Reply With Quote
You clicked on a banner ad, didn't you.
Since you've read it, save us the pain...what are they saying?
I know it's basically an infomercial but the logic is compelling. Try to shoot holes in their conclusions. (long, but interesting read)
http://moneymappress.com/pro/HPyrami...MIDMMR49EADMMP
You clicked on a banner ad, didn't you.
Since you've read it, save us the pain...what are they saying?
You really need to read it. The premise is that there is a combination of energy, environment (specifically food and water) and economic factors and consumption that are growing geometrically and it's completely unsustainable. They really make a compelling argument.
what's their argument?
you lazy bas s!
If it were a news story and not an infomercial, you'd have a point but those goddamned things drag on forever and then... well, to be honest, I've never gotten to the end of one of those things.you lazy bas s!
It is a very compelling compilation of charts and statistics. I couldn't fault their logic at all, that's why I called in the PF crew. You aren't being forced to participate in the discussion.
Fair enough.
cliff notes, plz. thanks
I read the beginning of it and growth being bad has been a central tenant of my political philosophy. It's now just a zero sum game.
Some people support the Keystone pipeline so we can expedite the exportation of natural resources to China of all places. Its things like that that make me doubt the worth of universal suffrage.
I read up to here:
and then stopped... that chart isn't wrong, it's just been scaled on a proportion to make it look relatively-peaky... but GDP growth isn't.
Here's a bigger chart:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...q=us+gdp+chart
It took 6 years for the US to go from 1T to 2T
It took 8 years for the US to go from 2T to 4T
It took 12 years for the US to go from 4T to 8T
It took 16 years for the US to go from 8T to 15T (we're not quite at 16T yet)
Obviously growth isn't guaranteed, but you can see the pace isn't exponential at all. It's not even doubling at the same rate.
Frankly, what I got up to that point is some play on being "scared", which is seemingly fairly effective to get people to buy into crap these days.
[.15, .25, .33, .4375]I read up to here:
and then stopped... that chart isn't wrong, it's just been scaled on a proportion to make it look relatively-peaky... but GDP growth isn't.
Here's a bigger chart:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...q=us+gdp+chart
It took 6 years for the US to go from 1T to 2T
It took 8 years for the US to go from 2T to 4T
It took 12 years for the US to go from 4T to 8T
It took 16 years for the US to go from 8T to 15T (we're not quite at 16T yet)
Obviously growth isn't guaranteed, but you can see the pace isn't exponential at all. It's not even doubling at the same rate.
Frankly, what I got up to that point is some play on being "scared", which is seemingly fairly effective to get people to buy into crap these days.
That's certainly not a linear progression. It's called a decaying exponential.
World Population Growth
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
150 100 50 40
That's the progression of years required to double population. I could give a about arbitrary currency valuation relative to the objective reality of resource consumption.
Economic growth rate is decaying. Population growth rate is rising. That's not a good combination.
Sure, you would expect gains on GDP to slow down. It simply smooths out the curve. But there's simply no indicator this would be some sort of trigger for apocalypse.
Apocalypse is just mumbo jumbo no matter how you view it. You are absolutely right to say that the graph scaling is bull .
The point I'm trying to make is that with the divergent trajectories of the two, the standard of living for the average human is going to go down.
If not for Haber we would already be ed but Malthus was right. There is no 'armageddon' but there are checks on population. Disease, famine, poverty, violent conflict, social stratification, etc are all products of overpopulation; they just don't all happen at once and only after a certain threshold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
