Math fail. Growth at a small % is still exponential growth. And the more people there are, the greater the impact of even small rates of growth. (Exponential functions are like that, yo... ever hear about the power of compound interest? It's the same function here, only with people instead of dollars.) Let's use the growth rates from your article. In 1950: global population of 2.5 billion people Growth rate of 1.76% over ten years -- you add about 400 million people In 2010: global population of 6.8 billion people Growth rate of 0.77% over ten years -- a full percentage point lower -- you add 734 million people At any rate, serious questions... what are you trying to get at here? Are you trying to make yourself feel better? Gain information? Convince other people? State your opinion? Validate your opinion? I have no skin in this game... I just dislike when people spread blatant disinformation. And that article you posted is just that. When you post stuff like that, it really sounds more like you care about validating your opinion than about getting at the truth. If you were actually interested in what kind of resources it would take to support a population of, say, 12 billion people, there's plenty of information out there, and I'd be happy to point you toward some journal papers on the matter. But if you're just interested in finding the arguments that support what you want to believe, I'd rather you just let everyone know that up front, because I won't waste my time.
You're assuming his mom was a human woman and he was a human fetus. Maybe a mackerel fetus acts this way at 6 weeks.
True, a mackerel would have been 5 weeks past hatching and swimming around by then. Then again would she have been able to pick him out from the other 285,000+ eggs she laid.
Wow Lol, real mature guys. I guess I should expect the insults from Dierking after I annihilated him the last time he tried to chime in here. out of everything else I made points on in this discussion you have nothing else to grasp onto so have it it with the snide remarks, I don't give a shit. The term "exponential growth" as I understand means a growth becoming more and more rapid as time goes on. Obviously the total gains from .7 out of 6.8 b would be more than 1.7 out of 2.5 b. The rate of the growth is what's slowing down. Now is that incorrect and is the overall point made by the article incorrect or was the usage of the word "exponential" just technically wrong? What about the other points touched on by the article? I'm interested, are the projections on the population of Europe and Russia that they made wrong or not. My opinion is that the overpopulation argument is a false one. My opinion is also that even if overpopulation was true that using abortion as a solution is wrong and it would not fix the problem. Instead of just posting that with no substance, I posted an article from a research institute. To answer your question, I would say to validate my opinion. Why is this wrong, Isn't that what we do every time we support our opinions with research? From the wording of your post it sounds like you are just chastising me but if you have information that would shed better light on the subject then please share.
Let me chime in here and say I'm really proud of you guys for not turning this thread into some juvenile pissing contest on steroids. Its refreshing and shows a lot of class that y'all can disagree, debate the point and zing without getting vulgar and heated beyond reason. Kudos to you all! C
That is incorrect. Exponential growth is geometric/multiplicative. The absolute rate of growth depends on the value of the function... a 0.000005% rate of growth is still an exponential function. It's both. Trying to say it's not exponential is simply wrong. And trying to pooh-pooh it just because the growth rate is declining is dangerously wrong. It's still a growth rate. Until it reaches an unsustainable level. And then, populations typically crash. I suppose it could be even more accurate (although I'd need to look into it more) to say that we are experiencing logistic growth (as opposed to exponential), but that's not really any better. Because if we are reaching a carrying capacity due to limited resources, we are putting ourselves in danger of ecological collapse. As for the other points in that article, yes, they are wrong. They demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about transfer of biomass and thermodynamics. Relying on human ingenuity to overcome some of the more basic laws of physics to continue to supply a growing population by increasing food production is silly at best (dangerous at worst). The thing is, it's the food production leading the population growth, not the other way around. Regardless of whether "people are starving" somewhere in the world, the additional humans come from somewhere. Our biomass is not made of imaginary material. It comes from the biomass of the earth, which is (relatively) finite (for our purposes). And humans spend a lot of energy converting the biomass of everything else into biomass of or for humans. Before you go believing that everyone in America or on the planet can live in Texas, google "ecological footprint." Your first point is incorrect. Overpopulation is a real thing. The degree to which we are experiencing its effects are up for debate, but overpopulation is a real thing. Limited resources are a real thing. Conflicts over limited resources are a real thing. As to your second point, I, too, doubt that abortion fixes the problem. It certainly doesn't contribute to it, though. It's not wrong to try to validate your opinion, but how you do it matters. Let me ask you something... did you just go out and look for things that supported your opinion that overpopulation arguments are false? Because that's confirmation bias. Of course you'll find arguments in favor of that. Did you objectively inspect the arguments for their validity and soundness? Did you fact-check them? Did you try to poke holes in any of the arguments they made? Or did you just accept what they said because it sounded official, and hey, they agreed with what you wanted to hear? Dollars to donuts it's the latter. The proper way to "validate" your "opinion" is to try your damndest to disprove it. If your opinion is still standing when you're done, it's probably pretty solid. At that point, it's not so much an opinion, though. I got no problem with opinions. I think blue is a neat color. Probably my favorite. Although green is pretty cool, too. If you told me that red was the best color, I'd say good for you. If you told me that I was wrong for having blue as a favorite, I'd tell you to get lost. So if it's your opinion that abortion is wrong, go for it. That's my opinion, too, actually. But I don't try to convince other people that my opinion on the matter is the correct one. It's a complicated issue with many values factoring into it. And opinions are subjective. If you try to tell me that overpopulation doesn't exist, or that abortion should be illegal for everyone... well, that requires a more serious and well-thought out argument than anything you have presented here. Also, that "research institute" you posted the overpopulation article from is a joke. They don't do real research... they go looking for the answers they want. Surprise surprise! They tend to find them. Here's their mission, in their own words, copied from their website: They're not trying to do research... they're trying to promote an agenda.
