Slashdot Mirror
World Population Grows Beyond 7 Billion
First time accepted submitter assertation writes in with a LA Times feature about the booming world population and the strain it puts on the environment and governments. "After remaining stable for most of human history, the world's population has exploded over the last two centuries. The boom is not over: The biggest generation in history is just entering its childbearing years. The coming wave will reshape the planet, and the impact will be greatest in the poorest, most unstable countries."
Taco's wife needs to stop having kids.
"Earth is too small a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in." Robert A. Heinlein
It all starts at 0
It also means that you've only got a 0.0000000143% chance of getting that coveted first post.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And fertility rates are dropping everywhere, and more people than ever are choosing to simply not have children. Of course by mentioning that, this article wouldn't be nearly as alarmist, so it was conveniently omitted.
Liberty in your lifetime
The only problem with exploding population is that it's not profitable to move all the food around so some people throw 50% away and some people starve.
Oh and as for governments, they don't scale. We need to start chopping everything up into smaller bits.
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
....that if i had a button which if pressed, would kill every man, woman and child; I would push it without hesitation.
That still leaves 70,000,000. The order you sort things doesn't change their number.
By bringing middle classes to developing nations. People who don't have to have litters to ensure that one child survives have one or two children, below the replacement rate. People who have careers and money to spend and cultural activities to take part in don't spend so much time screwing. And when they do, they realize that having extra children will prevent them from enjoying those luxuries.
In short, the fight against overpopulation is the same as the fight against global inequality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The thing is, hundreds of years ago, the mortality rate was right up there with the birth rate. Even if you cancel out infant mortality with births, it was still pretty high.
If you had a family of 10, you were lucky if 3 survived. Often times, it was only 1 or 2 that survived, making a pretty break even population growth.
With the advent of medicine, however, mortality rates plummeted but birth rates did not.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I may have found a contributing factor to you not being in the 1% ...
and still none for the average /.er. ;-(
Nature has a way of equalizing the population to it's confined space. We may not like it, but it will happen one way or the other. I like how the video tries to tell you that the problem is solvable by government action. It isn't by any realistic measure. The more you provide resources to people, the more they will consume, and the worse the problem becomes. Wars, while not ideal, do a fairly good job of removing large numbers of the population quickly, as does desease. However, we like to think that to be civilized we should do all we can to stop both. So instead we allow people to starve to death... Yea, humanity.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
per Hans Rosling in http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html we have already peaked the world population.. worth a watch.
I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.
How many of those people starve to death everyday? People who cannot provide for their kids need to make a conscious effort to stop having them.
It usually works the other way - when child mortality rate is high, you hedge your bets by getting more children so at least some grow up.
If the present day is the right hand side, things always look more stable in the past. It's always been a J-curve, though.
It's time to start colonizing Mars,
Antarctica is closer, not quite as harsh, yet a reasonably good engineering challenge.
I don't mean colonize in either the current forward military base where its more of a logistics achievement than an actual "colonization" nor do I mean some weird lovecraftian stuff or hollow earth flakery, but literal colonization complete with algae and fish farms for dining or whatever. Even if its never done the planning process would be pretty good training.
Even KSR's mars trilogy began with a year on Antarctica.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Let's just move Mars closer to the sun so it would be a more hospitable place.
UN's "medium" estimate is that population will reach about 10 billion and then plateau. Of course, projecting population 90 years in the future is an inexact science at best. On thought on resource consumption: an individual human being's resource consumption is, to a large degree, a factor of his or her standard of living. Consider the per capita resource consumption of developed, western countries vs. sub-Saharan Africa. One could reasonably argue that it will prove impossible to maintain the current global mean standard of living as population increases, ergo environmental stress may not end up increasing linearly with population.
Obligatory TED links, that might actually be a bit more insightful than TFA.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
While I am skeptical that we'll have enough resources either way, I think that humans are going to have to adapt hard or the entire race will just fade away. This won't necessarily be a problem for a few generations, but there is very little left in this world that is untouched, or that we can leave untouched. Solutions to the energy crisis aside, food and water are still major concerns, and we can't infinitely increase the amount of farming, because we'll also need to increase our living spaces; however, this is unless we go full Tokyo and build above and below ourselves and learn to live in cramped situations. Even still, it will be an incredibly difficult feat to convince most Westerners that they aren't allowed cars anymore and that they need to walk or use trains to go to work. I don't mind myself, since I'm a student who uses trains and busing all the time, but few people want to give up the luxury of driving to work in favour of using a subway system (similar to how most east asian countries operate).
In the meantime, I'm going to be developing my zombie formula so that I can do my part to end overpopulation. Call me if you can help, I'm trying to put a patent together so I can sue others who want to destroy the Earth while the zombies and lawyers (?difference) take over.
It is a very significant possibility that at this growth we will be starving ourselves to death. There is only so much to go around. The question is, how many and who?
It's not "the Coming Wave," we're right in the midst of it, and have been for some time. It's not in front of us, we're well into it. That's not to say it won't get much, much worse, but it's very important to realize that we have entered the effects of overpopulation.
Just ask the Atlantic Cod fisheries, the Pacific garbage patch, that dry lake somewhere in the former USSR - heck, there are too many to list.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I misspoke, I meant net worth.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The reason people in poverty have more children is in the hope that one of them will rise out of that misery, and at the very least grow to adulthood and have children of their own. But a most of their problems are a consequence of government corruption, not a true lack of food or medicine.
Most developed Asian nations, generally still more densely populated, are seeing fertility rates barely above 1. Hell, even China is starting to see the impact of population decline and has been experiencing the consequences of it's one-child policy. Europe has also seen marked population decline, especially if you don't count immigration. I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children. And even then, it's hard to argue that we have any kind of population problem.
