard. No whining that it will cost money. Just 3 simple actions to get the ball rolling.

HVAC - I would love to watch all of your videos but I truly don't have the time. What I am saying is that its an impossible task to try to impose some sort of prohibition on sex or make them use contraceptives when their faith doesn't allow it. The best that can be done is to convince them that they will never escape poverty or hunger if they don't stop having children - but even this may be impossible due to the image of machismo for having more and more children. Even the Chinese can't stop their population growth.

overpopulation? i have a suggestion... -M

http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg

/obscure?

^^^^^^
Logan's Run?

Nobody said it would be an easy task. Nobody said it would be cheap. Deep down, EVERYBODY knows the planet can only sustain a limited numer of humans.
...then at some point it will become self correcting.

The west/industrialized nations/etc. forcing their views on others of what is the "correct" number of children to have will always be met with conflict form other cultures. Sorry, I just don't feel there is anything that can be done about the problem because those who are creating most of the problem refuse to change their culture. So in the end, it will correct itself, yes people will starve, die, etc. but that is part of population control which the industrialized world seems to counter every time there is a famine or other catastrophic event. Should we stop helping those other countries in time of need? That would help.

Maybe those of us in the West shouldn't live as long? In addition to what you proposed maybe we should start exterminating people when they hit age 60, would that "fix the problem" to your liking? Because that is more likely than trying to get many indigenous populations to have only one child, of course paying off their dictators may get them to commit genocide on their own people, would that help? There's the money angle again because that seems to be the only thing that most understand.

The truth is there are no "simple" solutions to the problem, it is one with many, many layers and no clear solution. It does remind of some lyrics in a Queensryche song.

I do agree with #1, but then I am a childless heathen to some...

logan's run?

bingo! -M

HVAC - I would love to watch all of your videos but I truly don't have the time.

You don't have time? You have been a member here since March 2008 and have logged 1,669 posts as of this post. And you don't have time to learn something about the subject you are posting about?

Sorry. Not buying that excuse. If you just don't want to watch it, then just admit you refuse to learn the real truth and facts about global over population. Just admit it makes you cringe that you might actually have to pay a little extra money to keep the planet inhabitable for your grand kids.

Your money or your life? Ever seen a hearse with a trailer hitch?

...
Maybe those of us in the West shouldn't live as long? In addition to what you proposed maybe we should start exterminating people when they hit age 60, would that "fix the problem" to your liking? ...

This is where rational discussion ends when ridiculous statments like this are made.

overpopulation? i have a suggestion... -M

http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg

/obscure?

And another example of when rational discussion ends.

and another example of when rational discussion ends.

really? have you even seen the movie? watch all 120 minutes of it then you can comment on whether or not it's rational.

-M

really? have you even seen the movie? watch all 120 minutes of it then you can comment on whether or not it's rational.

-M
Yes, mm, I have seen it...twice, thank you. That is precisely why I find it just as irrational as bluedogs post. When I can beam me up some poon tang right to my home, then we can talk about a science fiction flick.

I actually thought you would come back and reply you were being humorous.

Do you actually find your post rational and reasonable?

Now, did you watch the video series in the OP?

You don't have time? You have been a member here since March 2008 and have logged 1,669 posts as of this post. And you don't have time to learn something about the subject you are posting about?

Sorry. Not buying that excuse. If you just don't want to watch it, then just admit you refuse to learn the real truth and facts about global over population. Just admit it makes you cringe that you might actually have to pay a little extra money to keep the planet inhabitable for your grand kids.

Your money or your life? Ever seen a hearse with a trailer hitch?

No, I really don't have time to watch them. I comment between appointments and when I have some free time - but it really doesnt matter. I understand what you are saying about overpopulation and I think thats a bigger problem than any man-made effects of global warming, but its still something that would require wholesale changes to the societal fabric, developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years - that are pretty unrealistic to do. It would take hundreds of years for change to take hold. If the direction of change had anything to do with the US, the rest of the world would resist.

