Al Bartlett Gives A Talk on Mankind's Greatest Problem (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

And yet he had four children...

The intelligent should breed. Its the overwhelming number of idiots who should not.

If you are on public assistance for X- amount of time you should be mandated to be sterilized...

Totally agree - Lebron James' mom should have been sterilized.

 

[urbanhack]

And yet he had four children...

The intelligent should breed. Its the overwhelming number of idiots who should not.

If you are on public assistance for X- amount of time you should be mandated to be sterilized...

What if you are disabled?

 

[higgins]

 

[D_House]

entomophagy is the answer, imo.

 

[jon_mx]

entomophagy is the answer, imo.

The real answer.....yoga pants

 

[shuke]

at 1.3% growth rate, there will be nearly 450,000,000,000 more people on the planet in 300 years.

I'd say the chances are extremely high we see the breakdown of civilization long before 300 years from now.

In just 100 years, there will be 21,000,000,000 more people on the planet than right now - that is a lot of ####### people.

In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will

increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100."

Maybe not good, but certainly not 21 billion.

I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.

You know, you're probably right. Why do these scientists waste their time when they can just plug a constant value into a growth calculator like guy from the internet.

 

[Sinn Fein]

at 1.3% growth rate, there will be nearly 450,000,000,000 more people on the planet in 300 years.

I'd say the chances are extremely high we see the breakdown of civilization long before 300 years from now.

In just 100 years, there will be 21,000,000,000 more people on the planet than right now - that is a lot of ####### people.

In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will

increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100."

Maybe not good, but certainly not 21 billion.

I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.

You know, you're probably right. Why do these scientists waste their time when they can just plug a constant value into a growth calculator like guy from the internet.

exactly

 

[jon_mx]

at 1.3% growth rate, there will be nearly 450,000,000,000 more people on the planet in 300 years.

I'd say the chances are extremely high we see the breakdown of civilization long before 300 years from now.

In just 100 years, there will be 21,000,000,000 more people on the planet than right now - that is a lot of ####### people.

In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will

increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100."

Maybe not good, but certainly not 21 billion.

I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.

You know, you're probably right. Why do these scientists waste their time when they can just plug a constant value into a growth calculator like guy from the internet.

exactly

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

entomophagy is the answer, imo.

The real answer.....yoga pants

I think she has used the resources of three people.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

at 1.3% growth rate, there will be nearly 450,000,000,000 more people on the planet in 300 years.

I'd say the chances are extremely high we see the breakdown of civilization long before 300 years from now.

In just 100 years, there will be 21,000,000,000 more people on the planet than right now - that is a lot of ####### people.

In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will

increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100."

Maybe not good, but certainly not 21 billion.

I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.

You know, you're probably right. Why do these scientists waste their time when they can just plug a constant value into a growth calculator like guy from the internet.

exactly

Would that be exponential or linear growth?

 

[jon_mx]

at 1.3% growth rate, there will be nearly 450,000,000,000 more people on the planet in 300 years.

I'd say the chances are extremely high we see the breakdown of civilization long before 300 years from now.

In just 100 years, there will be 21,000,000,000 more people on the planet than right now - that is a lot of ####### people.

In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will

increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion in 2100."

Maybe not good, but certainly not 21 billion.

I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.

You know, you're probably right. Why do these scientists waste their time when they can just plug a constant value into a growth calculator like guy from the internet.

exactly

Would that be exponential or linear growth?

A constant rate growth produces exponential growth. The population growth is in a state where the growth rate is declining, so it is no longer expormential, so modeling it that way produces incorrect results. Neither is it linear. Ebola is still in a state where the growth rate is constant or perhaps even growing, so there is exponential growth. Hopefully current efforts can change that in the coming months. It is ironic that people who do not understand this seem to find it humorous.

 

[chet]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)