I'm not sure why the stories of a population explosion persist when it's long since been shown that it's not going to happen.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Starvation still exists, but global malnourishment has actually gone down.
Forgive me for going a bit partisan on this one issue (I don't belong to either party) but using the alarmism of the population boom generally comes from Democrats, who in turn also argue that genetically modified foods are evil. They're worried that people around the globe are starving while at the same time trying to stop food shipments to third world countries. I can't understand the hypocrisy on this issue. And when it comes to people fucking starving, we should ignore traditional party lines and think like decent human beings. Let the fucking people eat.
The reason the world isn't starving on the whole right now is because of agricultural science.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children.
LOL its the other way around, pretty intensely. High school dropout and no skills and no job = minimum 7 kids in the trailer, "career oriented woman" = no kids.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Really, though, any given day, the largest number of people enter their childbearing years than ever in history, and that number is always greater than those leaving childbearing years.
Calling it a "generation" is a bit silly, but it's certainly a less wordy way of saying it that still sends the message.
More Twoson than Cupertino
...off...my....lawn!
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Oceans and deserts are even closer, and probably the investment needed to sustain a lot of people is smaller.
"We need regulations that strictly govern who is allowed to reproduce and how many babies can be born. That is unpleasant and almost unthinkable but it must be done." *** And may I suggest we begin the sterilization with YOU!
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Question for you: What percent of the total population falls within the top 1%?
Hint: It's not a trick question.
the us native-born reproductive rate is 2.
2.1 is required for the population to stay the same.
The US only has a growing population because of the higher birth rate among immigrants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#United_States
Where are they hiding?
-- Boycott Shell
"There is very little left in this world that is untouched, or that we can leave untouched"
I'm not sure how true this is. In terms of natural resources (mines, forestry, oil) things will get tougher. However, there are lots of places with places for people.
However, most people tend to
a) Prefer to live in the big, already-crowded cities
b) Not want to start new towns
Technology allows us to cultivate land that was previously quite un-usable. The big problem is that we're dirty pests that tend to f*** up said land. If we could clean up our act ecologically, perhaps we could integrate better into the large amount of landmass that's still available.
Actually, if this graph is to be trusted, it's very far from an exponential growth. You can see two breaks: one at about -5000, where the population started growing; and one at about 1700, where the growth rate increased dramatically. Also a hint for another, more recent break (~1950?), where the growth rate increased again. (Note for the mathematically impaired: an exponential growth means a straight line in a log graphic. You can divide this graphic in 3-4 different straight lines, so you have 3-4 different growth rates at different points in time)
With the advent of medicine, however, mortality rates plummeted but birth rates did not.
I'm not sure that's the case - at least not here in the US. If you go back to my parents generation all the families had 5-7 children without fail. Some had more than that (my grandfather on my mother's side came from a family of 14).
Fastforward to modern times. None of my aunts or uncles had more than 3 kids per family. Between my own generation I'm seeing more like 1 or 2 kids per family. Part of it may be the increased cost of raising children - part of it may be the increased number of women in the workplace (where each child is not only time off from work for recovery but without a parent at home each is another daycare bill). I'm sure a large part of it is simply the invention of birth control.
Regardless, birth rates per family (if not for the planet as a whole) seem to have come down significantly in the last 50 years.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children.
Can you share a source that cites just how many more than multiple? :)
Yeah, I wish. More likely is that they'll just dome it up and burn fuel to generate heat and electricity to live the temperate zone life there.
Um, Antarctica or Mars? You've just kind of made my point for me.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
"This natural inequality of the two powers, of population, and of production of the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that appears to me insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society."
Thomas Malthus, 18th century.
People have been saying that the "end is near" since human beings developed speech. None have been right. Ockam's razor and the law of induction tells me they won't be in the future.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Unless I'm missing some hidden factor that forces groups of people's net worths to be exactly equal, then I'd say that "assuming everyone is worth a different amount" is a very valid assumption. Even if you magically redistributed everything to be exactly equal, that would end as soon as one person wanted extra pepperoni on their pizza.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children.
The intelligent hardworking people I know have two, one, or no children. The dumbest and poorest just keep pushing them out. It's exactly like the movie Idiocracy.
It doesn't help that we have a social system that rewards low income high birth rate. My wife and I will have to make a tough decision when it comes to offspring #2. Can we afford it or not? If we can't, I'll get snipped and we'll just go on working to pay for other people's children through welfare, food stamps, WIC, EIC, Section 8, school lunch vouchers, head start, etc, etc, etc. Our standard of living would improve if we both just quit working and had more children.
:wq
Ive seen far to many horror movies to EVER want to be any where near the arctic.
It's likely quite true, when you consider the range of possible net worths. You know how the probability of two real numbers being = is 0 unless they're eq? (If you'll forgive the LISPism...) Same thing -- the probability (without chicanery of some sort) that any two net worths are truly equal is very small. If they differ by even 10ppb (1c out of the $million or so you need to be in the top percentile), then they're different. 50 people having one exact amount?! Contrived example is contrived.
Now, certainly, if we're looking at "70 million in the top %", it's conceivable, even likely, there's a collision or two in there. But we don't care -- the only collision that matters is between person 70,000,000 and person 70,000,001, and the probability of that is already vanishingly small. (Much less the probability of your turd-brained 50-way collision.)
The birthrate will in the long term tend toward one birth per person (or two children per woman given a 50:50 sex ratio). The only question is whether this happens because most children that are born die of famine or violence before they get the opportunity to reproduce or whether it happens by a more benign mechanism.
You can't be serious.
Okay, I'll bite. What is this glorious math that you understand that we've all apparently missed? Because near as I can tell, the top 1% of any group is going to be equal in number to 1% of the sample size. Since the sample size here is 7B, we can say that the top 1% will be made up of 70M. How the wealth is distributed among the members of that top 1% is wholly irrelevant in determining how many are in the top 1%.
