Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: FluffyMcDeath on March 01, 2005, 04:36:41 AM
-
Exponentials:
But you need Real video
link (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram )
-
Yes. Sobering, isn't it.
-
No can see. What is it?
-
Oh dear. No real video? Hmm. Well in short it's Prof Al Bartlett giving his talk on exponential growth. Wonder if I can find it in another format.
Or look here for a clue (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/econ/bartlett.htm).
-
This should be required viewing. For everyone.
-
"Look at those figures, those are facts"
oh, snap!
this guy is very smart and you can tell he's told this about a million times. i just wish the camera operator wasn't so dippy. This stuff has to be presented in a better way. well, that's MY bug-a-bo, anyway :lol:
the problem is that there's only some people smart enough to understand this - and most of humanity is a big pile of dim-wits.
somehow the smart people have to get off this planet and live somewhere safe from the cretons.
---
just watched all of it and i love how he quotes Asimov at the end. Basically saying that democracy can't survive overpopulation. brilliant, of course.
years ago, the main reason i decided not to have children was because of Asimov's position on this issue.
I'm very happy that i have not contributed to the world's population problem!
-
I'm very happy that i have not contributed to the world's population problem!
You mean... No little cecilia's ? Bummer..
(Wondering if "bummer" in this line is the correct bummer..)
-
cecilia wrote:
I'm very happy that i have not contributed to the world's population problem!
You could have one or two kids and not contributing to the world's population problem, in a certain sense :-)
-
Hm.. Somehow the first two lines of what what have I done to deserve this (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/WHAT-HAVE-I-DONE-TO-DESERVE-THIS-lyrics-Pet-Shop-Boys/D98B73B99C418FA7482568A2000D692D) suddenly pops up in my twisted mind..
Still, the title does seem more fitting.. What did Cecilia do to deserve this..
-
I'm very happy that i have not contributed to the world's population problem!
NO, NO, NO!!!!!
The population "problem" is all the hundreds of kids per religious whacko family, and teenage pregnancy smackhead chav scumbags.
The world needs children born of intelligent creative people like you Cecilia.
This is a direct order. GO MAKE BABIES NOW!!!
For the good of your planet. :-D
-
mdma wrote:
The population "problem" is all the hundreds of kids per religious whacko family, and teenage pregnancy smackhead chav scumbags.
The world needs children born of intelligent creative people like you Cecilia.
This is a direct order. GO MAKE BABIES NOW!!!
For the good of your planet. :-D
Unfortunately I think you are correct. What we need is for the creative intelligent people to rise up and make war upon the unwashed mouth-breathing masses. First we must take away their nice middle class life so that they are less of a burden on resources. Then we must ruin any medical system that may support their unhealthy backsides. Then we must destroy any programs that will help them live longer once they can no longer work. Things like Social Security must go.
However, that plan is already owned by someone else. Looks like we'll have to use the back-up plan : outbreed them then flatten them through force of arms. Any volunteers for the first stage?
-
Unfortunately procreation is the easiest thing in the world. It doesn't require specialist training or knowledge yet it's also the biggest responsibility in the world.
It's why our inner cities are crawling with kids who were born to parents who's motives weren't necessarily about the child's welfare.
It's sad when I see people who want to give a child a stable good home and want nothing more than to be a good parent unable to conceive, and even sadder when someone who I wouldn't trust with a dog is able to spit babies out like peas.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
cecilia wrote:
I'm very happy that i have not contributed to the world's population problem!
You could have one or two kids and not contributing to the world's population problem, in a certain sense :-)
wrong - watch (if you can) this video and see if you can understand (I know he's talking fast) the math. we need not just ZERO growth - we need NEGATIVE growth. if everyone had only ONE child, then maybe it would be possible for me. (past tense as I'm just too tired at this point to even consider kids).
people have to just STOP having kids. the end.
and it doesn't matter genetically if smart people have kids. we are so similar genetically we are really each others brother and sister. (all you perverts will love that!) :lol:
however, as i came from a family of truly intelligent and educated people, i have to say that, yes, better people are more likely to come from smart families. and by "better" i mean, productive, not distructive.
-
cecilia wrote:
(past tense as I'm just too tired at this point to even consider kids).
