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

02-12-2007, 05:52 PM

Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

Most of us have already got our money back out of the system fine.

> 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.

And that worked fine with the Vietnam war funding.

> I think that general fund is pretty wiped right now

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' countries.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> That made sense during the communist days but not now.

> We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> 'nuff from me.

Too much mindless **** already.

02-12-2007, 05:52 PM	#631 (permalink)
Rod Speed Posts: n/a	Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > 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. > 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. Most of us have already got our money back out of the system fine. > 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. And that worked fine with the Vietnam war funding. > I think that general fund is pretty wiped right now Pig ignorant fantasy. > since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' countries. Pig ignorant fantasy. > That made sense during the communist days but not now. > We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey. Pig ignorant fantasy. > 'nuff from me. Too much mindless **** already.