Oceans and deserts are even closer, and probably the investment needed to sustain a lot of people is smaller.
We've already done New Orleans, not so well, and Vegas, OK so far. The hard part is making a colony thats not a drain on the rest of the environment; self contained.
Also too close makes it too easy to cheat, look at everything we send to N.O. and Vegas. Antarctica would have to be self contained, other than O2 and H2O and solar energy which makes it a good training ground... tough, but not too tough.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Antarctica is ... very restricted to military/scientific missions.
Not for any technical reason just flaky politics. Preparation for a mars colony counts as "scientific mission" anyway.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The average man produces almost one whole pound of poop a day. Times 7 billion. No wonder life stinks.
Actually, I disagree about the "training" aspect. Training is worthless when the person trained never uses it, or dies before it's used. Sure, it'd be cool if a bunch of people figured out how to live in Antarctica, but if they don't do it, what good is it? It's not like they're going to somehow pass that knowledge on to the next generation. We learned that with the space program; some of the basic designs were preserved, but a LOT of stuff simply wasn't, and this happens every time some industry goes under or moves offshore. Not everything is written down somewhere, and doing something large and complex creates a huge number of "learned lessons" and specific domain knowledge that usually just dies when the people doing it die off. Even if there were a much larger effort to record knowledge, putting it into some form where it can then be looked at by following generations isn't so easy. Just look at all the problems large organizations have with organizing data, frequently leading them to using the shitty "Sharepoint" tool from MS which just makes it worse.
If you kill yourself then the effect is the same, from your point of view.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
More than 490.000.000.000 tonnes of meat, 600.000.000 colour blind people, 700.000.000 people with Herpes, 70.000.000 people with syphilis, 140.000.000 severely mentally retarded people and an equal amount of highly intelligent people. And the list goes on if you talk about percentages! Oh, and while I am at it, one would need 280 grams of Botulinum type A toxin to kill half of them.
I'm not saying one should, but one could. I don't want to ruin anyone's day you know...
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
The reason people in poverty have more children is in the hope that one of them will rise out of that misery
They have more children in the hope that they will sustain them in old age.
Biology got us into this situation.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't see why they need to be mutually exclusive. Trailer park patrons do indeed have a higher birthrate, but that doesn't negate the claim that affluent people are having more children in the US than their counterparts elsewhere in the developed world. Do they have as many as redneck Joe? No. But do they have enough to cause a population increase, rather than a decline? Yes, according to what was said.
This is not the first time population growth drove change.
not to many posts but by reading them you might comprehend what is happening, why and where we are heading
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Abstraction-Physics-101/170311386325230
Yes, population is discrete. Yes it can be approximated as continuous. We are talking about 7 billion points. Nothing to see here.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The most effective, and least oppressive way to reduce birth rates is to give women an education. I would rather make college mandatory than get into the business of regulating people's sexual behavior.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I *think* he's trying to point out two different measurements.
First, you have the subset of people who own the top echelon of the world's wealth (though this measurement is far easier to parse as owners of 99% of all wealth instead of the top 1% of wealth owners; I digress). Second, you have the 1% of the population that have the highest net worth. These two numbers are not necessarily the same; I'd think the first group is far larger than the second, but I'm not really sure.
Exactly *why* he believes the phrase "the 1%" refers to that first group of people, I can't tell you. I always understood it to meant that 1% of the population controlled more wealth than the other 99% (as an extreme symbol, anyway; I don't believe this is strictly true based on the numbers I've seen). I believe most people understand the phrase to mean this subset of the population.
Don't worry too much about the earth. The planet will heal no matter what we do to it. The people may die, but the earth will go on.
Firstly, TFA is dead wrong in stating that human population has been relatively stable throughout most human history. This is blatantly false, for anyone who has bothered to look at the historical record. In pre-history, human populations have varied wildly, from up to several dozen million to possibly as low as several tens of thousands. Likewise, once "civilization" has started, human populations have obeyed a rather steadily increasing geometric curve. We notice now because we're finally at the heel portion of the hockeystick curve where the numbers start increasing quickly.
Secondly, the decline in number of children per woman is primarily tied to increasing Woman's Rights in a society. The closer women are treated like property (both culturally and legally), the higher the number of children borne, and the inverse when women and men are treated equally. Women's Rights is also closely correlated (and, likely a causative factor) in development of a significant middle class. Religion only has an impact in so far as it affects Women's Rights (which, it certainly can have a very negative impact).
Also, there are two major factors that aren't really addressed in TFA: lack of energy, and water. Advanced civilizations require ludicrously larger amounts of power than low-tech societies, and, even with conservation, this isn't going to change. We need power to run our 1st world countries, and the more everyone else tries to emulate us, power requirements will be exponential (probably high exponential) in growth. Until we have real clean energy, this energy demand and the side effects of providing energy is going to be the number one environmental pressure. On the other hand, (decreasing) access to clean water for both drinking and agriculture is something that is radically reshaping societies, as we can't really de-salinize enough to make a difference at this point, and we're well on our way to draining many historical water sources out of existence. Water will be the new oil which people fight over, likely very, very soon. It's already a major friction point in the Middle East and Indian subcontinental areas.
To quote the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I agree with you regarding partisan sentiment. However, the Republicans can hardly be considered the party of science. Perhaps we need a "science" party, but then again, who would vote for them??
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The arctic, or the antarctic? In the arctic, you have to ancient spirits called "Wendigo" killing you. In the antarctic, however, that's not a problem, but instead you have to worry about shape-shifting aliensattacking you and using your body to attack your coworkers and friends.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where is the Ark B when we need it??
New Orleans should never have happened IMHO. Much of it is below sea level. Effectively, it's a giant bowl. The pumps are constantly moving water out 24/7. That's a lot of energy being used on a daily bases just to keep it from flooding.