Well, that counts you out of plan B. Perhaps there is still hope that bloodline's research shall light the way to generating a mighty army of socks.
And being socks they will be able to sneak up on the enemy and noone will hear them coming. .. I mean approaching.
-
I'm not worried about overpopulation, the ceiling, which we'll someday hit, will solve it eventually. Plus, no matter how populated the planet gets, it can be corrected quickly.
In the meantime I think the things and ideas people leave behind before we hit that ceiling are worth it, both for us here and now and to the people who will be here when we hit that ceiling.
For those who are going to breed for a while yet, do a google search for "free land" and check out all the little small towns in America that will give you free land to build a house on, and free taxes for a while, just so they can work their way UP to zero population growth.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-08-land-cover_x.htm
-
see, the professor was right, people don't understand Exponentials.
-
cecilia wrote:
see, the professor was right, people don't understand Exponentials.
Only growth is exponential, not death. Death doesn't care how big your population is, it will completely die in 70+odd years.
Regardless of the population, it can be *0* in 70 years. There's no exponents involved in the death rate.
I don't know why people are so afraid of population growth, when it's probably the only factor that's completely under our control.
-
it can be managed down to not only zero population growth literally overninght, but zero *population* in 70odd years.
The final solution?
-
mdma wrote:
it can be managed down to not only zero population growth literally overninght, but zero *population* in 70odd years.
The final solution?
Damnit, I posted over that whole post, hit edit instead of reply.
-
T_Bone wrote:
mdma wrote:
it can be managed down to not only zero population growth literally overninght, but zero *population* in 70odd years.
The final solution?
Damnit, I posted over that whole post, hit edit instead of reply.
Learn the power of "Alt-Backspace" :-D
-
T_Bone wrote:
I'm not worried about overpopulation, the ceiling, which we'll someday hit, will solve it eventually. Plus, no matter how populated the planet gets, it can be corrected quickly.
It's the difference between leaping out of a high flying airplane with a bag of rocks or with a parachute. Either way you're gonna get to the ground.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
I'm not worried about overpopulation, the ceiling, which we'll someday hit, will solve it eventually. Plus, no matter how populated the planet gets, it can be corrected quickly.
It's the difference between leaping out of a high flying airplane with a bag of rocks or with a parachute. Either way you're gonna get to the ground.
How is it different? The correction (death) rate is a constant. Unless you're trying to figure out a way to make people die faster, overpopulation will take the same actions and ammount of time to solve, regardless of the population, weather it's 1 or infinity, the cycle stops around 70 years.
Unless you feel people won't listen to a decree limiting reproduction, but in that case, nothing would matter anyway and we're doomed to hit that ceiling regardless what we do and who in this thread gets to be king during that time.
-
T_Bone wrote:
It's the difference between leaping out of a high flying airplane with a bag of rocks or with a parachute. Either way you're gonna get to the ground.
How is it different? The correction (death) rate is a constant. Unless you're trying to figure out a way to make people die faster, overpopulation will take the same actions and ammount of time to solve, regardless of the population, weather it's 1 or infinity, the cycle stops around 70 years.
[/quote]
The diffenerce is in getting to 0 growth on our terms or on natures terms. Both jumpers always reach the ground but the one with the controlled descent has a better chance of survival.
There is a sustainable population level and then there is population that we can support on a short term basis. The further we overshoot the sustainable level the more precipitous will be the collapse.
That is, if we consume the resources at a non-sustainable rate now then the lack of resources is what will cause the deathrate to climb and population levels will fall to the level of the resource left which may be very small.
If we moderate the resource use now we will have more survivors when the crunch comes.
We can drive full bore at the wall or we can start braking now.
-
T_Bone wrote:
The correction (death) rate is a constant. Unless you're trying to figure out a way to make people die faster,
Abortion, euthenasia, encouragement of non-fertile relationships, etcetera, etcetera
:-P :-P :-P
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
The correction (death) rate is a constant. Unless you're trying to figure out a way to make people die faster,
Abortion, euthenasia, encouragement of non-fertile relationships, etcetera, etcetera
:-P :-P :-P
I take it all back, the left IS doing something for the worlds problems. :-P