No, I really don't have time to watch them. I comment between appointments and when I have some free time - but it really doesnt matter. I understand what you are saying about overpopulation and I think thats a bigger problem than any man-made effects of global warming, but its still something that would require wholesale changes to the societal fabric, developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years - that are pretty unrealistic to do. It would take hundreds of years for change to take hold. If the direction of change had anything to do with the US, the rest of the world would resist.

What a defeatist attitude. "Oh well...nothing we can do...it'll take too long and cost too much...let's just give up and accept our fate."

What happened to all that "American Exceptionalism" the righties here keep talking about?

HVAC, its not defeatist, its a practical attitude. Unless you propose the entire world become totalitarian where the government has the power to dictate what you do, how you do it and when you do it, you aren't going to get certain segments of the world to stop having so many children. Its machismo, its ego, its status, political and its part of certain religions.

Couldn't say. Don't know what you are talking about since I think thats the first time I've ever seen that term. The last thing the US needs to do is to start dictating much of anything else to the rest of the world.

HVAC, its not defeatist, its a practical attitude. Unless you propose the entire world become totalitarian where the government has the power to dictate what you do, how you do it and when you do it, you aren't going to get certain segments of the world to stop having so many children. Its machismo, its ego, its status, political and its part of certain religions.

Couldn't say. Don't know what you are talking about since I think thats the first time I've ever seen that term. The last thing the US needs to do is to start dictating much of anything else to the rest of the world.

OK, you think it can't be done and resign yourself to the status quo forever; after all, we've always done it that way, why change now.

Next!

Anybody else here think in terms of possibility, as opposed to defeatism? Surely there are some people who actually have some ideas out there????

So what is it you propose to do? What parts of those videos do you feel are reasonable enough and possible to do? How much of your income are you prepared to give for the efforts? This is no different than the health care plans. Both sides of the legislature have their own plan with hundreds of pages of information. But there is still no real idea of how the system will work, no idea of how much its going to cost each of us, no realistic plan of how its going to benefit everyone, no data of how this massive new tax is going to affect our nations economy, and no real idea if its even going to work.

As I said before, the best example of what you propose is with communist China's one child policy. Even there, it only applies to urban areas and does not apply to rural Chinese. It has slowed population growth but that policy has had unintended consequences.

".....This rule has caused a disdain for female infants; abortion, neglect, abandonment, and even infanticide have been known to occur to female infants. The result of such Draconian family planning has resulted in the disparate ratio of 114 males for every 100 females among babies from birth through children four years of age. Normally, 105 males are naturally born for every 100 females."

The population growth rate in China has slowed, but at what cost?

interesting video, but this professor with all his calculations is forgetting one crucial factor: technology. There has been a lot of technological advances concerning energy consumption, and even more are coming in the years to come. The only real issue at hand is that the world may become so overcrowded by people that there may someday be an issue over available lands being occupied by people already: both living and the deceased. Have you ever done the calculations regarding just how many corpses/cemetaries it would take to fill up all of the land area in the U.S.? Consider that calculation by also considering the increasing rate of childbirth, death, and immigration: both naturalized and illegal and the numbers become a serious concern over time.

by the way, the student in the foreground at 7:48 looks a lot like the late Nick Berg,..creepy.

interesting video, but this professor with all his calculations is forgetting one crucial factor: technology. There has been a lot of technological advances concerning energy consumption, and even more are coming in the years to come. The only real issue at hand is that the world may become so overcrowded by people that there may someday be an issue over available lands being occupied by people already: both living and the deceased. Have you ever done the calculations regarding just how many corpses/cemetaries it would take to fill up all of the land area in the U.S.? Consider that calculation by also considering the increasing rate of childbirth, death, and immigration: both naturalized and illegal and the numbers become a serious concern over time.

by the way, the student in the foreground at 7:48 looks a lot like the late Nick Berg,..creepy.

Actually the prof did address technology; maybe you missed those parts. There are a total of 8 videos.

I have wondered for years about how much real estated is used for cemetary's. What a waste of prime real estate. Cremation saves land....Hmmmm.....But does it contribute to global warmng? But OK, that's a worthy goal...carbon neutral cremation, LOL.

do you actually find your post rational and reasonable?

i'm sorry that you think a bit of levity is both irrational and unreasonable. to quote another movie... why so serious? (i've overused 'lighten up, francis' lately)

but... if kidding is not allowed, let's talk cold math. i'm quizzing you about your own video... what equation are you applying to world population growth?