Life is not for the lazy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This isn't always true. Often religious beliefs factor in. I know a great many Mormon and Catholic families that pump em out like turnip factories, yet these people can afford all college tuition, cars, clothes, etc for all their children.
Granted, I'm sure they get some pretty significant tax breaks, but they are by no means the dumbest *well, in terms of marketable intelligence; why anyone would WANT 8 kids is beyond me) and/or poorest.
Here's why I'm happy with my two: my family fits in all Disneyland rides, we all get window seats on long drives, we fit in booths properly at restaurants, and when my lovely wife (their stepmom) and I grow too old wipe, we each get a free nurse. THAT is family planning, baby.
It is absolutely far more likely that everyone is worth different amounts than whatever scenario you are talking about. Are you suggesting that there are large amounts of people that have the exact same net worth, down to the nearest penny?
Let's not even begin to mention how misguided your use of the word "vector" is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That or mind control worms that make you kill your friends.
Mission accomplished breeders. Enough already.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Exactly. A lot of people scream about statistics that 1 in 6 US children are born into poverty, and there's a reason for this: it's the poor people that have all the kids. The rich(er) people are too busy with their careers to have more than 1 or 2, if any. A lot of people even put it off because of their careers, only to find out they missed their window.
Then you should have no problem at all with going to the antarctic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Every Western nation with advancing education for the population has seen a decreasing birth rate. The birth rate world-wide is still high because there are a lot of poor, uneducated third world nations that have not had declines in birth rates.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
to spend his money providing free birth control rather than trying to wipe out disease in the Third World. That would be the most effective use of his money.
Preventing childhood disease is a laudable goal, but that just brings more misery in the long run from overpopulation -- unless you also bring them up to First World standards in education, economy and infrastructure. And I don't think Bill has enough money to do that. There's probably not enough money on the planet to do that actually.
But I can understand why he does what he does. Who wants their legacy to be "The Great Population Reducer"? Everybody will hate him, from the religious who oppose abortion and birth control, to the liberals who will accuse him of genocide for preventing the blacks and browns from having babies. On the other hand, save children from dying by malaria and everyone will applaud him. Safe choice.
A few months back some distraught fellow ran into a building shooting everyone that he could and apparently had left behind messages about over population and what is about to occur. I suspect that he was driven off his rocker because nobody wanted to hear him.
Let me see if I'm following the logic of this correctly: Nobody wanted to listen to a criminally insane person rant, so he murdered a bunch of people, therefore he was correct and we should start implementing reproductive laws to keep the population down so we can support a huge military to keep out the countries that can't even feed their own citizens?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, if we're going to go there, I am... and comfortably so. Although the reality is the 99% of the 1% have a lot more in common with the bottom 1% of the 99% than the 1% of the 1%.
And, of course, my original post was mocking your brain fart, not really attempting to make any socio-political statement about any correlation of internet gaffes to wealth or the intelligence or lack thereof of any particular income bracket.
Now, I suppose the fact that everyone else seems to understand that and you missed it might suggest an additional set of evidence related to my original assertion, so perhaps the joke was a little too close to home.
The number of people who are alive automatically represents the number of people who can eat under the present level of technology, since you have to eat to live. If by some misfortune there were to be more people than we have the ability to feed, why, then, those extra people would soon starve, and we'd be right back at the equilibrium population again.
Only in 1st world countries, 3rd world countries children are cheaper to raise (no school/college fees) and provide useful labour around the house and surrounding property. The number of children per family also has strong correlations with women's rights in the respective country, so as that improves birth rates should drop in the rest of the world as well.
Something exacerbating the problem is the number of people we now have over the age of 70 - they never used to be particularly common (only in upper classes), whereas now the medical attention is widespread enough to keep people alive into their 90s on a fairly regular basis.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
and it is a Myth.
There are two ways of looking at the human condition of over population: If you are in the 1%, it is an extreme dire emergency because everyone one alive is plotting ways to steal your luxery living, entire economic sectors your family controls, or the future payoff budgets in making government do exactly as you tell them.
If you are the 99% it is obvious the planet is under developed technologically, due to the wars...the constant trillion dollar wars, bankers literally stealing everything from left to right, and governments who have created conditions with rules for themselves, and then rules for everyone else. It is _not_ over populated.
In those sorts of conditions chaos stunts technological development. (Unless you want to waste resources and energy making cute technological gadgets like iSh*t this and iSh*t that.)
You know, when you build a computer network, one of the obvious things you want to eliminate are bottlenecks in all of your edge networks. One way to do that is to add more infrastructure to accommodate those bottlenecks as well as adding redundancy.
However, you don't ask your users to stop using the network in a sort of austerity measure because you want them under your thumb and just don't feel like working that hard to build a larger network.
One example I use is power distribution. Half of the energy in power production is lost before it even arrives at its destination. Everyone should generate their own power, and it should be forbidden to centralize its production. There are lots of ways to do this, but they won't be permitted because a few people own all of the power and it would be threat a ruling dynasty.
Secondly what they don't tell you is as long as infrastructure is in place and kept up, most communities stop having more than maybe 1 or 2 kids. This is a well known side effect of developed countries who have good education systems, and economies that aren't in the clutches of a bunch of crooked bankers.
Iceland would be a good example there.
But the 1% don't want that. They want destruction, war and huge crisis that _THEY_ caused so that they can appear to be in control and save us all by essentially making things worse and worse.
Yeah there is a over population, an over population of 1% having way to much and strangling technological development for the rest of humanity so that little old ladies can't cool their apartments and babies have to die of stupid diseases.
Specifically I am talking about Democrats, Republicans, the Rothschild banking Syndicate, and United Nations that need to just GO AWAY.
