|
Post by swamprat on Jul 24, 2023 14:34:18 GMT
The problem of global warming will never be solved. To fix it you have first to stop the biggest cause of all.. the inexorable rise in the human population. Everything stems from that. More people means a need for more energy to grow food etc and this means you can never catch up. I can't see any fix for this one that will be acceptable to most people least of all to governments. I can see one easy, pain free one that will, in the long term work. But it isn't practicable in today's religious and political climate. Any guesses ? Limit births to two per couple to stop increasing the population?
|
|
|
Post by thelmadonna on Jul 24, 2023 14:52:09 GMT
The problem of global warming will never be solved. To fix it you have first to stop the biggest cause of all.. the inexorable rise in the human population. Everything stems from that. More people means a need for more energy to grow food etc and this means you can never catch up. I can't see any fix for this one that will be acceptable to most people least of all to governments. I can see one easy, pain free one that will, in the long term work. But it isn't practicable in today's religious and political climate. Any guesses ? Limit births to two per couple to stop increasing the population?I don't think that will be enough swamprat. Who removed the Georgia Guidestones?
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 24, 2023 21:26:20 GMT
The problem of global warming will never be solved. To fix it you have first to stop the biggest cause of all.. the inexorable rise in the human population. Everything stems from that. More people means a need for more energy to grow food etc and this means you can never catch up. I can't see any fix for this one that will be acceptable to most people least of all to governments. I can see one easy, pain free one that will, in the long term work. But it isn't practicable in today's religious and political climate. Any guesses ? Limit births to two per couple to stop increasing the population?Yes, But it really needs to be two per woman, not per couple. Nothing sexist or anything like that. It is just the only way it can work. This is the point where I have to change my identity and walk around in a flame proof overcoat. But the math is very simple.
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 25, 2023 19:50:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moksha on Jul 25, 2023 22:40:37 GMT
Hal, nice to see your still among the living. Have you ever seen the movie. Kingsman the secret service? When I first seen it, reminded me of the guide stones. Earth has been changing along time before humans, I suspect it will continue when humans are not here. If humans are to go fourth and prosper, a different solar system would do, but that brings in the inbreed behavior of money, and how that part of life is. Thanks MW
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 26, 2023 18:52:24 GMT
Hal, nice to see your still among the living. Have you ever seen the movie. Kingsman the secret service? When I first seen it, reminded me of the guide stones. Earth has been changing along time before humans, I suspect it will continue when humans are not here. If humans are to go fourth and prosper, a different solar system would do, but that brings in the inbreed behavior of money, and how that part of life is. Thanks MW HI,
Yes, still here. Not sure for how much longer, but we all take it day by day.
I didn't see the Kingsman thing. But am aware of it. The destruction of the guidestones reminded me of the the Taliban (I think it was them) who destroyed the ancient statues because it disagreed with their version of history. Guess there are enough idiots to go around.
I see that many of the old members are still here. Some of the more vocal ones appear to have gone.
Just watched a rerun of the Congressional Hearing on uap. Very interesting. I wonder what it will lead to ?
Regards, HAL.
|
|
|
Post by moksha on Jul 27, 2023 11:38:36 GMT
Hal, nice to see your still among the living. Have you ever seen the movie. Kingsman the secret service? When I first seen it, reminded me of the guide stones. Earth has been changing along time before humans, I suspect it will continue when humans are not here. If humans are to go fourth and prosper, a different solar system would do, but that brings in the inbreed behavior of money, and how that part of life is. Thanks MW HI,
Yes, still here. Not sure for how much longer, but we all take it day by day.
I didn't see the Kingsman thing. But am aware of it. The destruction of the guidestones reminded me of the the Taliban (I think it was them) who destroyed the ancient statues because it disagreed with their version of history. Guess there are enough idiots to go around.
I see that many of the old members are still here. Some of the more vocal ones appear to have gone.
Just watched a rerun of the Congressional Hearing on uap. Very interesting. I wonder what it will lead to ?
Regards, HAL.
Thanks for the link HAL, the effort to cut the likeness of the Buddha's was wasted. I suspect (slander of celestial beings), will continue all over this planet until the complete unvailing of hidden truths are self evident. MW
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 30, 2023 17:10:05 GMT
Going back to global warming. Th e percentage of it that is natural we can do nothing about. But we can do something about our contribution. And it is all tied to the population of the planet. More people means more need for everything. Food, fuel, energy Literally everything has to increase every time a baby id born. So, I agree with Swamprat figure of 2 babies per couple, or as I prefer (for reasons that will be come clear) 2 per woman. And that will not bring about a quick fix. But it will begin the overall reduction in the population.