They basically proved the 6 week fetus jumping around and flipping in circles thing wrong. You really need better sources. The sources you have given thus far have been atrocious. The green bar is exponential growth. Red is linear and blue is cubic. It's not just about the rate of growth, it's also about the total amount of people you have reproducing. More babies are being born now than a few hundred years ago. Now you tell me which line on the graph above this population chart represents. MS, you're going to hate me for this one but Population Research Institute, is a religious group with a pro life agenda. Let's take a look. From their main web page. From their wiki page: Yeah it's totally a legitimate research agency, I swear! Yeah, sorry. Clearly not a scientific research agency. Show me a peer reviewed scientific research paper that confirms their claims, THEN I'll consider them, but right now it's not looking so good. You might as well link us to the creationist museum or answersingenesis.com. But I'm just a nazi, what do I know? Scrutiny matters.
Thanks for the math refresher. That makes sense. So the growth is exponential but the growth rate is declining - correct? That PRI thing isn't run by Benedictine's, one of them founded it. Regardless, Benedictine monks are known for their belief of balancing religious studies with work. Many technological advances have been due to the work of Benedictine monks, they were huge contributors to the development of western civilization. It's kind of sad behavior to scoff at them. But you're right that I didn't diligently find the best sources or unbiased one. I did a search and tried to find something that seemed ok. This is an Internet forum, I don't have time to dedicate to a discussion on here like I would if I was writing a thesis lets just be real. And are you any better so far? You are just telling me overpopulation is occurring without presenting any evidence. I think the food production determining population inference is kind off off base because other things determine food production. However, the biomass - energy thing is an interesting topic, I was trying to read up on it and I found this paper: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...etween-population-growth-and-energy-resources They are saying the key factor to population capacity is energy production and that population spikes have been owed to energy advances. Basically, each type of energy can support a hypothetical maximum amount of people. The model estimates that we are at 97% of the ceiling for oil and 80% for natural gas noting that natural gas could support about one billion more people. Here is what they propose as future scenarios: "There are three general scenarios that the world’s energy future may take. Their effects on population will be radically different. They are: 1. Continued fossil fuel growth 2. Fossil fuel decline and no sufficient substitute 3. Fossil fuel decline and a new source of energy " Seems logical, I haven't read it all yet, just skimmed it cuz I don't have time right now but let me kno what you think. P.s. Barcs, I never said you are a Nazi, I said that the argument you made for population control was the exact one used by the Nazis - and that is correct.
Correct... but be careful about what inferences you draw from a "declining growth rate." I don't scoff at Benedictine monks in general. I do scoff at the idea that what they are attempting to do with that website is anything remotely scientific or research-based. Typically, the burden of proof is on the person making the more outlandish claims. If you are really interested in diving into whether or not "overpopulation is occurring" (I put that in quotes because I'm not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly), there are PLENTY of scientific papers for you to peruse at your leisure. I've already read many of them. If you're really interested in the topic, I'd be happy to go find some of them. But I've already done my research, and I am comfortable with the objectivity I have brought to it. The information is out there, if you want it. And you'll also do well to notice that I'm not telling you that overpopulation is definitely occurring. I'm simply disproving the evidence you have provided for your opinion. If you want my opinion on the matter, I could give it you, and I'd also give you a rock-solid argument supported with objective, peer-reviewed evidence behind it. Are you actually interested in my thoughts on the topic? You're missing the point. There cannot be a sustained increase in population without a corresponding sustained increase in food production. Can't happen. Physically impossible. You are what you eat. Literally. You can't support more people without more food. Those "new" people come from somewhere. And our population will outstrip those capacities very quickly (thanks to exponential growth, even if it's a declining exponential rate). Those are the three general scenarios, yes, although the outcomes really depend on the probabilities proscribed to them.
