|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 3, 2013 10:53:34 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Feb 3, 2013 11:11:23 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm China, Taiwan and other Asian countries are consuming fish, lumber, minerals and other natural resources at an unprecedented rate around the globe. Not saying we are also not part of the the problem, but China won't stop until they find every last tiger penis bone, Rhino horn, tropical hardwood and wild tortoise left in the world. Homo sapiens sapiens has plateaued. Our max. sustainable population number was exceeded perhaps 40-50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 3, 2013 14:12:40 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm China, Taiwan and other Asian countries are consuming fish, lumber, minerals and other natural resources at an unprecedented rate around the globe. Not saying we are also not part of the the problem, but China won't stop until they find every last tiger penis bone, Rhino horn, tropical hardwood and wild tortoise left in the world. Homo sapiens sapiens has plateaued. Our max. sustainable population number was exceeded perhaps 40-50 years ago. Patience, sir. As you will read in the linked piece, world population will start declining in less than 50 years. I do agree with you that we do not need so many people as we now have, but who is going to tell two or three billion humans that their immediate demise would be in the best interests of Mother Earth? We either off about half the world's population or wait for nature to take its course (i.e., let lower than replacement levels of reproduction work their magic on global demographics). (By the way, do tiger penises really have bones?) AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 3, 2013 14:40:17 GMT -8
Spell check, William.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 3, 2013 15:07:15 GMT -8
My biggest question or concern about a decline in population on a global scale is retirement programs. We need more pay as you go 401K type plans and less defined benefit plans that depend on future plan members contributions for viability than on your own participation.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Feb 3, 2013 16:53:56 GMT -8
He's an Engrish teacher. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 3, 2013 23:12:17 GMT -8
He's an Engrish teacher. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Actually I am a Spanish and German teacher, but that does not excuse bad spelling. The funny thing is that I do watch my spelling pretty closely. I use Firefox, which indicates incorrect spelling as one types. For some reason I missed the error in the title. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 11, 2013 15:28:16 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm China, Taiwan and other Asian countries are consuming fish, lumber, minerals and other natural resources at an unprecedented rate around the globe. Not saying we are also not part of the the problem, but China won't stop until they find every last tiger penis bone, Rhino horn, tropical hardwood and wild tortoise left in the world. Homo sapiens sapiens has plateaued. Our max. sustainable population number was exceeded perhaps 40-50 years ago. Our max sustainable population is way beyond where we are now. Everytime a problem is encountered the human race finds a new way to deal with it. We may wish to not have a whole lot more people, but the earth is so incredibly huge we could easily have a lot more folks with less of all the bad things. The US has a lot more now than the 70's with less hunger and less pollution. Humans don't even live on the water, yet. That alone would triple living space, assuming we won't live below and on the surface of the water. If we lived on the floor and surface of the ocean we could increase living space 6 fold. We are living now clustered on land around the edges of water. There is nothing on the horizon that would stop population growth other than a collective decision to do so.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 11, 2013 17:03:42 GMT -8
China, Taiwan and other Asian countries are consuming fish, lumber, minerals and other natural resources at an unprecedented rate around the globe. Not saying we are also not part of the the problem, but China won't stop until they find every last tiger penis bone, Rhino horn, tropical hardwood and wild tortoise left in the world. Homo sapiens sapiens has plateaued. Our max. sustainable population number was exceeded perhaps 40-50 years ago. Our max sustainable population is way beyond where we are now. Everytime a problem is encountered the human race finds a new way to deal with it. We may wish to not have a whole lot more people, but the earth is so incredibly huge we could easily have a lot more folks with less of all the bad things. The US has a lot more now than the 70's with less hunger and less pollution. Humans don't even live on the water, yet. That alone would triple living space, assuming we won't live below and on the surface of the water. If we lived on the floor and surface of the ocean we could increase living space 6 fold. We are living now clustered on land around the edges of water. There is nothing on the horizon that would stop population growth other than a collective decision to do so. Bill, I am not going to get into a back and forth on this, but 30 years from now the Earth's population will be lower than it is today. I would bet you what you want, only problem is, we may not be here to collect. PS, living on, or beneath, the sea is a joke. I have worked on the sea for 35 years and I know the constraints. In recorded history, human populations have peaked and crashed many times. All we are is a bigger Easter island.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 15, 2013 11:12:06 GMT -8
