Cycling Mob Cycling Forums - View Single Post - "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

02-12-2007, 05:49 PM

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote
> Bill Baka writes

>>>> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9
>>>> billion should be the absolute limit before people start going
>>>> nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in
>>>> England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people
>>>> all competing for space and paving

>>> Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info from
>>> somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a thing.

>> Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and
>> damn the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

>> 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,

Oh bull****.

> natural resources and water being stressed as they are

Not unsustainably stretched. Water is trivially
fixed by using nuke powered desalination.

> while the per capita demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Still readily sustainable using nukes.

>> 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.

Not a shred of evidence that we actually are.

Bugger all of us are living at HongKong population
densitys and that is obviously very viable.

> Of course the first knee jerk response to
> that is "Whom are you proposing to kill first?"

"Who are you proposing to kill first?" if they have a clue about english.

> This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.

You havent established that there is any 'condition', just claimed that.

> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to
> reduce population. Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

>> 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.

No we dont in many modern first world countrys like Japan.

They have enough sense to not let immigrants pour into their country.

> Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

> That is true for developed countries as well
> as the most economically backward ones.

No it isnt, virtually all of the developed countrys have adjusted
their birth rates without even trying to do that deliberately.

02-12-2007, 05:49 PM	#630 (permalink)
Rod Speed Posts: n/a	Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote > Bill Baka writes >>>> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9 >>>> billion should be the absolute limit before people start going >>>> nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in >>>> England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people >>>> all competing for space and paving >>> Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info from >>> somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a thing. >> Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and >> damn the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming >> 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, Oh bull****. > natural resources and water being stressed as they are Not unsustainably stretched. Water is trivially fixed by using nuke powered desalination. > while the per capita demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads. Still readily sustainable using nukes. >> 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. Not a shred of evidence that we actually are. Bugger all of us are living at HongKong population densitys and that is obviously very viable. > Of course the first knee jerk response to > that is "Whom are you proposing to kill first?" "Who are you proposing to kill first?" if they have a clue about english. > This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition. You havent established that there is any 'condition', just claimed that. > Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to > reduce population. Birth rate makes the difference. It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon. Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates. >> 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. No we dont in many modern first world countrys like Japan. They have enough sense to not let immigrants pour into their country. > Birth rate makes the difference. It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon. Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates. > That is true for developed countries as well > as the most economically backward ones. No it isnt, virtually all of the developed countrys have adjusted their birth rates without even trying to do that deliberately.