DABANSHEE
<<<< we all will have to stop expecting so much out of life, plus things have to be made more efficient & we have to start thinking more in the long term. >>>>
I don't see any thing here that would cause me to stop expecting so much out of life. Now if you mean that Californians should stop taking electricity for granted then maybe I could see that.
In the next few paragraphs I think you are saying that the laws of ecconomics apply. People in 3rd world countries will have less children when ecconomics incentives are there to cause that to happen. How would have that happen?
<<<< But there has to be more equity on the planet, otherwise the 3rd world will just want what we have & imagine what the consumption, waste & polution levels would be on the planet if that happened. Already India & China are currently in the process of overtaking the US as far polution is concerned >>>>
Why is it necessarily bad for them to learn to be like us? We have laws to prevent polution, they do not.
"Waste" is an interesting subject. Do you "waste" a coffee pot by throwing it away when it breaks and simply buy another one? Or, since like many people on this forum that are computer savy and presumed to be capable, they should be able to repair the coffee pot. Ecconomics comes into play, of course.
Public Transportation and trains in most cities (and especially in Europe) is subsidized, ie, paid for by taxes.
Remember, this thread was about Texas? Does that rancher in West Texas need subsidized public transportation? See what I mean? Everyone on this forum has a mind set that EVERYONE now lives in a crowed big city environment and wants the natural comforts of the wide open spaces. Interesting.
<<<< we all will have to stop expecting so much out of life, plus things have to be made more efficient & we have to start thinking more in the long term. >>>>
I don't see any thing here that would cause me to stop expecting so much out of life. Now if you mean that Californians should stop taking electricity for granted then maybe I could see that.
In the next few paragraphs I think you are saying that the laws of ecconomics apply. People in 3rd world countries will have less children when ecconomics incentives are there to cause that to happen. How would have that happen?
<<<< But there has to be more equity on the planet, otherwise the 3rd world will just want what we have & imagine what the consumption, waste & polution levels would be on the planet if that happened. Already India & China are currently in the process of overtaking the US as far polution is concerned >>>>
Why is it necessarily bad for them to learn to be like us? We have laws to prevent polution, they do not.
"Waste" is an interesting subject. Do you "waste" a coffee pot by throwing it away when it breaks and simply buy another one? Or, since like many people on this forum that are computer savy and presumed to be capable, they should be able to repair the coffee pot. Ecconomics comes into play, of course.
Public Transportation and trains in most cities (and especially in Europe) is subsidized, ie, paid for by taxes.
Remember, this thread was about Texas? Does that rancher in West Texas need subsidized public transportation? See what I mean? Everyone on this forum has a mind set that EVERYONE now lives in a crowed big city environment and wants the natural comforts of the wide open spaces. Interesting.
God damn whistle blowing hippie bastards. Unless someone uses a dday device, the human race isnt going anywhere soon.
What makes everyone think theres too many people? Population is always self regulating. Just like everyone said already, when we stop being able to feed everyone, people will die down to a manageable level that we CAN feed.
This might be an unpopular point of view, but who gives a rats ass about endangered species? Did all the other evolutionarily superior animals give pity to the animals they were extinguishing from the planet?
Humans are not out of control. There may come a point where there are not enough resources to keep up a population of above 100 billion, but the population will just level out at that point.
What makes everyone think theres too many people? Population is always self regulating. Just like everyone said already, when we stop being able to feed everyone, people will die down to a manageable level that we CAN feed.
This might be an unpopular point of view, but who gives a rats ass about endangered species? Did all the other evolutionarily superior animals give pity to the animals they were extinguishing from the planet?
Humans are not out of control. There may come a point where there are not enough resources to keep up a population of above 100 billion, but the population will just level out at that point.
hey hey, the point isn't whether we become extinct or not.. don't twist it, we're like cocroaches
Its about quality of life. I doubt thats only a hippy view
Its about quality of life. I doubt thats only a hippy viewBigDee,
No actually the other superior animals (i.e. those animals at the top of the food chain) seem to have become extinct
If we didn't take proactive measures to reduce ozone depletion, the phytoplankton in the oceans - those tiny few-celled organisms that you can't see with the naked eye - would have been killed off by UV rays and caused the entire food chain to collapse.
Don't think for once that life in general is a stable thing. But I'm off on a tangent here. The reason we're alarming the warning bells about overpopulation is because we, as humans, think we're intelligent enough to proactively avoid such harm for the entire species. You can be intelligent about it, take things cautiously and avoid conflict, or you can completely disregard all the things that have made us humans determine that we are intelligent beings, and run into conflict. I'd prefer to stay on the side of caution.
