tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post3967045337104321922..comments2023-12-17T13:05:30.543-08:00Comments on Brane Space: Overpopulation a Myth? Think again!Copernicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-63405064767610868192010-01-27T12:40:45.604-08:002010-01-27T12:40:45.604-08:00Caleb Shay wrote:
"The best way to do what y...Caleb Shay wrote:<br /><br />"The best way to do what you asked him is just to stop wasting food! Current studies show the U.S. alone wastes as much as 40% of the groceries purchased each year"<br /><br />This is actually spot on, especially in light of an article 'Plenty of Guilt and a Very Heavy Footprint'- appearing in today's Financial Times (Business & Food Sustainability Section)<br /><br />The author, Fiona Harvey, notes that in the UK alone some 8.5 million tonnes of food is wasted each year. A third of the food the average British household buys is tossed away, uneaten. This level of waste, she attests "costs households several billion pounds a year"<br /><br />The U.S. isn't far behind, as you point out wasting 40% of its food, at a cost of nearly $1 billion dollars a year. In the UK, she notes, the wasted food adds up to a full third of that nation's carbon footprint a year. A third! Thus, just the simple act of eliminating food wastage could also attend to the problem of excess CO2 driving global warming.<br /><br />She also adds "the full impact of our diet on climate change is astonishingly high" and that the very (industrial farming, genetic engineering processes) that make for cheap and abundant food ALSO contribute to its inreasing wastage.<br /><br />From this well-researched article in which she cites numerous sources (The Food Climate Research Network), it is self-evident that increasing efficiency in food production is not going to help us one iota support a larger population, if people keep their wasteful habits. <br /><br />Companies, capitalist grocery marts also need to help in this by ceasing their "By 2 and get 3 free" offers, so people buy more food than they can actually use at once. But of course, this would impact on the precious capitalist models for inventory disposal and re-supply. <br /><br />Restaurants for their part, need to thin down their portion sizes. Also, find a way to give that extra unused food away - maybe to the homeless (of which there will be billions more as the planet inches toward 10 billion)Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-18198864307390250012010-01-27T09:53:05.788-08:002010-01-27T09:53:05.788-08:00copernicus wrote:
"DON'T just give me a...copernicus wrote: <br /><br />"DON'T just give me another example that can putatively increase the population, while omitting examples that can dampen the growing population's ill effects. Also, the examples given must be in synch with the energy sources and availablility we're likely to have up to 2050"<br /><br />Can I give a reply for this clay character? (Not that I'm in any way for increasing human population to the point he and that Young woman want).<br /><br />The best way to do what you asked him is just to stop wasting food! Current studies show the U.S. alone wastes as much as 40% of the groceries purchased each year. If that 40% were distributed (or sold for much less) to those who need it, at least 20 million tons less of carbon dioxide a year might be achieved.<br /><br />If not all the food or other garbage waste can be easily used up, then anaerobic digesters - which they already have in Germany- can be used to convert the mixture of waste to methane, which can then be used for energy. <br /><br />The problem is the energy from methane is not as dense as that afforded by oil so that vast volumes would be required and a good distribution system. I can't see it supplying more than another 1 billion people. So your fusion idea for energy remains the best, copernicus. Trouble is most estimates I've seen show it won't come on stream before 2400 if by then. Too late to address water scarcity or other problems.Caleb Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971916422910289078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-28885562443423893442010-01-26T09:24:21.748-08:002010-01-26T09:24:21.748-08:00clay wrote:
