"Arithmetic, Population, and Energy"

[PartridgeRun]

Some of you might already be familiar with Albert Bartlett.

Anyhoo, he is a physicist famous for his lectures on geometric growth. The lectures highlight the fact that most of us don't grasp the implications of the exponential function. This might be old news for some, but i thot I would supply a link to this fabulous interview anyway: http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=81739

a small excerpt:

When applied to material things, the term “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. (It is possible to have sustainable growth of non-material things such as inflation.) Perhaps this is why inflation rates are sustainable or as some politicians would say hopefully sustainable in moderate amounts. We have seen how major national and international reports misrepresent and downplay (marginalize) the quantitative importance of the arithmetic of population sizes and growth.

1. One has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in economic activity (growth) without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources? If so, under what conditions can this happen? Are we moving toward those conditions today?

2. What courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which, in doing so, would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs?

3. The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standards of living of the population are inversely related to one another. “This runs counter to most traditional entrepreneurial myths of sustainable growth and rising standards of living”

I come back to an Eric Sevareid quote: “The chief cause of problems is solutions.” That is so important. For example, as long as there’s population growth, urban planning is bound to make everything worse. Here’s why. Essentially all the problems planners must deal with are caused by population growth. And planners are trained to solve problems. For a planner, a problem is anything that inhibits population growth. So when you solve the problem you are encouraging more population growth, and this makes everything worse.

[Michael]

Argentinian Couple Shoot Kids, Kill Themselves Over Global Warming

wink, wink, nudge, nudge

[Dmitri]

Some of you might already be familiar with Albert Bartlett.

Yeah, videos of his lecture have been posted before:

Argentinian Couple Shoot Kids, Kill Themselves Over Global Warming

wink, wink, nudge, nudge

Darwin Awards... the terribly sad kind.

But seriously dude, wink-wink? People kill themselves for all sorts or idiotic reasons. I remember there was a case (in France I think?) years ago when a teenager jumped off of a tall building (and died) because his mother would refuse his pleas to perform plastic surgery to look like Michael Jackson.

[Steve James]

Thanks Dmitri.
Imo, the basic premise is true: resources can only increase arithmetically, but consumption grows arithmetically. It's also true that decreases in population solves that problem. I.e., if we get rid of people, there'll be more food. The real question is whether or to what degree human planning has either caused this or can affect the inevitable mathematical outcome. Well, humans reproduce like all living things. That's not going to change. But, with higher population always come higher disease rates ... and better medicines follow because we don't like it when our kids die. So, are we talking about a vicious circle or a natural cycle? Don't other primates and mammals eat what's good for them? Anyway, it seems that it's the human brain that both sides seem to agree has caused the problem.

[Michael]

But seriously dude, wink-wink? People kill themselves for all sorts or idiotic reasons. I remember there was a case (in France I think?) years ago when a teenager jumped off of a tall building (and died) because his mother would refuse his pleas to perform plastic surgery to look like Michael Jackson.

You said it right there. Why would someone want to look like Michael Jackson? Advertising is effective. I think those who advertise should stand behind their own product, in this case depopulation. Certainly the obvious first step towards a solution, according to the advertisers, would relieve the shameful burden of the their own continued hypocrisy of respiration, C02 being a poisonous gas and all.

[Steve James]

Why would someone want to look like Michael Jackson? Advertising is effective.

Dig a bit deeper, mate. It's true, though. Advertising is effective; that's why Michael wanted to look like ... er, the way he did. OTOH, are all the people who want to look the way Michael wanted to look the victims of advertising?

[Dmitri]

the obvious first step towards a solution

Oh come on man... this one is SO statistically insubstantial, it's not even funny.
Unless, that is, you are expecting an emerging trend of mass suicides based on these same reasons...

