Frightening Statistic

Hellmark wrote:
> jtougas's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
> were:
>
>>Hi folks -
>>Heard something on the news I found personally frightening: this
>>weekend, the world's population will pass an estimated 6.5 Billion
>>people.
>>Meaning that the world's population will have doubled since *1960*.
>>46 years.
>>Yikes.
>>This can't last long.
>
> People bitch about pollution being such a big thing for global warming,
> but what about all the damn extra people?! They throw off alot of heat!
>
> I say, nuke the mideast and africa, LOTS of birds, one giant stone...

I say nuke the Middle East, the US and Europe (in that order; try to use
up all nukes on the first two targets).

We're the biggest polluters after all, and have much higher population
density. Oh, Japan too.

Many many more birds.
--
Frank
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:28:35 -0500, jtougas
<jatougasNOSPAM RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:

>Hi folks -
>
>Heard something on the news I found personally frightening: this
>weekend, the world's population will pass an estimated 6.5 Billion
>people.
>
>Meaning that the world's population will have doubled since *1960*.
>
>46 years.
>
>Yikes.
>
>This can't last long.

Don't worry. The slaughter of billions at that hands of religious
fanatics, coupled with a viral plague pandemic will thin the mix.

Psst! Hey, mister, wanna buy a silver lining?

Save your pennies. It's going to be a buyers market in real estate.


--
--==<S m e g h e a d>==--
"That's a friend of mine called Neil,
that's a friend of mine called Mike...
and that's a complete bastard I know called Rick." - Vyvyan
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:05:09 +0100, Frank van Schie
<frankNOSPAM.DeleteThis@email.it> wrote:

>Hellmark wrote:
>> jtougas's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
>> were:
>>
>>>Hi folks -
>>>Heard something on the news I found personally frightening: this
>>>weekend, the world's population will pass an estimated 6.5 Billion
>>>people.
>>>Meaning that the world's population will have doubled since *1960*.
>>>46 years.
>>>Yikes.
>>>This can't last long.
>>
>> People bitch about pollution being such a big thing for global warming,
>> but what about all the damn extra people?! They throw off alot of heat!
>>
>> I say, nuke the mideast and africa, LOTS of birds, one giant stone...
>
>I say nuke the Middle East, the US and Europe (in that order; try to use
>up all nukes on the first two targets).
>
>We're the biggest polluters after all, and have much higher population
>density. Oh, Japan too.
>
>Many many more birds.

I say throw billions into a cash prize for the scientist or team of
scientists or individual who can come up with a realistic, viable and
commercially marketable alternative to fossil fuels and make that
person or group insanely rich and world heros.

Use proper, non-greed motivated land management. Feed the world.
Reward the bright and hard working. Punish the criminal element.
Outlaw lawyers and exercise kindness and understanding towards
everyone.

That should help for starters.


--
--==<S m e g h e a d>==--
"That's a friend of mine called Neil,
that's a friend of mine called Mike...
and that's a complete bastard I know called Rick." - Vyvyan
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote in
news:okqvv1p7m7gjlj23f0rdh12j56vbvek6p8@4ax.com:

> This can't last long.

I guy named Malthus predicted the end a long time ago. Didn't happen. Then
various pundits in the 60's said the world would end in the 70's. Didn't
happen. I'm not worried.

The population growth isn't happening in the developed world. Rich people
(ie. us) don't breed like bunnies. But they do tend to squelch competition
in the third world. To stop population growth there, stop protectionism so
that the developed textile and agricultural industries can't block their
counterparts in the developing world from attaining the same prosperity.
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:05:07 -0600, ScratchMonkey
<ScratchMonkey.blacklist DeleteThis @sewingwitch.com> trained 100 monkeys to jump
on the keyboard and write:

>jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote in
>news:okqvv1p7m7gjlj23f0rdh12j56vbvek6p8@4ax.com:
>
>> This can't last long.
>
>I guy named Malthus predicted the end a long time ago. Didn't happen. Then
>various pundits in the 60's said the world would end in the 70's. Didn't
>happen. I'm not worried.

Malthus didn't predict the end so much as he predicted when the
population of the world would overrun what the world can support,
given a variety of levels of consumption. Not really the end, just a
collapse.

A professor I worked for at the UGA Institute of Ecology, who taught
the 'Introduction to Ecology' course, took Malthus's calculations out
to 'when could the world no longer support everyone living at the
level of comfort we enjoy here in the US?' and came up with a date
sometime in the mid '90s, I think... A figure not altogether
inaccurate if you take the median of home, land, vehicle, and 4 people
to a household: the average American, not the richest, not the
poorest.