-GL
No actually the other superior animals (i.e. those animals at the top of the food chain) seem to have become extinct
If we didn't take proactive measures to reduce ozone depletion, the phytoplankton in the oceans - those tiny few-celled organisms that you can't see with the naked eye - would have been killed off by UV rays and caused the entire food chain to collapse.
Don't think for once that life in general is a stable thing. But I'm off on a tangent here. The reason we're alarming the warning bells about overpopulation is because we, as humans, think we're intelligent enough to proactively avoid such harm for the entire species. You can be intelligent about it, take things cautiously and avoid conflict, or you can completely disregard all the things that have made us humans determine that we are intelligent beings, and run into conflict. I'd prefer to stay on the side of caution.
-GL
Debanshee,
Just noticed your reply to my bit on replacement rate From what i've read, population in developed countries is actually dropping, we're only growing due to immigration
Just noticed your reply to my bit on replacement rate
From what i've read, population in developed countries is actually dropping, we're only growing due to immigrationOkay nick: (and other people)
of course it will be hard to predict future growth but this is based on a statistical model of natural growth (eg. bacteria in a petri dish). At the start, there is a very slow amount of growth but then it suddenly shoots up unit resources get scarce and then gradually slow down to a peak and drop of to a steady, cyclical rate. Granted human growth is a bit more complicated that that but not by much. Its just that some people have a look at population graphs and see unlimited exponential growth and start shouting gloom and doom and some still like to use linear projections and assure us that everything is OK.
So far, The UN(I think) has published 3 projections on population based on high growth, medium growth and low growth. The figures from memory for 2050 are 12bil, 9bil and 7 bil respectivly. Then the all drop down to arount 4-5bil at around 2070 (note I am not at all sure of this, anyone got a link?). This is assuming there is not large disturbance to the population (nuclear winter, Aids goes Airborne, AIDs vaccine not discovered etc..)
Oh, wait, try this link, not official but still useful.
Another key factor is time scales:
namly time scale of technology, time scale of human change and timescale of enviromental change.
technology is developed very fast (now) but is deployed very slowly (inet has been around for 40yrs but I doubt it will become ubiqutous for ages in 3rd world countries) Humans adapt to technology very slowly and westernisation of cultures wont have an effect for a while unless they have a 1 child policy like china ( as most country are going to be tending towards capatilism, this will be a very hard law to enforce). It will take a fair while for societys to change their patterns (especially if it is entrenched in their culture eg. children are a sign of virility and therefore "manliness"
also, the effects of our current activitys may not surface for hundreds of years (eg. ozone layer) so that even if we curtail our actions now, there is still going to a major cleanup effort underway for many years.
Also dont assume that western countries are climbing over themselves to "westernise" poor countries. for every dollar we give in aid, we get about 14 (I think) dollars back in loan repayments. And why did we lend them money in the first place? becuase a couple of saudis decided to jack up oil prices and suddenly dumped their profits in huge banks which needed a place to offload it all. Sound suprising, it shouldn't!
we were never "kind" or "sympathetic" to the poor countries, only desperate to offload some cash.
Also food is what is called a price inelastic good, that is, it does not change very much compared to other goods. While oil fluctuates wildly from $14 a barrle to $30, A loaf of bread migh jump from $2 a loaf to $2.10. Therefore there is not much incentive for food producers to modernise their equipment unless it will give them added effeciency.
we are "hung up on meat" since it is one of the single most drastic yet easy step we can take to increase food supplys.
just to reemphasize my point: If you eat 10% meat and you stop eating it, you can feed almost twice as many people, halving meat intake would lead to an extra 45% food. If you are going to eat meat, try to make it fish (which is technically not a meat) since it only need something like 4(?) kg of food per kg of flesh.
also: want and need are two completly different things, companies will provide what you want (short term satisfaction + enjoyment) not what you need (sustainable growth)
Oh, and populations are fairly self-regulating as long as they are passive towards their enviroment(bacteria in a petri dish) If however, they activly change the enviroment (the amount of water we move from 1 place to another can be noticed in the earths wobble(Scientific American Feb 2001) then self-regulation does not work.
my hands are tired
of course it will be hard to predict future growth but this is based on a statistical model of natural growth (eg. bacteria in a petri dish). At the start, there is a very slow amount of growth but then it suddenly shoots up unit resources get scarce and then gradually slow down to a peak and drop of to a steady, cyclical rate. Granted human growth is a bit more complicated that that but not by much. Its just that some people have a look at population graphs and see unlimited exponential growth and start shouting gloom and doom and some still like to use linear projections and assure us that everything is OK.