"If you stick with the 200 year t...clay wrote:<br />"If you stick with the 200 year time frame, GERM THEORY was pretty huge. If you stick within the last hundred years, reliable vaccines are pretty fuckin' cool. Antibiotics, managing chelesterol, and various surgical advances are also neat"<br /><br />Too true, but again, all these examples promote the INCREASE in human population, they do not show HOW a presumed finding can SUPPORT a much larger population.<br /><br />Now, before you reply again, I want you to provide me ONE single advance that can control the CO2 emitted by a much larger population. This alone will show me you're serious here, and not a drive-by dilettante. <br /><br />DON'T just give me another example that can putatively increase the population, while omitting examples that can dampen the growing population's ill effects. Also, the examples given must be in synch with the energy sources and availablility we're likely to have up to 2050. Not some pie in the sky entity or source not even remotely on the horizon. (Also bearing in mind Peak Oil will likely occur within the next 10 years if it hasn't already) <br /><br />Vaccines, antibiotics, gene therapy....all these have the potential to increase life span and thereby population. What I need are examples of advances that can *support* a growing population- without deleteriously affecting the quality of life for all. (Think analogous to airline de-regulation here, and how MORE people got to fly after it, but with much less quality - e.g. being packed in like sardines, and now...not even a hot meal!)<br /><br />If you reply that there is no validity to greenhouse warming etc. so we need not worry over it, your comment WILL be rejected. I am telling you that in advance. Irrespective of the email hacking, the scientific evidence remains valid.<br /><br />Greenhouse gas warming, especially in the runaway effect- remains the biggest potential drain on water supplies, as well as energy use - and must be addressed if people are going to bloviate (another of my favorite words, eh) on the Earth supporting 10 billion people. <br /><br />People who won't or don't address this issue, are therefore not serious - and merit no space in any comment domains on this blog. Forewarned and all that.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-11555756588601286072010-01-26T08:44:52.043-08:002010-01-26T08:44:52.043-08:00clay opined:
"Gene therapy has the potentia...clay opined:<br /><br /><br />"Gene therapy has the potential to absolutely revolutionize medicine."<br /><br />Sure it does, in the wrong way! By extending life spans and ADDING to the existing population increase from births. Without the energy - say from fusion - to accompany those increases, humanity is looking at its own end, and we won't even get into the enormous amounts of CO2 produced by each human- making population increase a prime contributor to global warming.<br />--<br /><br />"And, BTW, those useless physicists are trying to create methods for clean energy,"<br /><br />I already noted the only plausible energy source - fusion- which could support a population on the scale of ten billion. I also noted it was implausible that it will ever come onstream, certainly before about 2100 or later. We simply lack the insights and resources to increase those magnetic containment times to make it practical.<br />----<br /><br /><br /> "while astronomers are planning for our first steps off this planet"<br /><br />Astronomers are planning NO such thing. Most astronomers I know are painfully aware that- given the dwindling economic capital of this country the chances of further manned space flight - say to the other planets are slim and none. Hell, a recent panel (enjoined by the Obama admin.))even put the kibosh on a ginned up NASA plan to return to the Moon by 2020. The panel also included the recommendation to allow the existing space station to crash to Earth (under the influence of a naturally decaying orbit) by 2016. NONE of these steps comports with your fantasy ideations - which I presume includes putting the surplus humans on other worlds. Totally daft and devoid of realism - like your other pie in the sky projections for gene therapy or DNA.<br /><br />Most astronomers I know just want the UNMANNED missions, by robot craft, to continue to Mars, Saturn etc. They understand that this is the best payoff that can be made with the resources at hand.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-44239888228773012272010-01-26T08:43:32.407-08:002010-01-26T08:43:32.407-08:00clay wrote:
"As is food. just because someth...clay wrote:<br /><br />"As is food. just because something is a necessity doesn't mean it can't be provided by the market"<br /><br />But the market is ALL about profit. Markets, none I know of, opoerate out of charity - and as profit margins decline with diminished resources this becomes more difficult. The problem is that MOST of the increased population will not have jobs (a convenient fact the lady...and you overlook) and won't be able to afford even dog or cat food. Markets themselves are no longer "free" - contrary to their fundamentalist purveyors - but rather controlled by demand. Mega corporations finagle and finesse them any way they want.