>The population growth isn't happening in the developed world. Rich people
>(ie. us) don't breed like bunnies.

Not *completely* accurate. Money isn't the biggest influence on the
reproduction rate; education is (or, at least it is in the US).
Granted, this points out a big problem of lack of education in
developing countries, but you also run into a problem when the
Catholic Church preaches against contraception (mostly on the theory
of wanting an expanding support base, in my opinion: you're Catholic,
you'll (hopefully) raise your kids Catholic).

And yet Italy is one of the few countries that has actually achieved
Zero Population Growth (relatively speaking). It boggles the mind.

> But they do tend to squelch competition
>in the third world. To stop population growth there, stop protectionism so
>that the developed textile and agricultural industries can't block their
>counterparts in the developing world from attaining the same prosperity.

And yet, if they do attain the same level of prosperity we have here
in the US (on average), you'll run into the same problem: the world
system can't support the world living at our current level of
consumption.

For the rest of the world to enjoy what we do as a country of
privilege would be disastrous to the world system - *if it's at our
current level of consumption*. High efficiency vehicles, renewable
energy sources, more efficient homes - all sorts of things need to be
changed within our society, and in what level of comfort the
developing nations expect to reach, before we can reach an equilibrium
point at which the world can support all of us living at that level of
comfort.

Part and parcel to that - every time I see someone driving a HUMMER I
want to drag them out into the street and beat with a baseball bat.
It's an irresponsible vehicle, a symbol of conspicuous consumption.

</end rabid rant>

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote in
news:kpq302hb2rtifjijg1hfcgp4m998f96cnm@4ax.com:

> A professor I worked for at the UGA Institute of Ecology, who taught
> the 'Introduction to Ecology' course, took Malthus's calculations out
> to 'when could the world no longer support everyone living at the
> level of comfort we enjoy here in the US?' and came up with a date
> sometime in the mid '90s, I think... A figure not altogether
> inaccurate if you take the median of home, land, vehicle, and 4 people
> to a household: the average American, not the richest, not the
> poorest.

What's his name? Is his calculation published? Does it allow for the fall-
off in birth rates in developed countries? If the birth rate in developing
countries falls off to match that of developed countries, does it
adequately compensate for the increased consumption?

> Not *completely* accurate. Money isn't the biggest influence on the
> reproduction rate; education is (or, at least it is in the US).

So poor highly-educated people have low birthrates and rich ignorant people
still have large families? How does that trend compare in developing
countries?
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote in
news:kpq302hb2rtifjijg1hfcgp4m998f96cnm@4ax.com:

> Part and parcel to that - every time I see someone driving a HUMMER I
> want to drag them out into the street and beat with a baseball bat.
> It's an irresponsible vehicle, a symbol of conspicuous consumption.

Are there people who actually buy for "conspicuous consumption"? Who ignore
gas usage and insurance rates and deliberately pay for a more expensive car
just to look wealthy? Or is the Hummer actually a good value for some uses?

The SUV is a good all-around vehicle for hauling cargo and family, for
people who can't afford two different dedicated vehicles for commuting and
cargo.

For me a better example of conspicuous consumption is a high-end graphics
card just to make game graphics look more realistic. Why burn so many watts
just to get the shading right? Esp. if you spend 90% of the time using the
machine for email and newsgroups, which could be done with a low-tech 2D-
only display. Apparently most gamers are far more obsessed with how a game
looks than how it plays, so the game writers write for the high-end cards,
and force everyone into a never-ending hardware upgrade cycle.

I suspect the motivation to buy a Hummer is similar, to get something that
"looks cool". (Maybe not to you, but to the buyer.) He's not buying it
because it's costly but because it's what he's seen his fictional heroes
drive. It's media-induced fantasy.
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:18:52 GMT, Randy Graham
<ragmanx RemoveThis @gamerdemos.com> trained 100 monkeys to jump on the keyboard
and write:

>But why would you want everyone to enjoy the comfort level we have in
>the US?

I didn't say *I* wanted everyone to have our level of comfort. I agree
that the general populace of the US consumes more than it should.
Multiple TV's to a household, multiple vehicles, etc.

>Really, we have it too easy, and if the whole world lived at
>our comfort level, we'd die off much faster due to fat- and
>laziness-induced problems than due to exhaustion of resources.