If they don't, the human species might not be around for very much longer.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Anything that teaches people to believe in things without question, simply because of some myth, is irrational.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
More and more people being born into countries that do not have the resources to support them. Sure fire way to increase poverty: help those currently in poverty reproduce by giving them handouts while not giving them the means to support themselves.
There may be a lot more people in Africa now than there was 5000 years ago, but they're not living longer, they're running out of food, being crippled by disease and generally not well off. There is less wild life now from excessive hunting and poaching so less food to feed more people. Dense populations increase the spread of disease. So does malnutrition.
Did those massive amounts of land get devastated because the population in your area went up massively? Most likely not, more likely it was devastated because approximately the same amount of people wanted more resources.
Not that there is anything wrong with WANTING more resources. That is completely natural. The problem is that we as a species let people, including myself of course, GET what they want.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Unfortunately the bible didn't stop at the commandments... there's a few other things in there that make it more than slightly detestable.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
We had a baby shower at the family reunion. One of the great aunts tried to convince us to have more kids. Said that having a brother and sister was some sort of fundamental experience. She wanted four, two boys and two girls, so each could have a brother and sister.
Thank you, but no, one will do us just fine. If he wants a brother, he can go boss around the cats.
The first four are "irrational" according to the left. Of course in Christianity, only three of those are valid ;)
Christians do not believe in Ten Commandments. They believe in Nine Suggestions and One Legalism, which if you keep, you cannot be saved.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If by "remaining stable for most of human history" they mean "for most of the time modern humans have existed" then they are on reasonably firm ground - between 40,000 BCE and 4000 BCE there was little population growth - except for colonization of new areas. If they mean the period thought of as "the historic period" when we have written records, then no, they are no correct.
A good graph that reveals population growth trend patterns since pre-historic times is this one: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/the-axial-age-world-population/
Most charts using a linear population scale only show the exponential blow up that appears at the end of the curve of every exponential process, no matter when you pick that end, but offers little or no insight into what was happening in previous epochs.
What the Discover graph shows is that population was pretty stable until the development of civilization around 4000 BCE, a steady upward trend then set in for the next 3500 years, then around 500 BCE the development of high ancient civilization in the Mediterranean and East Asia led to a growth spurt which hit a plateau around 100 BCE after which there was only slight growth for the remainder of the ancient civilization period (until around 500 CE), the so-called Medieval "Dark Age" period led to accelerated, but erratic growth, and then we entered the two recent acceleration periods - the early modern period (age of exploration), and then the industrial revolution.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
That keeps getting trotted out, but it sound like BS. There may be some cultures that do this, but making a blanket statement like that imparts WAY more planning for the future than is really believable for much of the population that is in poverty.
Yes, but even people in third world countries are living a lot longer, and infant mortality rates are plummeting.. but births in these countries have not.
Yes, western nations birth rates have gone down, but this is more than made up for by third world countries.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It's time to start colonizing Mars, the Moon and other celestial objects
The slashdot equivalent of "let them eat cake".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I didn't read TFA but I vaguely remember there was a TED video explaining that statistically the earth's population will stabilize around 10 Billion.
That number is the equilibrium between countries reaching a higher standard of living and industrialized countries going with lower levels of births and a bigger senior population.
The question is if the earth can support us growing to 10 billion.
This entire stupid fucking argument is why Slashdot is becoming less and less the place for me to get my tech news and discussion. Fuck all of you guys.
Feel better now? Got that off your chest, did'ja? You aren't the 1st to voice that opinion here. You will be missed. Though no super-techie, I've found a lot of intelligent, stimulating back & forth opinions and arguements here covering a wide range of subjects that affect us all. And I learn an awful lot here. One thing I've learned is that Slashdot has seemed to evolve and change over the years. Change pisses some people off, can't help that. I can't see being an editor here and pleasing all the people all the time.
at least not here in the US. If you go back to my parents generation all the families had 5-7 children without fail.
What are you, like, 140 years old?
Of course, the truth is that we aren't doing it because we don't know how. If the technology for a self contained habitat on Antartica were available, there would be people there already. And that has some obvious implications about colonizing Mars or any other body.
Now, we don't have a problem with space. That's because people don't like to spread, we just do it because of natural constraints.
Rethinking email
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More than 490.000.000.000 tonnes of meat
So, if I understand correctly, the average human weighs 70 tonnes? And my Doctor says I am obese.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The Netherlands?
Not the same situation. While you can also question the wisdom of "reclaiming land from the sea" as the Dutch have done, they did it in modern times using dikes. Further, the Dutch have a stable landmass with bedrock underneath. New Orleans literally goes away over time without fresh annual flooding, as it's nothing but delta silt built up over time with no bedrock underneath. People can't live with flooding, but without flooding, the landmass eventually goes away. New Orleans may be the single worst place to build a city in North America. And nothing we do can change that.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But the thing to remember is that in less developed parts of the world, that $1k/year goes a lot further than $1k elsewhere. I couldn't feed myself on $1k/per year living in Brisbane. Well, at least not unless I wanted to sacrifice my health in a big way (trolls, I challenge you to live in a modern developed city on $2.75/day). While we may have more disposable income for technology toys, it's ridiculous to try to compare total earning capacity unless you compare it to cost of living. I know lots of folks living in the US who struggle to pay for even basic stuff like medical care - frankly, they get first dibs on my charity.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Perhaps we need a "science" party, but then again, who would vote for them??
This is what a strong public service is supposed to provide. They are supposed to be a meritocracy staffed by technocrats with the balls to "speak truth to power", the IPCC and NASA are good examples of such a service. Politicians are then supposed to weigh the science and budgeting options against another old fashioned concept called "the common good" to form a sane policy.
A weak public service leads to corrupt legislature, a weak legislature leads to a corrupt public service. From a foriegn POV, the majority of Americans appear to want both to be weak, which (IMO) is the worst possible combination in a democracy.
