It's funnny how Malthus and his There Won't Be Enough To Go Around
got hooked up a bastardized version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
- Only The Fit Will Survice. With those to assumptions the world is
seen from a Me OR You perspective - and WHEN push comes to shove
it's going to be just ME - cause I'll kill YOU if that becomes necessary
for ME to survive. This is what is referred to as a Zero Sum Game
- for someone to gain, someone else must lose.
That precludes thinking in terms of Me AND You - synergy - the actual
sum of the parts being greater than the numeric value of the parts.
Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in
countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United States, Canada,
etc. So as other countries reach a certain development level their
popolation growth rate will level off and decline - as will the
But the percapita energy consumption has always - continued to climb.
It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption
of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not
at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink
- that we should be concerned about.
Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just
temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being
As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the
areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They
should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For
example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.
Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can
earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining
minerals or opening technical support call centers...
Your example is an interesting coincidence - I've been corresponding
with a prof in Khartoum who's interested in helping to develop an
inexpensive solar-powered pump to expand the growing area along the Nile
and provide a city water supply in Khartoum.
If a large-scale solar-powered desalinization technology can also be
developed, drought susceptibility might have much less impact.
If you can find a real long-term solution to that problem and help them
implement it, I suspect that Al-HaiBub will become a more important
historical figure than Al-Iskandr throughout that entire region. :)
Yep. My wife is a geologist and thinks that anyone buying property in
Arizona is nuts due to the water issues.
She also has little sympathy for people buying houses near the San
Andreas fault in California, and building on the edges of cliffs in
Vancouver. (And then they wonder why their houses fall into the ocean...)
Yeas ago (duh!) in one of Johnny Carson's monologs he said that
California was the only state in the Union where one had to have an
operator's license to own a home... earthquakes, mudslides ... <motion
with hand sliding down hill>
Well, yeah, cotton loves hot (can you say "Egypt"?), but what they say
about Arizona is it's a place so dry the trees follow the dogs around.
Growing cotton there just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.
Each one of those accepts certain premises as givens that are far from
Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this?
Hardly plausible let alone proven.
First premise taken as a given is that population growth in the developed
world is a serious problem. Second premise taken as a given is that
populations in the developed world are increasing at an alarming rate.
Population growth in developed countries has always found technological
solutions to address the ability to maintain that civilization.
Population growth in the US is due primarily to immigration. Citizens of
the US are just at replacement rate. Citizens in the European countries are
below replacement rate. At this point, their problem is not overpopulation,
but loss of population. This is going to have profound effects in the
coming years. The only people in European countries reproducing at growth
rates are immigrants from third world countries who bring a particular
mindset that is not conducive to sustainable civilization.
See above, we are currently at sustainment rate with the exception of
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:49:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there never
is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming majority
(80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities are having an
Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of all
those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may well (and
some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the status quo?
That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't care about the
Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global
warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that
proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent pointed
out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they come from ice
fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up at an increased
The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is man
made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I see an
awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Your 90% figure may very well be correct. I remind you of what Einstein
said: "No amount of experiments will prove my theory correct, but it only
takes ONE to prove it wrong."
Sigh. Three of the Antartic ice sheets/glaciers are shrinking. Seven are
The earth IS probably warming. It's not as warm as it was during the Middle
Ages. Further, more warming is good: Longer growing seasons, etc. An open
Northwest passage, for example, would be a tremendous boon for world trade.
The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are
using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very
strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and
Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from,
the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."
As for economic ties, have a look at the incredible fraud happening in
the Danish cap and trade market, and who the international corporate
interests are that have been pushing for cap and trade.
A vast conspiracy? No, of course not. But a vast conspiracy isn't
needed. Just a handful of people with an agenda and the power to push
"The Dog Ate It"
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing
away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global
warming are based. "
Refusal to release data they DO have:
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
And absolutely fudging of data:
"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.