-M

bingo! -M



http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg

what is sad was I knew what it was and that dated most of us that did..lol

And another example of when rational discussion ends.

http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg


pssst not exactly a death panel...but...

oh no, gmwise... it's turning black!

(oops... sorry, hvac)

-M

nuh huh mine is rebooting ...damnit..thats my story and I am sticking to it.

i'm sorry that you think a bit of levity is both irrational and unreasonable. to quote another movie... why so serious? (i've overused 'lighten up, francis' lately)

but... if kidding is not allowed, let's talk cold math. i'm quizzing you about your own video... what equation are you applying to world population growth?

-M


Kid away. But watch the vids all the way thru...you're a scientific type guy. You will see your "equation".

watch the vids all the way thru...you're a scientific type guy. You will see your "equation".

i watched it, now i'm quizzing your understanding of it... what's the equation? -M

i watched it, now i'm quizzing your understanding of it... what's the equation? -M

You are suggesting there is one simple equation? What is your understanding of it?

Do you refute the professor's presentation?

well... if you don't know the one equation bartlett used for the duration of the entire eight video series... you know, the one equation that formed the basis of his discussion... well... if you either didnt watch or didn't understand enough of the video to even regurgitate the name or the formula... i guess we can't have a rational discussion about math after all. too bad.

so... did you like logan's run? -M

well... if you don't know the one equation bartlett used for the duration of the entire eight video series... you know, the one equation that formed the basis of his discussion... well... if you either didnt watch or didn't understand enough of the video to even regurgitate the name or the formula... i guess we can't have a rational discussion about math after all. too bad.

so... did you like logan's run? -M

As my good Aussie mate would say, I think you are being a wanker here. Are you referring to the inability of Americans to understand the exponential function? Are you asking about the doubling time? I dunno WTF you are getting at.

Wanna stop playing the esoteric intellectual and discuss the issue?

I think not to EXPECT the human population to continued to a point of "overgrazing".
it could cause a catastrophic die off, in which they either moved on, or died is too a rosey picture of the future.
Its been suggested the Native Americans in the area of Pueblo dwellings did that very same thing.
The Mayans and (off hand I cant remember the name of a East Indian society) also met the same end.

as my good aussie mate would say, i think you are being a wanker here. are you referring to the inability of americans to understand the exponential function? are you asking about the doubling time? i dunno wtf you are getting at.

wanna stop playing the esoteric intellectual and discuss the issue?


i asked what equation your video uses to estimate world population growth and you don't know what i'm getting at? sprechen sie englisch, ja? you're the one who said it's "only simple mathematics that cannot be refuted"... so i insist on knowing exactly which equation you want to apply here and i'm the one being esoteric? seems kinda practical to me to nail down exactly what it is we're talking about. you're the one who said i was being a wanker for insisting that... well... ok... so i'm being a wanker... sue me.

but...

you did finally come up with the words "exponential function" and "doubling time"... so... are those two distinct formalae? if so, which one would you say would be more applicable to estimating world population?

-M

i asked what equation your video uses to estimate world population growth and you don't know what i'm getting at? sprechen sie englisch, ja? you're the one who said it's "only simple mathematics that cannot be refuted"... so i insist on knowing exactly which equation you want to apply here and i'm the one being esoteric? seems kinda practical to me to nail down exactly what it is we're talking about. you're the one who said i was being a wanker for insisting that... well... ok... so i'm being a wanker... sue me.

but...

you did finally come up with the words "exponential function" and "doubling time"... so... are those two distinct formalae? if so, which one would you say would be more applicable to estimating world population?

-M
You are being a wanker because I called your Logans Run post what it was - the end of rational discussion on the topic. Sorry if I harmed your self esteem.