As for population, the NWO are not doing a very good job
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The video is quite good, but what it shows is that which religion you are doesn't affect birth rates. It doesn't show any data about secular people, so it can't disprove a link between religion and birth rates.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Check out some of his earlier videos (including other TED talks that he's done) at Gapminder.
The birth rate decline in western nations correlates best with raising educations. If this is the true cause, improving educations in third world nations is the solution. A more educated populace will decide on their own that having so many children is a bad idea.
The reasons poor people have more kids are many. Lack of viable birth control is a huge factor. However, there is also a tendency to have more children because you're going to lose some. You need spares.
This is sort of like driving faster because you're running out of gas, and hope to make it to the gas station before you fuel runs out.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The last six are prefaced by the first four. They are a combined total of 10. But for the sake of argument.
5) My parents were total dirtbag drug addicted sexual perverts (not really, but I know people whose parents were), why should I "honor" them for such a despicable childhood?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There is evidence (TED video) to support your hunch. The gist is that over time, countries trend towards having 2 children per mother. The presenter claims that after crunching the numbers (I haven't seen the calculations), it turns out the world will max out at around 10b people.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Yes because living on welfare is such a reward. I really doub t you would consider section 8 housing an improvement in your lifestyle. Please remember that the myth of welfare queens is just that, a myth. And notice the majority of those programs are there to help the children. It's not like these people are living large.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Not science, technology. Learn the difference.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
Another max pop prediction for a VSP. gosh, I have only heard that 3 times in my life.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This old trope. The vast amount of 3rd world poor people don't own farms, and aren't group working types. Many of them just squat in the mud, trapped in a world with no way out.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That TED talk only shows that religious birth rates were dropping similarly fast in the past. But there is a small religious minority who's birth rate still hasn't dropped, and barring legal reforms or some other limiting effect, simple evolutionary theory suggests they will dominate before long and bring the rate back up. And no, there is no significant limit to food production. It can be synthesized cheaply, in quantities only limited by the carbon content of earth's and other planet's crusts, from rocks, air, and nuclear or space solar power.
If you examine the logistics it's basically impossible with any feasible technology to launch people into orbit faster than they are currently being born. Now if we get Star Trek transporters that may change.
Not science, technology. Learn the difference.
Since you want to split hair -
Where are you going to get any advancement in technology without advancement and more understanding in Science?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
about birth rates. Even in the US the birth rate is barely keeping up with death rates. Funny how educated people that are completely broke and working 12 hours/day 6 days a week don't want more kids. Just wait and see what happens in the developed world when the male birth control pill hits...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"The main problem...most people would prefer a global war that wipes out 2/3 of the population rather than living in a world where they can't eat meat"
From: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
==== By Doug Lisle and Alan Goldhamer
An abundance of food, by itself, is not a cause of health problems. But modern technology has done more than to simply make food perpetually abundant. Food also has been made artificially tastier. Food is often more stimulating than ever before -- as the particular chemicals in foods that cause pleasure reactions have been isolated-and artificially concentrated. These chemicals include fats (including oils), refined carbohydrates (such as refined sugar and flour), and salt. Meats were once consumed mostly in the form of wild game -- typically about 15% fat. Today's meat is a much different product. Chemically and hormonally engineered, it can be as high as 50% fat or more. Ice cream is an extraordinary invention for intensifying taste pleasure -- an artificial concoction of pure fat and refined sugar. Once an expensive delicacy, it is now a daily ritual for many people. French fries and potato chips, laden with artificially-concentrated fats, are currently the most commonly consumed "vegetable" in our society. As Dr. Fuhrman reports in his excellent volume Eat to Live, these artificial products, and others like them, comprise a whopping 93% American diet. Our teenage population, for example, consumes up to 25% of their calories in the form of soda pop!
Most of our citizenry can't imagine how it could be any other way. To remove (or dramatically reduce) such products from America's daily diet seems intolerable -- even absurd. Most people believe that if they were to do so, they would enjoy their food -- and their lives -- much less. Indeed, most people believe that they would literally suffer if they consumed a health-promoting diet devoid of such indulgences. But, it is here that their perception is greatly in error. The reality is that humans are well designed to fully enjoy the subtler tastes of whole natural foods, but are poorly equipped to realize this fact. And like a frog sitting in dangerously hot water, most people are being slowly destroyed by the limitations of their awareness.
The pleasure trap
Figure 1 (above) depicts a devastating trap. People consuming a whole natural foods diet will experience a normal range of pleasure from eating low-fat, high-fiber, unprocessed foodsâ"shown as Phase I. However, if concentrated, adulterated, processed foods are consistently allowed in the diet, they quickly will become preferred.
In Phase II, we see that these products are typically experienced as better -- that is, more pleasurable -- than natural foods. This is the result of the heightened pleasure-inducing characteristics of artificially-produced foods. However, within a short period of time (a few weeks), the taste nerves adapt to this higher level of stimulation, and reduce their firing rate. This reduces the pleasure experience of artificially-stimulating foods back down to normal levels (Phase III).
Phase III is the culmination of a process of extraordinary importance. It is within Phase III that most people live out their lives. And it is from within Phase III that most people will engineer their own health crises. Phase III occurs when we have become "used to it" - used to the extreme levels of stimulation present in artificial foods. Yet ultimately, we experience no more pleasure than had we remained on a simpler, more healthful diet! However, this process is rarely noticed - just as we rarely notice the process of getting used to a brightly-lit room.
A challenging escape
Once in awhile, a person may actually become aware of important dietary knowledge. Despite the ingenious misinformation campaigns waged by the dairy, cattle, and processed food industries, sometimes a person actually comes to understand the truth about diet. At such times, determin
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I was a lurker on SD for ~5 years, finally decided to make an account, got excellent karma, etc - and realized I can't post in any discussion I do modding in. I find it impossible to spend mod points, because any topic I get engaged enough in to reasonably moderate posts I want to contribute to. I much prefer the reddit system to the SD system in that regard, especially since the quality of posts has fallen since so few people are actively spending their mod points it seems.
