(April 5, 2020 at 9:21 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(April 5, 2020 at 9:18 am)SUNGULA Wrote: True food is no different then anything else . His fallacy remains invalid  regardless of product . Population reduction does not by necessity coralate to a reduction in consumption  .As i provided countless links directly demonstrating this flawed assumption.

Ten people eat the same amount as one.



Interesting math you have there...

Here in mere reality, an american eats much more food than many numbers of ten - some of which eat none...and that single american also throws away more food than many numbers of ten.

It is "interesting math"..... but that interesting math is precisely why pop control is not a credible strategy for reducing carbon emissions.

Executing the entire population of africa, 1.2billion people, would show 2% or less reduction in carbon emissions. No matter what means or method we use to "control" the population, and even if we reduce the population by billions at a pop - it won't and literally can't help. We'd have to target carbon emitters explicitly.

While we're on the subject of pop control and carbon emissions..there's another bit of "interesting math" where countries which are having children below replacement rates just so happen to simultaneously be some of the largest emitters. Again..in mere reality, most human beings have exactly as many kids as they want, and what people do when they have fewer kids, is plow the same amount of resources into one kid that they would have plowed into two, or ten.

(April 5, 2020 at 9:27 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 5, 2020 at 9:21 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Ten people eat the same amount as one.



Interesting math you have there...

Here in mere reality, an american eats much more food than many numbers of ten - some of which eat none...and that single american also throws away more food than many numbers of ten.

It is "interesting math"..... but that interesting math is precisely why pop control is not a credible strategy for reducing carbon emissions.

You think I'm against Americans shriking their population? Nope - all for it. And the Chinese. and the Indians. And The Russians, Africans, Asians and the motherfucking Eskimos who live in Igigik Alaska - on the west side of town........

You want perfection while humans breed like rats.

Stupid.


Just stupid.

...........?

I'm explaining why the pop control canard is a non starter for reducing carbon emissions. What I want, is for us to emit less carbon, and part of that is to reuse whatever we can reuse.

For population control to be effective -at reducing carbon emissions-, we would have to target carbon emitters explicitly - not just country by country, but even within the demographics of a country. Americans don't all emit the same amount of carbon. We could set up a carbon panel, and anyone who goes over the level could be executed. May as well dispense with the pretense of pop control.

In mere reality, populations with lowers numbers of children correlate with higher carbon emissions. I know...I know..I know....it's impossibru, some law of thermodynamics probably says so.

(April 5, 2020 at 9:27 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 5, 2020 at 9:21 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Ten people eat the same amount as one.



Interesting math you have there...

Here in mere reality, an american eats much more food than many numbers of ten - some of which eat none...and that single american also throws away more food than many numbers of ten.

It is "interesting math"..... but that interesting math is precisely why pop control is not a credible strategy for reducing carbon emissions.

Executing the entire population of africa, 1.2billion people, would show 2% or less reduction in carbon emissions.  No matter what means or method we use to "control" the population, and even if we reduce the population by billions at a pop - it won't and literally can't help.  We'd have to target carbon emitters explicitly.  

While we're on the subject of pop control and carbon emissions..there's another bit of "interesting math" where countries which are having children below replacement rates just so happen to simultaneously be some of the largest emitters.

He won' listen .His pet theory is right no matter what he facts say .

It's a fact consumption does not correlate to population and this has been known for decades 

It's a fact we don't have an overpopulation problem we have overconsumption problem 

It's a fact Malthus and his ilk have been shown wrong over and over. Their theory of distribution fails .

It's a fact it will take decades for population reduction to com close to any positive effects .Decades we don't have and no voluntary policy will have the bite to drop he numbers fast enough to matter .I link a ton of articles backing all this .

---

Quote:You think I'm against Americans shriking their population? Nope - all for it. And the Chinese. and the Indians. And The Russians, Africans, Asians and the motherfucking Eskimos who live in Igigik Alaska - on the west side of town........

Too bad he never said that or implied it 

Quote:You want perfection while humans breed like rats.

Except were not 

Quote:Stupid.


Just stupid.