He's an Engrish teacher. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Actually I am a Spanish and German teacher, but that does not excuse bad spelling. The funny thing is that I do watch my spelling pretty closely. I use Firefox, which indicates incorrect spelling as one types. For some reason I missed the error in the title. AzWm No wonder you haven't installed the spell checker for this board.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 16, 2013 8:36:29 GMT -8
Our max sustainable population is way beyond where we are now. Everytime a problem is encountered the human race finds a new way to deal with it. We may wish to not have a whole lot more people, but the earth is so incredibly huge we could easily have a lot more folks with less of all the bad things. The US has a lot more now than the 70's with less hunger and less pollution. Humans don't even live on the water, yet. That alone would triple living space, assuming we won't live below and on the surface of the water. If we lived on the floor and surface of the ocean we could increase living space 6 fold. We are living now clustered on land around the edges of water. There is nothing on the horizon that would stop population growth other than a collective decision to do so. Bill, I am not going to get into a back and forth on this, but 30 years from now the Earth's population will be lower than it is today. I would bet you what you want, only problem is, we may not be here to collect. PS, living on, or beneath, the sea is a joke. I have worked on the sea for 35 years and I know the constraints. In recorded history, human populations have peaked and crashed many times. All we are is a bigger Easter island. There is no constraining reason that the population needs to decline. As countries move toward more wealth birth rates decrease, so you may be right about the population. I read enough history of technology and advancements to know when someone makes a statement about something being a joke, that there are constraints, events overtake their assumptions. In 1901 the top US physicist said heavier than air flight was impossible. The major constraints for continued life as we know it are: 1. Energy 2. Food 3. Water None of those are in short supply. Each of those have had increases because of technology in recent times. We are much better prepared today than was dreamed of 40 years ago. 40 years from now we will be even better off. I see animal-less meat through simple cloning of meat without the animal. We can make meat in this manner without the overhead of the animals. Water is a limitless commodity with much better desalinization. Energy is abundant and future breakthroughs in Fusion can happen totally changing the outlook in the coming centuries. Doom and gloom is a losing bet.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 17, 2013 8:33:40 GMT -8
Bill, I am not going to get into a back and forth on this, but 30 years from now the Earth's population will be lower than it is today. I would bet you what you want, only problem is, we may not be here to collect. PS, living on, or beneath, the sea is a joke. I have worked on the sea for 35 years and I know the constraints. In recorded history, human populations have peaked and crashed many times. All we are is a bigger Easter island. There is no constraining reason that the population needs to decline. As countries move toward more wealth birth rates decrease, so you may be right about the population. I read enough history of technology and advancements to know when someone makes a statement about something being a joke, that there are constraints, events overtake their assumptions. In 1901 the top US physicist said heavier than air flight was impossible. The major constraints for continued life as we know it are: 1. Energy 2. Food 3. Water None of those are in short supply. Each of those have had increases because of technology in recent times. We are much better prepared today than was dreamed of 40 years ago. 40 years from now we will be even better off. I see animal-less meat through simple cloning of meat without the animal. We can make meat in this manner without the overhead of the animals. Water is a limitless commodity with much better desalinization. Energy is abundant and future breakthroughs in Fusion can happen totally changing the outlook in the coming centuries. Doom and gloom is a losing bet. Creating floating airports, cities etc. on the open sea is impractical and expensive. The maintenance costs greatly exceed structures built on land. Not to mention effects on shipping lanes, commercial fishing etc. etc. etc. Your constraints list is flawed. We need a healthy environment that surrounds us for healthy fisheries, soils, groundwater etc. How much do you think Homo sapiens sapiens depends on the honey bee for pollination to survive for example? Do recent crashes of honey bee populations raise a red flag for you or not? I know you think technology can fix anything or problem for us. Here's what it cannot fix. Our own human nature, with the ability to make major mistakes due to greed, aggression etc. We got saved by the skin of our teeth in 1962. There are multitudes of more dangers in today's world, and in less stable areas. A major event that causes a loss of electricity for a mere two weeks over large areas of the world would be enough to do it. It is telling that, when I was young, that someone my age would be asked if they could be in a time capsule if they would like to visit the future or the past.....and virtually everyone would answer the future. I see an article each week in the local rag, where they interview high school students and ask them the same question, and every single one has answered the past! I believe we have plateaued.