Thou shalt not kill.
Good one. Can't argue there.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Depends on the context. This is Old Testament, of course, which means that you can be nailing multiple wives, slave girls and/or concubines without technically committing adultery. Pretty much any woman who is your property. Or, you can take the Christian extreme, and make even private fantasy a sin to be burned forever for. Sounds shitty either way. How's about you allow the participants in a relationship dictate the terms of that relationship freely amongst themselves.
Thou shalt not steal.
Not bad. Can't argue with it.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Again, not bad.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
What a stupid rule. If you are abiding by #7, this is superfluous. And, like adultery, it's another attempt to legislate thought crime.
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Stupid for the same reason as #9, but more insidious than that. Do you notice something about that list? It explicitly says that a wife is OWNED by her husband, along with the slaves that he owns(quick quiz: How many times is slavery condemned in the bible? Zero!). Moreover, they are listed in the same block of property as animals.
I want you to mull over that for a while. I want you to chew on the level of barbarism that that mindset entails. The best summation of morality you can put forward for your religion is a couple of obvious ethical standpoints, some nasty thought crimes and some atrocious violations of human rights. Congratulations on that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
My wife's grandmother recently died at 92 - she was the youngest of thirteen children (one didn't survive being into childhood so twelve). That kind of size was common back then, IME at least. (As an aside, all six of her brothers were either killed in the war or came back and never had kids so that family name died)
We planned on only having two kids but our second pregnancy was twins so we have contributed to more overpopulation...
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
How about terminating you first and put you out of your misarable life. Easier, cheaper and less painfull option I would say.
Not science, technology. Learn the difference.
Since you want to split hair -
Where are you going to get any advancement in technology without advancement and more understanding in Science?
Technology advanced by trial and error for millennia before science AWKI existed. Maybe you could say that trial and error is a form of science, but I wouldn't. Trial and error doesn't require understanding *why* the new idea works better.
Even today technology isn't entirely science-driven. We have rigorous mathematical approaches to engineering, but we still get sent beck to the drawing board whenever a bridge collapses or an airplane falls out of the sky.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The solution is easy. If you haven't started a family yet, talk about not having more than 2 children of your own. Teach your kids to do the same.
What people don't understand, is that the Bible was meant for an earlier time, not today! It's like reading the hieroglyphics in the Egyptian Pyramid and thinking its today's news. Humans evolve, ancient text doesn't.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
90% of the top 10% is in the bottom 99%.
It isn't just medicine, it is the sending of food to places where people refuse to do ANYTHING to improve their quality of life. How much aid has been sent to Ethiopia to feed the starving children? If after all these decades we have not helped them to the point where they can grow their own food and take care of themselves, perhaps it is time to just cut the cord, and let their population decrease to the point where they CAN take care of themselves. This may sound harsh, but when people are worried about global populations and how we can feed everyone, you have to start being a bit colder about things like that. Food for natural resources is a valid trade for example, and that would work, but this idea of letting nations that have resources take care of those who have NOTHING needs to end.
You are right on the money about families having more children BECAUSE there was a lower chance of survival, and this can be seen in almost every species on the planet. Those with the least chance of survival have more offspring, just to offset the high number of deaths in those offspring. Normally, food would be a limiting factor, except that we have people sending food to places where people should not be living. If you live in a desert where no food grows, you should EXPECT to die from starvation, or figure out how to eat whatever life you can find out there. If you live in a place with plenty of food, then you won't have that problem, the population grows, and then you run into conflicts of needing resources to trade or pay for food. Those who can't figure out how to make money to survive will generally die out.
It is that simple, and really, charity is the big source of the problem with the world having a higher population. There IS a natural balance that comes into play, which is why you see all these wars and violence in places that have a low food generation. If people keep getting fed that would normally have starved, then there will be criminals that will show up to balance things back out. Again, it is cold, but I suspect that if we as a species just let regions just go through periods of pain and sociological growth, they will eventually balance themselves out. Warlords can't enslave, rape, or kidnap dead people who died out due to lack of food, which in turn means those warlords would end up dead due to some other cause. Feeding an ecosystem that keeps trying to kill itself off is NOT the answer.
No, I'm 30. My mother came from a family of 6 (that survived - 2 sets of twins were stillborn so 10 total) and my father came from a family of 7 (all survived). Of of their cousins came from similar sized families. I am from a more rural area so trends can lag a bit here.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
What people don't understand, is that the Bible was meant for an earlier time, not today! It's like reading the hieroglyphics in the Egyptian Pyramid and thinking its today's news. Humans evolve, ancient text doesn't.
I have no problem with viewing the bible as a historical document. But we aren't talking about that. The person I replied asked why the last 6 commandments were bad as public policy(teaching "good stewardship"). The answer is that they are a mixed bag, a couple of laudable bits with a bunch of horrible bits mixed in. As a general guideline for a modern pluralistic society, they don't cut it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I misspoke, I meant net worth.
It's based on population and wealth, which may be measured by income, net worth or any of a number of other metrics.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
How is 50 1% of anything in your example?
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, it is very, very true. Some people own more than others, in other words, "are worth different amounts". There's nothing simplistic about that equation.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Wow, you either suck at math or... No, you just suck at math.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you. The top 1% refers to population as ranked by wealth, not the "average number of people who own 1% of the wealth" or "the number of people who own an average amount of wealth". That's why the word "top" is there. You have a list of people, sort them by descending wealth, and you take the top 1% of the entries on your list, that's the top 1%. The source of dissatisfaction (of the 99%) comes from the fact that if you total the wealth of the top 1%, you'll find that they own a disproportionate fraction (approximately 40% in the case of the United States). This trend extends across the whole chart, with the bottom 80% of Americans owning just 15% of the wealth.