Because humans,as a general rule, like being comfortable. We like
having AC, we like having refrigeration, we like having transportation
so we don't have to walk. The US is held up as a rich nation, because
the average citizen here has more comfort than the average citizen of
most of the rest of the world. And they think 'Hey, why can't we be
like that' and they aim to follow suit.

The same reason people have been moving here since the colonies
started: to get a new start, and get rich doing it. To have more than
they did when they got here. It's just now they realize they can do
it without leaving the comfortable surroundings of their homeland,
they can bring the mountain to Mohammed.

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in
news:7vs702dc9lmbpmjuqnk52gov6aitk0n16m@4ax.com:

> I didn't say *I* wanted everyone to have our level of comfort. I agree
> that the general populace of the US consumes more than it should.
> Multiple TV's to a household, multiple vehicles, etc.

I have those things, and I don't see why I "shouldn't". People who are
uncomfortable tend to be either serfs or revolutionaries. I'd rather be
comfortable, and have everyone else be comfortable, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote in
news:h8s702dqfmue60oole38ov2hltjmdrg40f@4ax.com:

> Dr. James Porter

Funny, that's my dad's name. I wonder if we're related? (But Porter's a
pretty big clan. I've got a geneology tracing my ancestors back 10
generations before it jumps to Britain.)

> the lowest birth rate demographic is "over-educated" people, with
> graduate degrees (who are not necessarily from families of means...
> usually, but not always).

Interesting, since one might expect it to be tied to lack of time for kids,
but one would expect the same dynamic of overworked business owners with no
degree.
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:24:56 -0600, ScratchMonkey
<ScratchMonkey.blacklist.DeleteThis@sewingwitch.com> trained 100 monkeys to jump
on the keyboard and write:

>jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in
>news:h8s702dqfmue60oole38ov2hltjmdrg40f@4ax.com:
>
>> Dr. James Porter
>
>Funny, that's my dad's name. I wonder if we're related? (But Porter's a
>pretty big clan. I've got a geneology tracing my ancestors back 10
>generations before it jumps to Britain.)

Who knows? Email him, find out. He'll be more than happy to talk to
you about Malthus in greater detail than I can.

>> the lowest birth rate demographic is "over-educated" people, with
>> graduate degrees (who are not necessarily from families of means...
>> usually, but not always).
>
>Interesting, since one might expect it to be tied to lack of time for kids,
>but one would expect the same dynamic of overworked business owners with no
>degree.

Or computer techs with a degree in journalism. *wry grin, raises
hand* Not married yet. Prospects in a college town tend to scatter
when they get their degree...

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:19:10 -0600, ScratchMonkey
<ScratchMonkey.blacklist.DeleteThis@sewingwitch.com> trained 100 monkeys to jump
on the keyboard and write:

>jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in
>news:7vs702dc9lmbpmjuqnk52gov6aitk0n16m@4ax.com:
>
>> I didn't say *I* wanted everyone to have our level of comfort. I agree
>> that the general populace of the US consumes more than it should.
>> Multiple TV's to a household, multiple vehicles, etc.
>
>I have those things, and I don't see why I "shouldn't". People who are
>uncomfortable tend to be either serfs or revolutionaries. I'd rather be
>comfortable, and have everyone else be comfortable, too.

*nods* I'm (mostly) comfortable with what I've got (could do with a
smaller yard...), mostly because I know that my house is fairly
efficient (could be better), my car is fairly efficient (hooray for
Hondas...), and I recycle.

I would like to be able to afford to put solar cells on my roof, but I
can't.

I know that I don't do as much as some people do towards reducing my
'carbon footprint', but I also know I do more than others.
--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic 

jtougas <jatougasNOSPAM RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote in
news:pp2a0217k0j4codlom1mjtbtqvf4rgp4gp@4ax.com:

> *nods* I'm (mostly) comfortable with what I've got (could do with a
> smaller yard...), mostly because I know that my house is fairly
> efficient (could be better), my car is fairly efficient (hooray for
> Hondas...), and I recycle.

I'm happy with my 2 bedroom, and the yard's a pain to maintain, more
because I have too much stuff in it and would rather game than go out and
toss stuff in the dumpster. My cars aren't the newest and therefore not the
most efficient, but I don't want a huge car payment (including insurance)
to offset a lower gas payment.

Recycling is mostly a scam. Except for aluminum, it wastes energy. But hey,
it means a lot of my trash (of which I generate little) can be dumped for
free. My biggest items are plastic milk bottles and metal cat food cans.
Now if they'd just let me recycle used cat litter, my regular trash can
would be virtually empty!
 >> Stay informed about: Frightening Statistic