I'll add a few figure in a hypothetical situation. Here are the parameters.
A generation is 20 year. People live until they are 80 years old, then die. That are 4 generations. Girls give birth at 20 years old. A woman can have only two children then no more. I'll use twin girl in the example. It doesn't matter really if they are boys or girls or one of each. The result will be the same.
Here is the scenario.
First generation, day 1. A girl is born.
Second generation, day 1. She has just given birth to twins. She is 20 year old.
Third generation, day 1. Her children are 20 years old. They have just each given birth to twins, first mum is 40.
Fourth generation, day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. First mum is 60.
Fifth generation. day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. original mother dies at 80 years old.
Total = 16 children + the original mother=17.
Or 2 to the power 4 Plus 1. (2^4) +1
Note, Two children is just below the FFR (Female Fertility Rate) for Europe. It is 2.4 . (2.4 Makes the math more complicated).
Here is the point. If the original mother has 3 children, the total becomes (3^4)+1 = 82.
In some parts of Africa the FFR is 8. So we get (8^4)+1 = 4097.
Think about that.
2 children per mother =17 kids in 80 years. 8 kids per mother = 4097 Kids.
And all these new children will require feeding, housing, work etc.
It is probably too late to do anything now.
Anyone disagree with the figure ? Please speak up.
Further discussion most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Jul 30, 2023 20:52:30 GMT
Going back to global warming. Th e percentage of it that is natural we can do nothing about. But we can do something about our contribution. And it is all tied to the population of the planet. More people means more need for everything. Food, fuel, energy Literally everything has to increase every time a baby id born. So, I agree with Swamprat figure of 2 babies per couple, or as I prefer (for reasons that will be come clear) 2 per woman. And that will not bring about a quick fix. But it will begin the overall reduction in the population. I'll add a few figure in a hypothetical situation. Here are the parameters. A generation is 20 year. People live until they are 80 years old, then die. That are 4 generations. Girls give birth at 20 years old. A woman can have only two children then no more. I'll use twin girl in the example. It doesn't matter really if they are boys or girls or one of each. The result will be the same. Here is the scenario. First generation, day 1. A girl is born. Second generation, day 1. She has just given birth to twins. She is 20 year old. Third generation, day 1. Her children are 20 years old. They have just each given birth to twins, first mum is 40. Fourth generation, day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. First mum is 60. Fifth generation. day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. original mother dies at 80 years old. Total = 32 children + the original mother=33. Or 2 to the power 5 Plus 1. (2^5) +1 Note, Two children is just below the FFR (Female Fertility Rate) for Europe. It is 2.4 . (2.4 Makes the math more complicated). Here is the point. If the original mother has 3 children, the total becomes (3^5)+1 = 244. In some parts of Africa the FFR is 8. So we get (8^5)+1 = 32769. Think about that. 2 children per mother =33 kids in 80 years. 8 kids per mother = 32769 Kids. And all these new children will require feeding, housing, work etc. It is probably too late to do anything now. Anyone disagree with the figure ? Please speak up. Further discussion most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by jahara on Jul 31, 2023 22:27:16 GMT
Going back to global warming. Th e percentage of it that is natural we can do nothing about. But we can do something about our contribution. And it is all tied to the population of the planet. More people means more need for everything. Food, fuel, energy Literally everything has to increase every time a baby id born. So, I agree with Swamprat figure of 2 babies per couple, or as I prefer (for reasons that will be come clear) 2 per woman. And that will not bring about a quick fix. But it will begin the overall reduction in the population. I'll add a few figure in a hypothetical situation. Here are the parameters. A generation is 20 year. People live until they are 80 years old, then die. That are 4 generations. Girls give birth at 20 years old. A woman can have only two children then no more. I'll use twin girl in the example. It doesn't matter really if they are boys or girls or one of each. The result will be the same. Here is the scenario. First generation, day 1. A girl is born. Second generation, day 1. She has just given birth to twins. She is 20 year old. Third generation, day 1. Her children are 20 years old. They have just each given birth to twins, first mum is 40. Fourth generation, day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. First mum is 60. Fifth generation. day 1. They in turn give birth to twins. original mother dies at 80 years old. Total = 32 children + the original mother=33. Or 2 to the power 5 Plus 1. (2^5) +1 Note, Two children is just below the FFR (Female Fertility Rate) for Europe. It is 2.4 . (2.4 Makes the math more complicated). Here is the point. If the original mother has 3 children, the total becomes (3^5)+1 = 244. In some parts of Africa the FFR is 8. So we get (8^5)+1 = 32769. Think about that. 2 children per mother =33 kids in 80 years. 8 kids per mother = 32769 Kids. And all these new children will require feeding, housing, work etc. It is probably too late to do anything now. Anyone disagree with the figure ? Please speak up. Further discussion most welcome. Hi Hal, the fallacy I see with your math is the assumption that every child survives to be 20 and every child has children. That is not reality. Not to mention, right now if there was not so much waste in the 1st world countries there would be plenty of resources for the population that exists now. And yet we have people going hungry in 1st world countries where other people throw away enough food to feed another 4 people weekly. It is one of my pet peeves, the waste. All the other resources are wasted as well, gasoline going to drive thru fast food (maybe the U.S. is the only one that does that), using electricity for naught (leaving lights on day and night, wasteful appliances, heating the house over 72 degrees in winter and cooling it below 68 in summer, etc.) The government making farmers plow under their crops, or paying them to leave their fields fallow.