So far, The UN(I think) has published 3 projections on population based on high growth, medium growth and low growth. The figures from memory for 2050 are 12bil, 9bil and 7 bil respectivly. Then the all drop down to arount 4-5bil at around 2070 (note I am not at all sure of this, anyone got a link?). This is assuming there is not large disturbance to the population (nuclear winter, Aids goes Airborne, AIDs vaccine not discovered etc..)
Oh, wait, try this link, not official but still useful.
Another key factor is time scales:
namly time scale of technology, time scale of human change and timescale of enviromental change.
technology is developed very fast (now) but is deployed very slowly (inet has been around for 40yrs but I doubt it will become ubiqutous for ages in 3rd world countries) Humans adapt to technology very slowly and westernisation of cultures wont have an effect for a while unless they have a 1 child policy like china ( as most country are going to be tending towards capatilism, this will be a very hard law to enforce). It will take a fair while for societys to change their patterns (especially if it is entrenched in their culture eg. children are a sign of virility and therefore "manliness"
also, the effects of our current activitys may not surface for hundreds of years (eg. ozone layer) so that even if we curtail our actions now, there is still going to a major cleanup effort underway for many years.
Also dont assume that western countries are climbing over themselves to "westernise" poor countries. for every dollar we give in aid, we get about 14 (I think) dollars back in loan repayments. And why did we lend them money in the first place? becuase a couple of saudis decided to jack up oil prices and suddenly dumped their profits in huge banks which needed a place to offload it all. Sound suprising, it shouldn't!
we were never "kind" or "sympathetic" to the poor countries, only desperate to offload some cash.
Also food is what is called a price inelastic good, that is, it does not change very much compared to other goods. While oil fluctuates wildly from $14 a barrle to $30, A loaf of bread migh jump from $2 a loaf to $2.10. Therefore there is not much incentive for food producers to modernise their equipment unless it will give them added effeciency.
we are "hung up on meat" since it is one of the single most drastic yet easy step we can take to increase food supplys.
just to reemphasize my point: If you eat 10% meat and you stop eating it, you can feed almost twice as many people, halving meat intake would lead to an extra 45% food. If you are going to eat meat, try to make it fish (which is technically not a meat) since it only need something like 4(?) kg of food per kg of flesh.
also: want and need are two completly different things, companies will provide what you want (short term satisfaction + enjoyment) not what you need (sustainable growth)
Oh, and populations are fairly self-regulating as long as they are passive towards their enviroment(bacteria in a petri dish) If however, they activly change the enviroment (the amount of water we move from 1 place to another can be noticed in the earths wobble(Scientific American Feb 2001) then self-regulation does not work.
my hands are tired
There are lots of posts here about the population "leveling off itself". Do you know what this entails????
Lots of wars, famine, the haves versus the have nots on a very large scale.
You act like we'll all play duck duck goose and the losers will willingly go jump off of a cliff.
P.S. Take a look at a carrying capacity graph, populations do not "level off" until a very large drop occurs. Example, assume that 100 billion is the CC for planet Earth. Population will grow to 100-110 billion before a huge drop off will occur,like 30-50 billion. Imagine that many deaths!!!
Lots of wars, famine, the haves versus the have nots on a very large scale.
You act like we'll all play duck duck goose and the losers will willingly go jump off of a cliff.
P.S. Take a look at a carrying capacity graph, populations do not "level off" until a very large drop occurs. Example, assume that 100 billion is the CC for planet Earth. Population will grow to 100-110 billion before a huge drop off will occur,like 30-50 billion. Imagine that many deaths!!!
Imagine that many deaths!!
Yeah, like when the plague hit and there were reports of bodies being piled upon one another in cities because they ran out of room for burying them. Historians say that Constantinople was one of the places in the Roman Empire that literally stank from miles away because of all the dead bodies piled up in the city.
Shalmanese
your quote:
<<<< You missed one of my points. we are "hung up on meat" since it is one of the single most drastic yet easy step we can take to increase food supplys.
just to reemphasize my point: If you eat 10% meat and you stop eating it, you can feed almost twice as many people, halving meat intake would lead to an extra 45% food. If you are going to eat meat, try to make it fish (which is technically not a meat) since it only need something like 4(?) kg of food per kg of flesh. >>>>
My words:
<<<< Remember this thread originally was about Texas. It's a fact that a good chunk of Texas is only suitable for raising cattle. BTW these cattle do not require many suppliments or cattle feed. Later (90 days before processing) you CAN fatten them in a feed lot IF the price of grain is low AND you desire/require certain characteristics (tender steaks) or grades of beef. If you think beef is "bad" that's your business. For people in those rural areas of Texas, that's THEIR business. >>>>
Concentrate on the line that says "only suitable for raising cattle".