You know who else makes that argument? SCIENTISTS. That fact that you claimed I supported eugenic principles and even related my argument to the holocaust is absurdly wrong. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm An actual science based article that talking about the problem. This is assessed by real experts, not a religious organization that calls itself a research institute. Here's a youtube video that specifically debunks that "everybody can fit in Texas claim" and breaks down a lot of the numbers. It explains how technology has increased the numbers but it is still indeed limited. If the rest of the world was as developed and well off as the US, it would not be sustainable.
Cappy, yea I would like to read your thoughts on it, you sound like a smart person. And of course food production is a limiting factor, what I meant is I think there are more basic limiting factors that determine our food production capacities itself so we should look at those, that's how I ended up looking at energy sources. Dude, you just don't get it. Science isn't everything. It needs a moral compass. When you don't, you end up with shit like the Nazis. I'll watch your video and read your article but you definitely espoused eugenic principles when you you posted that babies shouldn't be allowed to be born to poor or dumb people and that people should get sterilized. I think you're the one that doesn't understand the spectrum of ideology that can be classified as eugenic. From Wikipedia: "Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia.... Early eugenists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class.... Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories. Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged,for example the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful.[49]... Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable".[49] This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[50] " .
I admit that I am not following the argument between MS, Barc and Cappy as good as I should. I skip certain sentences and posts etc. but above sentence is a wonderful sentence which I had to point out. Sorry for interrupting.
My thoughts on the matter of overpopulation are pretty simple. There is a limit to what this planet can sustainably support in terms of human life. I don't think there's a specific hard number that we can't cross or the world will implode or anything, and I do think technology can nudge that number upwards. But I also don't want to come anywhere near whatever that number can be, because I don't want to - or want my kids to - deal with any serious effects. Rarely do species reach a carrying capacity and sit nicely at that level. Ecosystems are dynamic. You stress them too much, and a species' numbers don't edge down; they crash. I'd rather not have that happen to humans. And the effects aren't always obvious. It's not necessarily that one day we won't be able to make enough food and everyone will starve. It's not that we'll have an apocalyptic world, necessarily. It's that it will be difficult to maintain current lifestyle expectations. So the problem is not that we will someday reach an overpopulated level and that we aren't there yet. The problem comes from the amount of resources required to live a certain kind of lifestyle. If everyone on the planet wanted the average American's lifestyle, it'd require more resources than those currently available on our planet by tenfold. So the same number of people as there were in the 1950's but all living with today's resource requirements would be a hell of a lot more impactful than another doubling of the population. As far as presenting evidence that overpopulation is a real thing... like I said, google ecological footprint. I don't need to reinvent the wheel here. You saw the chart of human population growth. Look at that curve. It doesn't really matter if the curve is bending ever so slightly down (i.e. the growth rate is declining). We are still adding a LOT of people every year. I can't tell you what overpopulation is. Like I said, it's not a specific number. I can tell you, though, that I'd rather adhere to the precautionary principle and not destroy things we can't get back (like biodiversity). The most basic limiting factor is biomass on this planet. Turning diverse biomass into human biomass or biomass that serves human interests is what has been happening for the past 10,000 years or so. You are correct that science needs a moral compass. But the science comes first, the compass comes after. A moral compass does not dictate what the facts actually are. Ideologies don't get to say which scientific conclusions are correct. And that's what I see far too often -- people trying to squeeze moral/ideological arguments into a scientific framework to justify a position. Case in point: If you think abortion is wrong, okay, great. Don't have one. If you think no one should have one, though, and then start bastardizing "scientific facts" to prove a moral/ideological argument, I find that annoying (to say the least). Science doesn't have a say in what people should or should not do. Science presents the facts. The scientific community can't tell you whether abortions should be legal, or whether a carbon tax is necessary, or whether forced sterilizations are a bad thing. It can tell you the facts about the viability of a typical fetus. It can tell you the impact of carbon on climate, and model systems that incorporate as is growth or a world with a global carbon tax. (granted, there is plenty of error inherent in all of those models.) It can tell you the projected impact of forced sterilizations. Long story short, keep your ideological arguments out of my science. And stop trying to dress up your ideological arguments as though they are based on science, because that's even sadder. (That's the royal "you.)