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Aug 1, 2023 13:05:59 GMT
Hi Hal, the fallacy I see with your math is the assumption that every child survives to be 20 and every child has children. That is not reality. Not to mention, right now if there was not so much waste in the 1st world countries there would be plenty of resources for the population that exists now. And yet we have people going hungry in 1st world countries where other people throw away enough food to feed another 4 people weekly. It is one of my pet peeves, the waste. All the other resources are wasted as well, gasoline going to drive thru fast food (maybe the U.S. is the only one that does that), using electricity for naught (leaving lights on day and night, wasteful appliances, heating the house over 72 degrees in winter and cooling it below 68 in summer, etc.) The government making farmers plow under their crops, or paying them to leave their fields fallow. You have to remember that it is only a model. And it is idealised; as I point out at the beginning. In fact it will work better if not all the children reach 20 years. But as in all hypothetical situations, you have to start somewhere. And clearly it is not reality. The biggest problem would be 'how do you ensure that all women can only have two children ?'.
The whole thing goes much deeper than just the children themselves. For every child that becomes an adult there is a need for a house of some kind. And transport, food, water ,work etc. All these feed into the over production and waste situation we have. Also all the energy used to create everything has to be sourced. And it all ends up as heat and pollution.
And there is also the problem that, if the population were to decrease significantly, then much of the industry we have now would be redundant. So huge sections of the industrial scene would have to be shut down. We are seeing, even now, that some sections are shedding workers like snake shedding their skin. These workers still have to eat. And how many C++ programmers does the World actually need. Particularly with the AI coming along. And that will be able to write it's own programs. Probably already does.
It's a big problem.
But I'm glad no one has screamed 'Sexist misanthropic swine' at me . Well, not yet.
The waste, by the way, is also one of my main concerns. Particularly food waste.
HAL
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Dec 8, 2023 15:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Feb 14, 2024 15:20:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Feb 14, 2024 19:36:06 GMT
We in the UK are having spring-like temperatures in what should be the middle of winter. Today was 11C where I live. Tomorrow is predicted to be up to 14C. It should be down around freezing with lots of snow. We had one day of snow last week and it is all gone. Lasted about 24 hours. All the plants are coming out early. Problem will be if the cold comes back and kills them all.
|
|
|
Post by purr on Feb 17, 2024 2:15:55 GMT
We in the UK are having spring-like temperatures in what should be the middle of winter. Today was 11C where I live. Tomorrow is predicted to be up to 14C. It should be down around freezing with lots of snow. We had one day of snow last week and it is all gone. Lasted about 24 hours. All the plants are coming out early. Problem will be if the cold comes back and kills them all. Truly strange to hear that description, HAL, I remember several 'real' winters while living in the UK in the 1970s, feeling deeply impressed by days, even weeks on end of snow and biting cold walking the streets and trying hard to keep warm even indoors. Something is going on yes. Personally I do lean toward the 'Global Warming = Myth' camp, in the sense that the original model, gradual rise of planetary temperatures, ice melts and a trend of rising sea levels with a significant contribution by human industry/greenhouse gases is lacking in factual evidence especially regarding causation. I believe instead we are seeing disconcerting weather weirding, including extreme weather (like the increase in reported tornados in the Netherlands and the UK), out of season weather (this year some 'warm' winter days in the Netherlands) and worldwide more severe and frequent hurricanes as the years go by. I'm not worried over a 2 or 3 degree rise Celcius during 50-100 yrs, coupled with sea levels going up tens of centimeters. In my imagination we never get round to the popularized Climate Change scenario, but might right now be seeing the last warnings for some major climate cataclysm. Like returning to an Ice Age, comparable to 13,000+ prehistory. I'd find it a good idea to disaster harden the world's power supply, perhaps switch all major cities to their own nuclear powerplants, even go as far as constructing some big underground cities! Mankind going in Prepper mode... purr
|
|