I suppose that these ranchers could raise rattlesnakes and mesquite trees.
Also one year the price of "beans" increased by 300% (these are soybeans for those of you from the coast). The price of wheat varies about as much as the price of oil. It's the processing cost of turning it into bread that doesn't vary much.
BTW If you don't know what mesquite trees are then please don't tell people from Texas how to run their business.
your quote:
<<<< You missed one of my points. we are "hung up on meat" since it is one of the single most drastic yet easy step we can take to increase food supplys.
just to reemphasize my point: If you eat 10% meat and you stop eating it, you can feed almost twice as many people, halving meat intake would lead to an extra 45% food. If you are going to eat meat, try to make it fish (which is technically not a meat) since it only need something like 4(?) kg of food per kg of flesh. >>>>
My words:
<<<< Remember this thread originally was about Texas. It's a fact that a good chunk of Texas is only suitable for raising cattle. BTW these cattle do not require many suppliments or cattle feed. Later (90 days before processing) you CAN fatten them in a feed lot IF the price of grain is low AND you desire/require certain characteristics (tender steaks) or grades of beef. If you think beef is "bad" that's your business. For people in those rural areas of Texas, that's THEIR business. >>>>
Concentrate on the line that says "only suitable for raising cattle".
I suppose that these ranchers could raise rattlesnakes and mesquite trees.
Also one year the price of "beans" increased by 300% (these are soybeans for those of you from the coast). The price of wheat varies about as much as the price of oil. It's the processing cost of turning it into bread that doesn't vary much.
BTW If you don't know what mesquite trees are then please don't tell people from Texas how to run their business.
is the price fluctuations a seasonal cost or an averaged long term cost.
if wheat fluctuated as much as oil gloabally then I think that alone would take care of population problems as one year of wheat prices doubling would kill at least 1 billion people (UN figures for people who are critically undernourished) who would have their nourishment cut drastically. It is only in the highly developed worlds that you see such fluctuations.
Maybe texas is only good for cattle but has anyone done a feasability study of irrigating part of texas? I do not know much about texas but if it is anything similar to "the outback" in australia then I can see your point. but how much of the world consumption of meat is coming from texas? there are certain areas which are only good for meat growing but there are still areas which are forced to grow meat due to world markets.
BTW: I am assuming that the plants in tx have a high celluose content which makes them inedible to humans but there are processes which can convert celluose into ethanol and thus a fuel. This might be an alternative.
if wheat fluctuated as much as oil gloabally then I think that alone would take care of population problems as one year of wheat prices doubling would kill at least 1 billion people (UN figures for people who are critically undernourished) who would have their nourishment cut drastically. It is only in the highly developed worlds that you see such fluctuations.
Maybe texas is only good for cattle but has anyone done a feasability study of irrigating part of texas? I do not know much about texas but if it is anything similar to "the outback" in australia then I can see your point. but how much of the world consumption of meat is coming from texas? there are certain areas which are only good for meat growing but there are still areas which are forced to grow meat due to world markets.
BTW: I am assuming that the plants in tx have a high celluose content which makes them inedible to humans but there are processes which can convert celluose into ethanol and thus a fuel. This might be an alternative.
Shalmanese
<<<< is the price fluctuations a seasonal cost or an averaged long term cost.
if wheat fluctuated as much as oil gloabally then I think that alone would take care of population problems >>>>>
Doesn't your newspaper have a section that lists the prices of commodities? If not then try the "Chicago Board of Trade" Wheat price have varied from roughly $2 to $5 per bushel over the past few years. The consumer doesn't really notice because that is less than 10% of the marketed cost of a loaf of bread. Which should lead you to a different conclusion: It's the delivery of the product to the consumer that costs money. Only technology can lower this cost.
<<<< as one year of wheat prices doubling would kill at least 1 billion people (UN figures for people who are critically undernourished) who would have their nourishment cut drastically. >>>>
see above. The USA and many developed countries can produce more wheat than consumers can eat. It's just a matter of cost and delivery.
<<<< It is only in the highly developed worlds that you see such fluctuations. >>>>>
If your undeveloped country has little technology then it would be excluded from the globel ecconomy. Local prices in Ethiopia probably aren't affected by the listings on the Chicago Board of Trade.