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on Oct 24, 2013 22:01:42 GMT -8
Still no excuse for poor spelling.
|
|
|
Post by sukarno on Oct 25, 2013 16:02:53 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm So what is your argument here, Willy? That women should be brew-cows whose only purpose in life is to have babies? Oh wait! You're a farking Repugnantcan, so of course that's how you view women. Well $#!+ - maybe you should figure out why women are 60-40 in favor of Democrats. Oh wait - you haven't a clue about the consequences of your comments on this. Do you have any kids other than Erik and if you do, are you demanding they pick up the slack on births in order to meet your ideological mandates? Yeah, there are social and economic issues, but they pertain to a culture that needs to perpetuate itself by having children that become consumers. Tell me why would be a good thing. Tell me why having a ton of kids who will eventually buy houses in places that destroy the native environment is a good thing. You know what's really sad? In your '70s and you still have never learned the concept of unintended consequences. But then again, nobody of your rather pathetic political bent has learned that lesson. =Bob The Future Always comes too soon and in the wrong order John Brunner - Shockwave Rider
|
|
|
Post by sukarno on Oct 25, 2013 16:39:37 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm China, Taiwan and other Asian countries are consuming fish, lumber, minerals and other natural resources at an unprecedented rate around the globe. Not saying we are also not part of the the problem, but China won't stop until they find every last tiger penis bone, Rhino horn, tropical hardwood and wild tortoise left in the world. Homo sapiens sapiens has plateaued. Our max. sustainable population number was exceeded perhaps 40-50 years ago. Oh, I would certainly they not part of the problem, but most of the problem. The farking Chinese are so worried about getting up their little dicks, they are willing to kill of every species on the farking planet as long as they can get it up. There was a time when I thought highly of Asian religions, but that time has passed. They are consuming our planet and don't give a rat's ass that they are doing it. =Bob The Future Always comes too soon and in the wrong order John Brunner - Shockwave Rider
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Oct 26, 2013 5:10:41 GMT -8
We used to worry about exploding rates of population growth. No more! Birth rates are falling world-wide, and such a trend raises very serious social and economic issues. Example: Japan. Part of the problem: self-actualization versus reproducing enough to avoid future economic stagnation. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.htmlAzWm So what is your argument here, Willy? That women should be brew-cows whose only purpose in life is to have babies? Oh wait! You're a farking Repugnantcan, so of course that's how you view women. Well $#!+ - maybe you should figure out why women are 60-40 in favor of Democrats. Oh wait - you haven't a clue about the consequences of your comments on this. Do you have any kids other than Erik and if you do, are you demanding they pick up the slack on births in order to meet your ideological mandates? Yeah, there are social and economic issues, but they pertain to a culture that needs to perpetuate itself by having children that become consumers. Tell me why would be a good thing. Tell me why having a ton of kids who will eventually buy houses in places that destroy the native environment is a good thing. You know what's really sad? In your '70s and you still have never learned the concept of unintended consequences. But then again, nobody of your rather pathetic political bent has learned that lesson. =Bob The Future Always comes too soon and in the wrong order John Brunner - Shockwave Rider - bob, zero to banned in 10.2 psots. Why so grumpy -Roberto?
|
|
|
Post by rolf tomato on Oct 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -8
No need to worry about population collapse. Philip Rivers is on the job and doing his best to prevent that from happening.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 13:29:47 GMT -8
There is no constraining reason that the population needs to decline. As countries move toward more wealth birth rates decrease, so you may be right about the population. I read enough history of technology and advancements to know when someone makes a statement about something being a joke, that there are constraints, events overtake their assumptions. In 1901 the top US physicist said heavier than air flight was impossible. The major constraints for continued life as we know it are: 1. Energy 2. Food 3. Water None of those are in short supply. Each of those have had increases because of technology in recent times. We are much better prepared today than was dreamed of 40 years ago. 40 years from now we will be even better off. I see animal-less meat through simple cloning of meat without the animal. We can make meat in this manner without the overhead of the animals. Water is a limitless commodity with much better desalinization. Energy is abundant and future breakthroughs in Fusion can happen totally changing the outlook in the coming centuries. Doom and gloom is a losing bet. Creating floating airports, cities etc. on the open sea is impractical and expensive. The maintenance costs greatly exceed structures built on land. Not to mention effects on shipping lanes, commercial fishing etc. etc. etc. Your constraints list is flawed. We need a healthy environment that surrounds us for healthy fisheries, soils, groundwater etc. How much do you think Homo sapiens sapiens depends on the honey bee for pollination to survive for example? Do recent crashes of honey bee populations raise a red flag for you or not? I know you think technology can fix anything or problem for us. Here's what it cannot fix. Our own human nature, with the ability to make major mistakes due to greed, aggression etc. We got saved by the skin of our teeth in 1962. There are multitudes of more dangers in today's world, and in less stable areas. A major event that causes a loss of electricity for a mere two weeks over large areas of the world would be enough to do it. It is telling that, when I was young, that someone my age would be asked if they could be in a time capsule if they would like to visit the future or the past.....and virtually everyone would answer the future. I see an article each week in the local rag, where they interview high school students and ask them the same question, and every single one has answered the past! I believe we have plateaued. I have read similar postulating about population from the 1800s. The only difference is a different set of problems they felt could not be overcome and a different abosolute limit on population.