<br /><br />--<br />"Are you saying there hasn't been an enormous increase in efficiency since the 1700s? "<br /><br />NO! I am saying that what efficiencies we have seen have barely been integrated into industrial processes to keep up with the existing poplation needs, jobs and supports - far less a population of 10 billion. Get any of the papers by Univ. of Maryland eco-economist Herman Daly who shows that GDP is largely a fictitios measure, and as resources are depleted the total stock of natural wealth goes down, and artificial wealth (which inputs to industrial processes) with it<br />--<br /><br />"Seriously? Because people use a technology for silly purposes, you deny its impact?"<br /><br />Nope. But the impact is not such that it will make the difference needed, in the time needed, to support a burgeoning population of the scale that this woman declares.<br />The fact is that currently the resources of the net are used for frivolous purposes. Knowing human nature as I think I do (having taught for so many years) I believe I can safely say this won't change anytime soon. Read 'The Dumbest Generation'<br />--<br /><br />"You're seriously saying that, since the 18th century, there've been little scientific discoveries improving the carrying capacity of the earth? "<br /><br />That's right. You finally correctly interpreted one thing (btw, I rejected your other comment because it was too off kilter and misconstrued too many points I made). I'd say I don't see even two things that can improve the carrying capacity to the EXTENT THIS LADY WANTS! And that is, about ten billion.<br /><br />Borlaug's discoveries perhaps got us up to supporting about 6.9 billion, which cusp or threshold we are at now. DNA advances - if they can actually translate into more crop yields - may get us to 8 billion but I doubt it. Not the way the multinationals like Monsanto are running the show, with 1 year cycles on seeds, and no inclination to stop it - again because of the profit demand. <br /><br />An advance in physics (nuclear) to enable nuclear fusion to be the prime energy source would probably get us close to ten billion - but as any one who's ever done fusion or plasma physics knows, the indicators are not looking good and certainly with magnetic field containment times of barely 1 second nowhere near what will be needed for energy delivered - by 2050. And that includes for de-salination plants.<br />---<br />cont'dCopernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-64816168498893066962010-01-24T16:43:42.658-08:002010-01-24T16:43:42.658-08:00>Market “solutions” are absurd on their face si...>Market “solutions” are absurd on their face since water is an absolute life necessity – not a commercial commodity<br /><br />As is food. just because something is a necessity doesn't mean it can't be provided by the market. As an aside, I'd add that the system we have in the US (that's all I know about, so that's all I'm saying) is closer to a market system than you might think, since water is usually controlled at the municipal or county level.<br />>the “productivity explosion” is largely bogus… [statistics about companies laying workers off]<br /><br />Are you saying there hasn't been an enormous increase in efficiency since the 1700s? I find that very hard to believe.<br />>The “communication explosion” can also be severely questioned, given how much electronic communication is pure piffle and junk… [cats]<br /><br />Seriously? Because people use a technology for silly purposes, you deny its impact?<br />>The “science explosion” is also questionable, especially as it pertains to the ability to deal specifically with problems attendant on much larger populations. For example, most of this explosion has been in the fields of physics and astronomy…<br /><br />You're seriously saying that, since the 18th century, there've been little scientific discoveries improving the carrying capacity of the earth? You've clearly misinterpreted something, especially since the examples you listed were all from the 20th or 21st century. Even then, you're wrong. You don't think the discovery of DNA has any impact on population? Gene therapy has the potential to absolutely revolutionize medicine.<br /><br />And, BTW, those useless physicists are trying to create methods for clean energy, while astronomers are planning for our first steps off this planet.<br />>The “medical explosion” is also arguably spurious since it is unbalanced. Nearly all medical costs are consumed in the last year of life, and the most costly procedures are used to try to extend it using highly specialized devices, techniques. <br /><br />That's true, but there have been remarkable advances elsewhere. If you stick with the 200 year time frame, GERM THEORY was pretty huge. If you stick within the last hundred years, reliable vaccines are pretty fuckin' cool. Antibiotics, managing chelesterol, and various surgical advances are also neat.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311747414466204406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-16605765079764971682010-01-15T08:05:40.994-08:002010-01-15T08:05:40.994-08:00Okay, copernicus, I'll lay off the old fart......Okay, copernicus, I'll lay off the old fart....for now. Maybe he isn't as dense as I believe but he sure doesn't know anything about debating logically. Hope you get that piece up about truth claims soon. Btw, he has a new blog piece up defending Robertson, claims he was taken "out of context"! I mean, c'mon copernicus, it's on videos all over the web ....and he can't find 'em! <br /><br />You still believe this guy is sharp? I know he's your brudda, but jeez....any moron can find that Robertson clip and hear directly what he said and it wasn't out of context!Caleb Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971916422910289078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-912180873000420802010-01-15T07:32:38.991-08:002010-01-15T07:32:38.991-08:00Caleb Shay wrote:
"She's almost as balm...Caleb Shay wrote: <br /><br />"She's almost as balmy as Pastor Mike, your brudda- but not quite. He takes the cake. I really think he's suffering from early Alzhemier's!"<br /><br />No, I think that's unfair. I don't believe that my brother has any remote phase of "Alzheimers" - which is (as you know) a serious disease and which term ought not be tossed around lightly.<br /><br />Mike neither has that nor a low IQ, he's simply totally and emotionally invested in his belief system- which means that the possibilities for truly logical exchange are limited. This is because his emotional logic will always differ from ours.<br /><br />That was why I "conceded" impasse in our last exchange on God- which actually isn't the most accurate word to have used, since it wasn't a concession to MIKE (or the rectitude of his arguments) but a concession that our exchange was at a logical impasse. Two different things. I think the problem is the English language doesn't allow for adequate nuance and variation.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-39799016339828609152010-01-15T06:55:03.923-08:002010-01-15T06:55:03.923-08:00Pete Murphy wrote: "If you‘re interested in l...Pete Murphy wrote: "If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com. "<br /><br />Thanks! I will check it out. You are spot on correct about economics which has always maintained a 'pie in the sky', falsely optimistic, 'conquer anything' outlook - despite the fact their whole constellation of spurious claims is held up only by some dubious statistics. (I seem to vaguely recall one of them trying to use the "Pareto distribution" some years ago to try and show there is no genuine inequality)<br /><br />At root of much of their nonsense - and which enables them to inhabit their outlandish, unreal world- is their consistent failure (in their so-called models) to factor in the costs of the externalities- like rain forests, potable water, rare flora -fauna that may have benefit for humans,etc.<br /><br />Thus, when most of a rain forest is cut down - as in Brazil- this isn't factored into the cost of controlling CO2 (which the rain forests had acted as a repository for).<br /><br />Worse, in the U.S.A. they hold up much more optimistic GDP and growth numbers than the situation warrants. For example, all GDP numbers and growth really need to be reduced by the size of outstanding liabilities - the main one now being the cost of infrastructure repair (estimated to be nearly $1.7 trillion just to bring it back to 1980 levels - no true modernization included)<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment!Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-29853760931256168432010-01-14T15:38:32.529-08:002010-01-14T15:38:32.529-08:00Damn! What a great article! I also saw this woman&...Damn! What a great article! I also saw this woman's piece in Salon. What a moron! What does she have for brains, swiss cheese? She's almost as balmy as Pastor Mike, your brudda- but not quite. He takes the cake. I really think he's suffering from early Alzhemier's!<br /><br />The points about water being a limiting factor are good ones but would probably sail over that bimbo's head. (Like my firm logical arguments on god sail over pastor Mike's)<br /><br />Personally, I am glad to see you ripped her. Over population is a very serious problem and humans are fools if they think they can surmount it by just sticking more people in Siberia or the Sahara, and calling themselves 'divine'.<br /><br />Also, this moron doesn't even consider all the JOBS: J-O-B-S! Where are they going to come from? Does she think they will just pop out of the blue? Companies everywhere are cutting back workers, not hiring them. More skilled tasks are also being done by machine! Where I live they even have automated checkout lines at the grocery with NO humans!<br /><br />This woman is a moron and ought to stick to easier topics like maybe how to nurse a baby or knitting!Caleb Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971916422910289078noreply@blogger.com