You have no argument here. You know the planet can only sustain so many humans. Rufute it or not, simple as that. Dunno why I'm bothering, as if you were actually interested in a logical discussion, but others may benefit from this info:


The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of 18 December 2009, the Earth's population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6.804 billion.[1] The world population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death around 1400.[2] The fastest rates of world population growth (above 1.8%) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until at least 2050. The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 134 million per year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Because births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040.[3][4]

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

There is no such thing as "sustainable" growth. As long as global population is increasing and not remaining stable, that means more and more humans that have to be fed, clothed and sheltered, further straining the Earth's limited resources. Even if population growth remains at the current 1.1% per year as the excerpt above suggests, we may already be on the cusp of the Earth's carrying capacity which has been estimated at 7 - 12 billion.

Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (http://www.iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002.html)


Estimating the carrying capacity of the Earth is a difficult task involving value-based decisions and assumptions. Whether the future of the Earth includes a dense population of humans with reduced biodiversity and degraded environmental qualities or a smaller human population living sustainably on a diverse resource base remains to be seen. However, current levels of energy consumption and the impending depletion of non-renewable energy sources point toward the necessity for a change in either population growth or consumption trends if the human race is to survive at anything close to its current level of subsistence.

http://www.iere.org/ILEA/images/grey.gif
Recent carrying capacity estimates

When one considers the array of factors that must be estimated and the conditions that must be assumed, it is unrealistic to expect a unique figure defining the Earth's human carrying capacity. Professor Joel Cohen in his 1995 book, How Many People can the Earth Support?,22 (http://www.iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002f.html) summarized estimates of human carrying capacity of the Earth beginning with estimates made as early as the 1600's. His summary is not limited to estimates that are considered socially sustainable as he includes estimates that only consider biophysical parameters. Many studies cited by Cohen give a range of population carrying capacities with a low estimate and a high estimate. In his 1995 Science paper,23 (http://www.iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002f.html) Cohen computed the median of the high estimates and the median of the low estimates. The result was a range of medians from 7.7 to 12 billion people.

Table 3 summarizes the estimates from Cohen's book that do consider social sustainability as well as estimates from other sources. The estimates vary from 0.5 to 14 billion depending on the metric used and the standard of living and technological improvements that are assumed. The medians of the low and high estimates provide a range from 2.1 to 5.0 billion people. With the current Earth population estimated to be 6.1 billion people,24 (http://www.iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002f.html) the median range of sustainable carrying capacity estimates suggests that the Earth's population be reduced in order to be sustainable.

you are being a wanker because i called your logans run post what it was - the end of rational discussion on the topic. sorry if i harmed your self esteem.

oh... so you get grumpy and attack people when you can't answer a simple math question? the dear professor bartlett would be so disappointed you.


you have no argument here.

oh... case closed then. well done, counsellor... what a brilliant debate strategy!

if you're so sure of yourself, then why won't you answer a simple question: what formula does your video apply to estimate world population growth? it's only the main point of the video you posted. you probably didn't watch all eight parts.

i'm patiently trying to discuss this issue with you but you keep getting upset... so please just answer my question. that is, if you're not too busy copy/pasting information that's completely irrelevant to it.

-M

oh... so you get grumpy and attack people when you can't answer a simple math question? the dear professor bartlett would be so disappointed you.

Whose grumpy? You post a Logans Run reference that is asinine in the context of this discussion, that is unless it was in a humorus context, which it apparently was not. You are attacking, not me. Geeze dude, why are you so upset about my pointing out your silly-assed Logans Run reference was ridiculous? Grow up.



oh... case closed then. well done, counsellor... what a brilliant debate strategy!

Another wankerism. If you really want to discuss this issue, why didn't you post whatever formula you wish to discuss, frame your issue, and make your case?

You think yourself quite clever, don't you? :LolLolLol


if you're so sure of yourself, then why won't you answer a simple question: what formula does your video apply to estimate world population growth? it's only the main point of the video you posted. you probably didn't watch all eight parts. i'm patiently trying to discuss this issue with you but you keep getting upset... so please just answer my question. that is, if you're not too busy copy/pasting information that's completely irrelevant to it.

-M

No, you are not "patiently waiting" for anything that I can tell other than trying to get me to post a forumula that you saw in the first video, which is the doubling time (t = (70/k) for any particular percentage of growth, whether that be population growth, or investment growth or whatever.

Make your point or STFU. Otherwise, you are just talking smack and wasting everyone's time.