Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

World population could be nearly 11b by 2100

Expand Messages
  • Augie
    World population could be nearly 11b by 2100 Jun 13, 2013 http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257 A new statistical
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
      Jun 13, 2013

      http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257

      A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach nearly 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.

      The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the U.N. had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.

      "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a larger extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African population will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor of statistics and of sociology.

      The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.

      The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery and his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics & the Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods, combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project the long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last population estimate two years ago.

      New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that anticipate the life expectancies of women and men across this century.

      In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility continuing below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see modest increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.

      There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he added, yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other pressing global issues, including poverty and climate — both of which have ties to world population.

      Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in 1999.

      Augie
      Live Simply So That
      Others May Simply Live
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
    • Alan Thomas
      http://www.facebook.com/groups/111779065924/ ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 22, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.facebook.com/groups/111779065924/

        On Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Augie wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
        > Jun 13, 2013
        >
        >
        > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
        >
        > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach nearly
        > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report
        > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous
        > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
        >
        > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the U.N.
        > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
        >
        > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a larger
        > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African population
        > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor of
        > statistics and of sociology.
        >
        > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now expected
        > to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
        >
        > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery and
        > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics & the
        > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods,
        > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project the
        > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last
        > population estimate two years ago.
        >
        > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that anticipate
        > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
        >
        > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are expected.
        > Europe may see a small decline because of fertility continuing below
        > replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see modest
        > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
        >
        > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he added,
        > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other pressing
        > global issues, including poverty and climate � both of which have ties to
        > world population.
        >
        > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in 1999.
        >
        > Augie
        > Live Simply So That
        > Others May Simply Live
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Beth
        Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason, and people in
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason, and people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you will, will have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit those in the 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age, complete with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough or pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some point.

          ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in fact, declining, because "they" so desire it.

          Beth

          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Augie" <augie1015@...> wrote:
          >
          > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
          > Jun 13, 2013
          >
          > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
          >
          > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach nearly 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
          >
          > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the U.N. had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
          >
          > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a larger extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African population will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor of statistics and of sociology.
          >
          > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
          >
          > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery and his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics & the Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods, combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project the long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last population estimate two years ago.
          >
          > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that anticipate the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
          >
          > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility continuing below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see modest increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
          >
          > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he added, yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other pressing global issues, including poverty and climate � both of which have ties to world population.
          >
          > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in 1999.
          >
          > Augie
          > Live Simply So That
          > Others May Simply Live
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
          >
        • Alan Thomas
          What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not decrease there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could there be a racist
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 23, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not decrease
            there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could there be a
            racist underpinning to your belief?

            On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about
            > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason, and
            > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you will, will
            > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit those in the
            > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age, complete
            > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough or
            > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some point.
            >
            > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in fact,
            > declining, because "they" so desire it.
            >
            > Beth
            >
            > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
            > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" <augie1015@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
            > > Jun 13, 2013
            > >
            > >
            > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
            > >
            > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach nearly
            > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report
            > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous
            > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
            > >
            > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the U.N.
            > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
            > >
            > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a larger
            > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African population
            > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor of
            > statistics and of sociology.
            > >
            > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now
            > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
            > >
            > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery and
            > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics & the
            > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods,
            > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project the
            > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last
            > population estimate two years ago.
            > >
            > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that anticipate
            > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
            > >
            > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are
            > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility continuing
            > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see modest
            > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
            > >
            > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he added,
            > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other pressing
            > global issues, including poverty and climate ��� both of which have ties to
            > world population.
            > >
            > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in 1999.
            > >
            > > Augie
            > > Live Simply So That
            > > Others May Simply Live
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Les Knight
            Fertility decline has stalled in Africa and the UN has updated population projections to account for this lack of progress.
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 25, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Fertility decline has stalled in Africa and the UN has updated population projections to account for this lack of progress.
              http://e360.yale.edu/feature/our_overcrowded_planet_a_failure_of_family_planning/2666/

              As for why, there are several possibilities, including the lack of family planning services given in the article above. I think a lack of family planning is caused by patriarchal religions/cultures. A look at the TFR ranking reveals that for the most part the higher the TFR the less gender equality.
              https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

              If you mean economic development, the Demographic Transition Theory may only have correlation as a basis, and a reversed causation. http://vhemt.org/economics.htm#tfrgdp

              Les

              On 6/23/13 10:45 PM, Alan Thomas wrote:
              > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not
              > decrease there as development increases, just like everywhere else?
              > Could there be a racist underpinning to your belief?
              >
              > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
              >> Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads
              >> about life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for
              >> some reason, and people in the industrialized world - the
              >> "superconsumers" if you will, will have such dangerously-low
              >> fertility that we'll have to exploit those in the 3rd so there will
              >> be someone to take care of us in our old age, complete with our
              >> solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough or
              >> pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some
              >> point.
              >>
              >> ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in
              >> fact, declining, because "they" so desire it.
              >>
              >> Beth
            • Beth
              This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point is turning out to be a crock. The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point is turning out to be a crock.