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 27, 2013 13:37:53 GMT -8
There is no constraining reason that the population needs to decline. As countries move toward more wealth birth rates decrease, so you may be right about the population. I read enough history of technology and advancements to know when someone makes a statement about something being a joke, that there are constraints, events overtake their assumptions. In 1901 the top US physicist said heavier than air flight was impossible. The major constraints for continued life as we know it are: 1. Energy 2. Food 3. Water None of those are in short supply. Each of those have had increases because of technology in recent times. We are much better prepared today than was dreamed of 40 years ago. 40 years from now we will be even better off. I see animal-less meat through simple cloning of meat without the animal. We can make meat in this manner without the overhead of the animals. Water is a limitless commodity with much better desalinization. Energy is abundant and future breakthroughs in Fusion can happen totally changing the outlook in the coming centuries. Doom and gloom is a losing bet. Creating floating airports, cities etc. on the open sea is impractical and expensive. The maintenance costs greatly exceed structures built on land. Not to mention effects on shipping lanes, commercial fishing etc. etc. etc. Your constraints list is flawed. We need a healthy environment that surrounds us for healthy fisheries, soils, groundwater etc. How much do you think Homo sapiens sapiens depends on the honey bee for pollination to survive for example? Do recent crashes of honey bee populations raise a red flag for you or not? I know you think technology can fix anything or problem for us. Here's what it cannot fix. Our own human nature, with the ability to make major mistakes due to greed, aggression etc. We got saved by the skin of our teeth in 1962. There are multitudes of more dangers in today's world, and in less stable areas. A major event that causes a loss of electricity for a mere two weeks over large areas of the world would be enough to do it. It is telling that, when I was young, that someone my age would be asked if they could be in a time capsule if they would like to visit the future or the past.....and virtually everyone would answer the future. I see an article each week in the local rag, where they interview high school students and ask them the same question, and every single one has answered the past! I believe we have plateaued. "In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold" - Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Charles Holland Duell 1902. I believe we have plateaued - uwaztec 2013. The feeling that "we have plateaued" often accompanies the second terms of democrats.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 3, 2013 12:37:00 GMT -8
Creating floating airports, cities etc. on the open sea is impractical and expensive. The maintenance costs greatly exceed structures built on land. Not to mention effects on shipping lanes, commercial fishing etc. etc. etc. Your constraints list is flawed. We need a healthy environment that surrounds us for healthy fisheries, soils, groundwater etc. How much do you think Homo sapiens sapiens depends on the honey bee for pollination to survive for example? Do recent crashes of honey bee populations raise a red flag for you or not? I know you think technology can fix anything or problem for us. Here's what it cannot fix. Our own human nature, with the ability to make major mistakes due to greed, aggression etc. We got saved by the skin of our teeth in 1962. There are multitudes of more dangers in today's world, and in less stable areas. A major event that causes a loss of electricity for a mere two weeks over large areas of the world would be enough to do it. It is telling that, when I was young, that someone my age would be asked if they could be in a time capsule if they would like to visit the future or the past.....and virtually everyone would answer the future. I see an article each week in the local rag, where they interview high school students and ask them the same question, and every single one has answered the past! I believe we have plateaued. "In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold" - Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Charles Holland Duell 1902. I believe we have plateaued - uwaztec 2013. The feeling that "we have plateaued" often accompanies the second terms of democrats. First of all, I hope I'm wrong. Just don't get the politics angle at all. I've worked with plenty of right wingers over the years who think the same thing. Many of us have come to this conclusion after many years of direct observations in the field, of rapid changes to the environment in a relatively short time, plus a high amount of world travel. There are plenty of Scientists who have said similar things such as: Carl Sagen and Stephen Hawking. On a larger scale, we are no different than many cultures and human populations that have disappeared in the past. If you want to talk politics, there is no shortage of "End Timers" on your side of the aisle.
|
|