By the way, in your example with 100 people, your answer (50) is wrong by either method you described. By your first method, since the total wealth is $75,000, 1% of that is $750, and the number of people who own $750 is zero. By your other method, the wealthiest person owns $1,000 and the poorest owns $500 and that covers everyone (it will, every single time), that's 100 people. 1% of that is 1.
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
Sounds a lot like "technology" is like evolution in this sense. Organisms that improve and adapt don't understand WHY they are changing or what -- merely, the better creator or widget is preserved.
I think there are some expert systems that try this with computer models now -- in fact, there was a twisted antenna, that was completely designed by computer models that had random changes, and then ones that gave a better signal profile survived. The resulting antenna was counter intuitive but was a great improvement.
So science can create a technology that counter-inuitively, arrives at answers without any good science being used at all.
Human's eventually will create a computer that thinks -- but I'm firmly of the belief that they will be "grown" from technology rather than planned with science.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Let's get the factories built. It will also create jobs.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
New Orleans would be fine if the Army Corps of Engineers would let the river take it's natural course. I think the main thing that keeps New Orleans at threat is this desire to make it a riverboat city and the killing off of swamp land on the Gulf.
A good compromise is to merely divert a token amount of water to run by the city -- and let the rest of the river follow the lowest course to the Ocean.
If planning for everyone could start to supersede what helps a few become really wealthy -- a lot of "dumb decisions" an complex intractable problems would mysteriously disappear.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Did we not just hit 6 billion the year before? how could 1 billion creep up so quickly without warning? or is it the governments do not want to scare us so they keep us uninformed???
"Make mine Mad Max!"
That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the wealthy about the poor in the United States. If we cut off all their safety nets, either they get to work earning their way or die off.
Unfortunately, in an industrial society, you need people to buy the goods you make.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"They all still afford college and everything else because they only buy what they need. They don't buy two cars per person, they make large meals and reuse leftovers, the first two kids get new clothing and everyone else has hand-me-downs, they go to cheaper schools, etc... Their cable and internet bills are the same as yours, they go to more community activities and have enough people to play board and card games with themselves so less expensive electronic gaming, they've got multiple people to split up the chores so everything gets done faster despite there being a little more work. It really isn't that harder to wash 6 dishes than wash and dry 2 dishes (another kid will do the drying of the 6 dishes). It's just as easy to read to four kids the same story as it is to read to two kids. Eventually the older kids will start helping out the younger kids, providing you with more time and the older kid better experience compared to an only child. Assuming all the kids don't hate each other, they've got their brothers and sisters who will back them up when needed thus less prone to depression and feeling like an outcast. There are many, many more examples. I'm not sure which large families you've seen, but the one's I've seen get by by having a more sustainable life style. Tax breaks don't out weight the cost of a kid. If they did, kids wouldn't be expensive and everyone would have many. Each kid after 2 or 3 becomes cheaper than the last."
Mod parent up. With a solar system that is almost entirely empty, I'm just shocked to see all the people on Slashdot celebrating low fertility. Sure, a small cafe (the Earth) in a big city (the Solar system) may have an occupancy limit, but we don't go around telling people not to have kids because some cafe is too crowded. People generally just open another cafe...
Here is a step towards how:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/A-global-effort-to-develop-self-replicating-space-habitats/76206-8319
And here is why:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Tsiolkovsky.html
"Russian physicist and theoretical father of rocketry. Tsiolkovsky was the son of a Polish deportee to Siberia. Tsiolkovsky was an inventor and aviation engineer who was also an insightful visionary. As early as 1894, he designed a monoplane which subsequently flew in 1915. He also built the first Russian wind tunnel in 1897. In 1903, as part of a series of articles in a Russian aviation magazine, Tsiolkovsky published the rocket equation, Eric Weisstein's World of Physics and in 1929, a theory of multistage rockets. Tsiolkovsky was also the author of Investigations of Outer Space by Rocket Devices (1911) and Aims of Astronauts (1914). One of Tsiolkovsky's many memorable and inspiring quotes is "Mankind will not forever remain on Earth, but in the pursuit of light and space will first timidly emerge from the bounds of the atmosphere, and then advance until he has conquered the whole of circumsolar space" (1911). Tsiolkovsky's most famous quote is, "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever." "
The more people, the more vision and imagination...
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
This "overpopulation" meme is so short sighted and despairing. Someday maybe we will see potential parents getting obsessed with "pleasure traps" of modern technology as perhaps a bad thing, rather than something that is now celebrated. Industrialized populations (especially places like Japan and Italy, and even the USA just about without immigration) are no longer even replacing themselves and their populations demographically will fall. Where does tha
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
i think if the 1% were to split over a range of about 10% things would look a lot different, as if life were to imitate the brain and you get 10% neurons making decisions and acting all high and mighty. Can't have total equality in an overpopulated world where resources are getting scarcer (is that good english or is it 'more scarce' or 'less abundant' for the positivists, and society as is is still basically pretty primitive underneath the thin layer of tek.
by the way, how much matter do we have left before the whole planet consists of humans ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Having been a only child myself, and having raised an only child, I'd like to say there are pluses and minuses. Obviously, with fewer kids, there is less cost, and more time that could be devoted on an individual basis. I do believe that only children miss out (or at least are delayed in learning) some socialization skills. They don't have to learn to play nice with others...sharing...negotiating...and simply putting up with someone simply because you have to. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, some of this can be learned elsewhere, but I'd argue that for the vast majority of only children, this is the way it is.
And, yes, I know I've only got my own data points to go on, but it's what I've observed fairly consistently in my 53 years.
Just another day in Paradise