You tried to directly relate my argument to the holocaust. Just stop. Science is science. It is a valid method for gathering facts. Religion is completely separate and is faith based. Morality is important, but to suggest it even comes close to being as valid as science is or even belongs in the same boat of logic is asinine. In reference to the bold, I did not say that they shouldn't be allowed to be born. I said that currently you see more babies being born in poor communities than you do into middle class or upper class communities. You also see more babies being born in extremely religious communities as opposed to the more rational ones. This is bad for the human race as a whole, because religious extremists and the poor are both very bad environments for children to be raised in. I'll explain my position fully since I've only given you bits and pieces. I don't see everything as black or white. Circumstance is everything. I cannot say with confidence that abortion is right or that abortion is wrong in all situations. In regards to eugenics, I would much rather see human beings be responsible for themselves and limit the amount of children they have using birth control and intelligence. I'd rather not see them have abortions, but everybody needs to be responsible for their carbon footprint. When you have 5+ kids, it increases your carbon footprint three fold in a single generation. Then if your kids do the same, the increase becomes exponential, within just 50 years. The problem is that the poor often cannot afford birth control or are not educated enough to be aware of it, and the religious extremists preach against birth control and condoms, which is detrimental to the world as a whole. I can understand wanting to limit abortions, but to preach against condoms, despite STDs and teenage pregnancies running rampant. They try to pretend that abstinence is the only method when you are talking about TEENAGERS, who are driven almost completely by hormones and are rebellious in their nature. Sexual suppression is bad, and almost never works. I know this first hand. I was raised in a religious household and taught that premarital sex was bad. I believed it until I became a teenager. At that point I was going to a weekly youth group, where we did bible studies, charity work and prayer. Do you know what practically the entire group tried? Every guy there was all about trying to have sex with the girls that were there. Anytime we were left alone we tried to mack it. That's just the reality of teenagers, especially when they are told they aren't allowed to do something. They actively try their damnedest to do it. Now, if humans are not responsible enough to limit their own reproduction, then something does need to be implemented before we run out of resources. I mean, what else are you going to do? Whether that involves limiting children per household, or abortion in the first trimester for folks that can't afford another child, it is a necessary "evil" that will eventually have to be discussed on the higher levels. Right now we have war, famine, disease, starvation and many other factors that are greatly limiting the population, yet it is still increasing exponentially. If we ever solve some of these problems the rate will skyrocket and then we'll really be forced to take immediate action before half the world starves to death. Hitler and the nazis were about making the human race stronger by committing genocide on anybody who wasn't Aryan. It had nothing to do with science, they just believed that Aryans were superior despite having zero objective evidence of such. I'm not talking about the elimination of races, I'm talking about a way to help poverty, and starvation worldwide and combat the very real problem that we are running out of numerous resources that we depend on, and it's not just food. Not all eugenic principles are inherently bad and lead to genocide as you have tried to suggest. It's not as simple as supporting eugenics or not supporting it. Technically anybody that has ever used a condom as supported eugenics in some way.
you tried to have sex with chicks in bible study? Next thing you know someones going to be telling us about getting laid on the kibbutz.
My first time getting a hand job, and my first time smoking weed both happened at youth group on church grounds. I'm not saying they're all like this, but it's no surprise that degenerate kids often come from religious schools and that drug abuse issues in those types of high schools is usually pretty high. This is based on personal experience of course, but I used to know a lot of people from the local Catholic high school, when I was a teenager. There are TONS of sluts and drugs fiends in there. It's probably different in the deep south, but in general suppression leads to teenagers wanting to do it more. I think teens should be encouraged to explore their sexuality, but to do it safely.
I feel this may be the most appropriate thread to put this in: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/29/nh-man-loses-life-savings-on-carnival-game/
Collegehumor.com ended up buying the dreadlocked banana from the guy for the $2600 he lost plus gave him an X Box Kinect. Being the game operator had already given him $600 back the guy is up $600 and the X Box Kinect. Sometimes you have to wonder why dumb asses like this end up ahead of the game when they should have been aborted.
