Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More - View Single Post - "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

02-12-2007, 03:50 PM

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Bill Baka writes:
>
>
>> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
>> about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
>> that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
>> back to that number or somewhere close to it.
>
> The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural
> resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita
> demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Thank you Jobst. At least someone understands the situation.
>
>> Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
>> will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
>> popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
>> getting to people even now.
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html
>
> The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
> of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
> first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
> first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
> population. Birth rate makes the difference.

Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to
limit the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be
sustained at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be
wars, either holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just
doesn't understand the human condition.
>
>> It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.
>
> The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
> scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
> Birth rate makes the difference.
>
> That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
> backward ones.
>
> Jobst Brandt

It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others
will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our
money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the
government puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for
things like, oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty
of starting things they can't control. I think that general fund is
pretty wiped right now since it has probably been supporting welfare and
'friendly' countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now.
We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.
'nuff from me.
Bill Baka

02-12-2007, 03:50 PM	#628 (permalink)
Bill Baka Posts: n/a	Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Bill Baka writes: > > >> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking >> about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought >> that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle >> back to that number or somewhere close to it. > > The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural > resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita > demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads. Thank you Jobst. At least someone understands the situation. > >> Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion >> will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more >> popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is >> getting to people even now. > > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html > > The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects > of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the > first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill > first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition. > Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce > population. Birth rate makes the difference. Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor. Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to limit the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be sustained at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be wars, either holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand the human condition. > >> It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into. > > The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi > scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants. > Birth rate makes the difference. > > That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically > backward ones. > > Jobst Brandt It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the government puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for things like, oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of starting things they can't control. I think that general fund is pretty wiped right now since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now. We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey. 'nuff from me. Bill Baka