<<<< Maybe texas is only good for cattle but has anyone done a feasability study of irrigating part of texas? >>>>
Why don't you and a couple of wealthy friends go to Texas and give irrigation a try? Did you miss my earlier post about flying over Texas 1000 feet above the ground in a small plane and observing the population density? Oh, check for possible sights for landfills while you're at it. In your case I suggest you do that starting at the south end, then move 20 miles north and repeat the process until you have seen all of Texas. About 320 hours later you would probably have a different perspective about the subject matter of this whole thread. Did you miss my earlier post about it requiring as much as 100 acres to support 1 cow and a calf in some places?
BTW that means it could easily require 20 squire miles to support a single rancher living in a house trailer with a wood burning stove.
<<<< I do not know much about texas but if it is anything similar to "the outback" in australia then I can see your point. but how much of the world consumption of meat is coming from texas? >>>>
100 acres per cow for 1/2 of Texas. You do the math.
<<<< there are certain areas which are only good for meat growing but there are still areas which are forced to grow meat due to world markets. >>>>
I didn't know that world markets force people to grow beef. I thought world markets were free markets.
<<<< BTW: I am assuming that the plants in tx have a high celluose content which makes them inedible to humans but there are processes which can convert celluose into ethanol and thus a fuel. This might be an alternative. >>>>
Mesquite wood is also used for cooking meat. That is the only other use for it. What a paradox! BTW that high cellulose content stuff that the cattle eat is called prairie hay. There isn't much of a world market for it though. It cost 3 times its value to ship it 1000 miles. (just barely past the borders of Texas in case you forgot).
Final parting shot: The Texas rancher doen't tell Intel that they could save money if they would just produce their chipsets on a single chip instead of two. I wonder why?
-------------------------
<<<< is the price fluctuations a seasonal cost or an averaged long term cost.
if wheat fluctuated as much as oil gloabally then I think that alone would take care of population problems >>>>>
Doesn't your newspaper have a section that lists the prices of commodities? If not then try the "Chicago Board of Trade" Wheat price have varied from roughly $2 to $5 per bushel over the past few years. The consumer doesn't really notice because that is less than 10% of the marketed cost of a loaf of bread. Which should lead you to a different conclusion: It's the delivery of the product to the consumer that costs money. Only technology can lower this cost.
<<<< as one year of wheat prices doubling would kill at least 1 billion people (UN figures for people who are critically undernourished) who would have their nourishment cut drastically. >>>>
see above. The USA and many developed countries can produce more wheat than consumers can eat. It's just a matter of cost and delivery.
<<<< It is only in the highly developed worlds that you see such fluctuations. >>>>>
If your undeveloped country has little technology then it would be excluded from the globel ecconomy. Local prices in Ethiopia probably aren't affected by the listings on the Chicago Board of Trade.
<<<< Maybe texas is only good for cattle but has anyone done a feasability study of irrigating part of texas? >>>>
Why don't you and a couple of wealthy friends go to Texas and give irrigation a try? Did you miss my earlier post about flying over Texas 1000 feet above the ground in a small plane and observing the population density? Oh, check for possible sights for landfills while you're at it. In your case I suggest you do that starting at the south end, then move 20 miles north and repeat the process until you have seen all of Texas. About 320 hours later you would probably have a different perspective about the subject matter of this whole thread. Did you miss my earlier post about it requiring as much as 100 acres to support 1 cow and a calf in some places?
BTW that means it could easily require 20 squire miles to support a single rancher living in a house trailer with a wood burning stove.
<<<< I do not know much about texas but if it is anything similar to "the outback" in australia then I can see your point. but how much of the world consumption of meat is coming from texas? >>>>
100 acres per cow for 1/2 of Texas. You do the math.
<<<< there are certain areas which are only good for meat growing but there are still areas which are forced to grow meat due to world markets. >>>>
I didn't know that world markets force people to grow beef. I thought world markets were free markets.
<<<< BTW: I am assuming that the plants in tx have a high celluose content which makes them inedible to humans but there are processes which can convert celluose into ethanol and thus a fuel. This might be an alternative. >>>>
Mesquite wood is also used for cooking meat. That is the only other use for it. What a paradox! BTW that high cellulose content stuff that the cattle eat is called prairie hay. There isn't much of a world market for it though. It cost 3 times its value to ship it 1000 miles. (just barely past the borders of Texas in case you forgot).
Final parting shot: The Texas rancher doen't tell Intel that they could save money if they would just produce their chipsets on a single chip instead of two. I wonder why?
-------------------------
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter