Parasitic capitalists - a point to ponder.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

On the population explosion bullshit.

I will probably have to point this out at least a thousand times and then repeat myself.

The population explosion is over. Average global fertility is now 2.55, down from 5.5 about 50 years ago. The population continues to grow due to the increase in life span rather than any great birth rate. Most western nations have fertility less than 2.2, which is replacement rate. The United nations monitors these changes, and know that fertility continues to drop. Their projections run to global average fertility of 2.0 by 2050, which is well below replacement rate. Increasing life span will allow population growth a little beyond that, but it will peak out at about 10 billion (plus or minus the error factor) by 2100, after which the population will be in decline.

So each and every one of you posters who predict disaster based on increasing population are talking bullshit.

Firstly, the problem would be solved only when the total population actually starts decreasing, until then there is always the risk we will hit the maximum we can feed before it's peak.

Secondly, making a 'projection' for global population trends when breeding habits vary so much across different counties and cultures is just riddled with potential errors. For example even if most people are breeding at below the replacement rate, it only takes a few to be breeding way above it (and to be culturally passing their breeding habits on to most of their offspring) for the whole downward trend to start to reverse itself.

[Blind groper]

Of course, make the error factor large enough, and you will always be correct.

Just to clarify that point.

The United Nations projection is a global population in the year 2100 of between 6 billion and 16 billion, with a maximum probability near 10 billion. After which, numbers will decline.

[Atheist-Lite]

Of course, make the error factor large enough, and you will always be correct.

Just to clarify that point.

The United Nations projection is a global population in the year 2100 of between 6 billion and 16 billion, with a maximum probability near 10 billion. After which, numbers will decline.

Nothing like a five year plan to deal with the uncertainty of nature.

[PsychoSerenity]

Resource scarcity isn't an issue. We produce enough food to feed the world, yet a billion people are going hungry.

Food isn't the only resource. Once others run low enough, we won't have the means to grow enough food either. Where, for example, do you think most fertiliser comes from? And what does it take to get the food from field to market?

Sure, the ultimate resource is energy. But as has already been said, energy is almost unlimited at levels far beyond what we use today, with technology that needs little more than implementation. The problem is that those in power have huge investments in keeping that power, by keeping a stranglehold on energy production, claiming "ownership" of oil reserves and intellectual property on any new technology, and making as much profit from it as they can.

And even though "Food isn't the only resource" that is no argument to suggest that resource scarcity is the problem, when we produce enough food to feed the world, yet a billion people are going hungry.

[Clinton Huxley]

Of course, make the error factor large enough, and you will always be correct.

Just to clarify that point.

The United Nations projection is a global population in the year 2100 of between 6 billion and 16 billion, with a maximum probability near 10 billion. After which, numbers will decline.

By this time next year, I predict that I will weigh somewhere between 6 stone and 16 stone with a probability near 10 stone.

[JimC]

This is kind of the argument David Deutsch makes in his latest book. He is an optimist - humans are good at causing problems but they are also good at solving them. He's kind of the Anti-Crumple.

He must never be allowed physical contact with Crumple, then, or we could have a vast explosion!

[Clinton Huxley]

This is kind of the argument David Deutsch makes in his latest book. He is an optimist - humans are good at causing problems but they are also good at solving them. He's kind of the Anti-Crumple.

He must never be allowed physical contact with Crumple, then, or we could have a vast explosion!

And from the miniscule imbalance between Crumple and Anti-Crumple, a new universe will be born...

[Blind groper]

By this time next year, I predict that I will weigh somewhere between 6 stone and 16 stone with a probability near 10 stone.

I am pleased to see you have a good grasp of probabilities as regards predictions.

[Clinton Huxley]

By this time next year, I predict that I will weigh somewhere between 6 stone and 16 stone with a probability near 10 stone.

I am pleased to see you have a good grasp of probabilities as regards predictions.

I'm pleasesd to see you have such faith in very long term predictions with massive error bars.

[JimC]

This is kind of the argument David Deutsch makes in his latest book. He is an optimist - humans are good at causing problems but they are also good at solving them. He's kind of the Anti-Crumple.

He must never be allowed physical contact with Crumple, then, or we could have a vast explosion!

And from the miniscule imbalance between Crumple and Anti-Crumple, a new universe will be born...

And this time, it will be Anti-Crumple!

[Clinton Huxley]

I guess the Anti-Crumple would be Dr Pangloss....

[JimC]

I guess the Anti-Crumple would be Dr Pangloss....

"All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds..."

Yep, would definitely explode on contact with Crumple...

[Svartalf]

I guess the Anti-Crumple would be Dr Pangloss....

go back to your gardening and stop making people nauseous.

[JimC]

I guess the Anti-Crumple would be Dr Pangloss....

go back to your gardening and stop making people nauseous.

Camus?

Sartre?

[Clinton Huxley]

I guess the Anti-Crumple would be Dr Pangloss....

go back to your gardening and stop making people nauseous.

Camus?

Sartre?

The end of Candide, I think.