[Bär]

Y2K

[Dmitri]

Y2K

You know, I actually looked at the generator prices when I was at a hardware store that fateful December. I did come to my senses shortly thereafter though (took about 10-15 minutes), and laughed at myself and sighed... But I still can't believe they made me even look, dammit. I'm a software developer for crying out loud; I should have known better (than many others) just how horribly disastrous the potential consequences of that problem could have possibly been.

People were buying all sorts of stuff those days... It's downright fucking scary how much influence "mob mentality" has over people's behavior.

[Bär]

Math is hard. Let's go shopping!

[Michael]

the obvious first step towards a solution

Oh come on man... this one is SO statistically insubstantial, it's not even funny.
Unless, that is, you are expecting an emerging trend of mass suicides based on these same reasons...

Apparently satire is a lost art

I'm certainly not expecting a trend of mass suicides, and of course in all honesty wouldn't want to see a single step in that direction, but the advertisers do. Bill Gates recently gave a lecture on the topic where he stated that (4:50 in the video) "The world's population is about 6.8 billion headed up to 9 billion...if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare/reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent."

One of my questions to Gates is how would vaccines reduce the world's population by billions? Considering the millions he's donated to Planned Parenthood, his father being on the board of Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood's history as a eugenics organization that is currently aborting a hugely disproportionate number of black babies in the USA according to what some believe and have clearly shown to be a eugenics/racist agenda, and the places where his efforts at mass vaccination are currently in effect, it's pretty obvious which group of people will be the first to help solve his overpopulation problems according to the formula below.

Gates also advertises a simple algebraic formula (4:01 in the video)* for saving the world that obviously requires a massive reduction in population, in fact down to "near 0" or "...something that has to get to zero..." according to the equation he presented.

*C02 = P x S x E x C
P is people
S is services (consumption)
E is energy
C is C02 created per unit of energy

According to Gates, this equation needs to solve to 0, so how is that going to happen when people themselves create C02 even without the use of fossil fuels since we exhale it? There's only one way that can happen and you don't really have to know algebra to figure it out.

[Chris Fleming]

But seriously dude, wink-wink? People kill themselves for all sorts or idiotic reasons. I remember there was a case (in France I think?) years ago when a teenager jumped off of a tall building (and died) because his mother would refuse his pleas to perform plastic surgery to look like Michael Jackson.

You said it right there. Why would someone want to look like Michael Jackson? Advertising is effective. I think those who advertise should stand behind their own product, in this case depopulation. Certainly the obvious first step towards a solution, according to the advertisers, would relieve the shameful burden of the their own continued hypocrisy of respiration, C02 being a poisonous gas and all.

Ah, but Michael, the people who jump all around and call for depopulation with smooth sugar coated words like "sustainability" and "climate change" want YOU to die, not them! We, the non-elites of the world are the "useless eaters" and the "cannon fodder" as they put it. Those who want to jump on the "I'm with the smart people" band wagon ought to know that they are considered "useless eaters" too.

[Michael]

We're not just useless eaters any longer. According to Gates' formula, we're actually a negative creating deadly C02 that constantly raises the earth's temperature, creating either "unknown effects" or "very bad effects" depending on which side of Gates' mouth you were standing on.

[Chris Fleming]

Hey, Gates can pretend he's a climate scientist, virologist and an economist/sociologist all he wants to. He's got money AND he's repeating things the "smart people" have said, therefore you should listen to him.

[Dmitri]

Bill Gates recently gave a lecture on the topic where he stated that (4:50 in the video) "The world's population is about 6.8 billion headed up to 9 billion...if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare/reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent."

That is certainly a very interesting slip.
My point however was re. your suicide example; putting up some morons who took themselves out of the gene pool as "evidence" for the evilness of that whole global warming crapaganda is ...well, I'll say it again, -- it's silly. There are many idiots out there and this is just one case; there is no statistical (or any other) reason to use it as evidence that whatever crazy evil population reduction plan there might be in the works behind the CO2-related stuff, that such suicides are the results those plans were set to achieve.