No this plan of yours is stupid

---

Oh and some more nails in this coffin 

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12...population

http://pielc.org/tag/overconsumption/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/consumpti...tal_threat

https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/02/26/ove...tury-13839

https://globalecoguy.org/seed-essay-on-p...94fcc8f886

I suppose that we could cut malthus some slack, there were facts just on the horizon that he wouldn't have available to him, or at least were less obvious to him...that are available to us.

Ironic, in that it was the industrial revolution which he didn't see coming.

(April 5, 2020 at 9:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I suppose that we could cut malthus some slack, there were facts just on the horizon that he wouldn't have available to him, or at least were less obvious to him...that are available to us.

Ironic, in that it was the industrial revolution which he didn't see coming.

True but it's a tragedy that since other people have appealed to his flawed reasoning despite it being shown wrong over and over in concept and in practice.

Pop control would be useful for so many other things that...and this is just my opinion, we can be excused for letting the idea ride on cruise control. It could help with items 1-10, and being such a good idea for those items, we intuit that it would be good for 11 - even when there is no indication that it would be..and every indication that it's not even in the vicinity of the problem.

We could imagine that..for example, a government doesn't have enough money for it's social safety net. Well, pop control might help there - I say might...because poor folk are awfully damned productive - and that's where the money a state has ultimately comes from - but still...maybe there are some useless poors. A number such that reducing them wouldn't negatively impact the amount of resources a state has to then throw at the rest of the slightly less undeserving poor.

(April 5, 2020 at 10:02 am)SUNGULA Wrote:

(April 5, 2020 at 9:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I suppose that we could cut malthus some slack, there were facts just on the horizon that he wouldn't have available to him, or at least were less obvious to him...that are available to us.

Ironic, in that it was the industrial revolution which he didn't see coming.

True but it's a tragedy that since other people have appealed to his flawed reasoning despite it being shown wrong over and over in concept and in practice.

LOL...

In practice?

Where?

Show me a single case of drastic population reduction where consumption of resource and pollution generated remained constant.


Maybe on the planet or alternate reality you came from.

It sure had never happened here.

Quote:LOL...

In practice?

Where?

Show me a single case of drastic population reduction where consumption of resource and pollution generated remained constant.


Maybe on the planet or alternate reality you came from.

It sure had never happened here.

So just more of you ignoring the fact consumption does not correlate to population which i have more then provided evidence of   

Oh well you can't convince a fanatic

---

(April 5, 2020 at 10:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Pop control would be useful for so many other things that...and this is just my opinion, we can be excused for letting the idea ride on cruise control.  It could help with items 1-10, and being such a good idea for those items, we intuit that it would be good for 11 - even when there is no indication that it would be..and every indication that it's not even in the vicinity of the problem.

We could imagine that..for example, a government doesn't have enough money for it's social safety net.  Well, pop control might help there - I say might...because poor folk are awfully damned productive - and that's where the money a state has ultimately comes from - but still...maybe there are some useless poors.  A number such that reducing them wouldn't negatively impact the amount of resources a state has to then throw at the rest of the slightly less undeserving poor.

True

If you're wondering how malthus was wrong in practice and in theory, OLB, the answer is simple. He believed that human population always grows more rapidly than human food supply until war, disease, or famine reduced that pop.

Because he believed this, he predicted..in 1798.. that very soon™ the world pop would be hobbled and the survivors forced to live at the level of subsistence. This is not what happened, because what he believed about pop growth -and- about food production..both turned out to be wrong. In mere reality, not only were those predictions wrong, but population control measures that have been enacted, such as china's one child policy, simply did not produce the hoped for effects - they increased their resource consumption. Meanwhile, people in wealthy countries organically decided to have fewer children (and..recall, they also emit more carbon, anyway).\

The only way that removing any number of the population could decrease carbon emissions, is if we targeted carbon emitters specifically..and then prevented the surviving people from picking up the carbon that the newly dead or un-born would have emitted. Population control schemes, on the other hand, again in mere reality, have the effect of reducing a number of the population that contributes little if anything to the problem.