                The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that there is no "developing" world. There's the developed/industrialized world, and there's the world which will never be developed. Part of the problem is this notion of "carbon credits" - the developed world has access to everything from wind power to solar power to wave power. The "developing" world is doing it much the same way that The US and Europe did it in the 19th century - coal, and to a lesser degree oil. But, we're running out of oil, and we've got too much greenhouse gas there now. Having about triple what we have now is just not acceptable.

                There are realities in much of Africa, and other parts of the "developing" world that will simply not allow them to become more able to control their fertility in time. For one thing, the inequality between the sexes is enormous. In some area, women are nothing more than property. These women do not have the ability to use contraception, say "no" to sex or marriage, or in any way control their fertility. Culture is slow to move as well. The culture is to have a lot of children, and men assess their worth by how many children they have. Barren women are seen as useless...

                Religion plays a role too. Especially with a lot of the healthcare being operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which has anti-contraception as an agenda, and is outright spreading lies about some of it - like condoms CAUSE AIDS. The anti-condom word has been quite effective in keeping the AIDS epidemic going. Contraception is just plain not available to them. Other, more effective means of contraception are just plain blocked, mainly by religious groups.

                Note that most of these issues are not unique to Africa. The same ones exist in South America, parts of Asia, polynesia, Oceana, and yes, even in the US.

                This has nothing to do with race - which really does not exist at all. Nor does it have to do with racism, other than I, like most other VHEMTers, think the human race should just stop in a controlled manner. The human race will cease to exist in not much longer - Stephen Hawkings gives it 50/50 by 2100.

                Beth
                --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                >
                > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not decrease
                > there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could there be a
                > racist underpinning to your belief?
                >
                > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about
                > > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason, and
                > > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you will, will
                > > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit those in the
                > > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age, complete
                > > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough or
                > > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some point.
                > >
                > > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in fact,
                > > declining, because "they" so desire it.
                > >
                > > Beth
                > >
                > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" <augie1015@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
                > > > Jun 13, 2013
                > > >
                > > >
                > > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
                > > >
                > > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach nearly
                > > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report
                > > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous
                > > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
                > > >
                > > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the U.N.
                > > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
                > > >
                > > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a larger
                > > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African population
                > > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor of
                > > statistics and of sociology.
                > > >
                > > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now
                > > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
                > > >
                > > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery and
                > > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics & the
                > > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods,
                > > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project the
                > > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last
                > > population estimate two years ago.
                > > >
                > > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that anticipate
                > > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
                > > >
                > > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are
                > > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility continuing
                > > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see modest
                > > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
                > > >
                > > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he added,
                > > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other pressing
                > > global issues, including poverty and climate � both of which have ties to
                > > world population.
                > > >
                > > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in 1999.
                > > >
                > > > Augie
                > > > Live Simply So That
                > > > Others May Simply Live
                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Alan Thomas
                Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics does not necessarily apply more broadly. What you are describing about culture in parts of
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 26, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics does
                  not necessarily apply more broadly.

                  What you are describing about culture in parts of Africa sounds like that
                  in the West less than a century ago. They will catch up. Check out this
                  chart:
                  http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html

                  I love too how some of you seem to envision the population growing so great
                  that we all starve at once and crash to zero population. Worst case, food
                  shortages will simply put an upper limit on population.

                  We are not running out of oil:
                  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

                  And we will adapt to climate change. Might want to buy some land in
                  northern Siberia and northern Canada, though, while it's still cheap!



                  On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  >
                  > This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point is turning
                  > out to be a crock.
                  >
                  > The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that there is no
                  > "developing" world. There's the developed/industrialized world, and there's
                  > the world which will never be developed. Part of the problem is this notion
                  > of "carbon credits" - the developed world has access to everything from
                  > wind power to solar power to wave power. The "developing" world is doing it
                  > much the same way that The US and Europe did it in the 19th century - coal,
                  > and to a lesser degree oil. But, we're running out of oil, and we've got
                  > too much greenhouse gas there now. Having about triple what we have now is
                  > just not acceptable.
                  >
                  > There are realities in much of Africa, and other parts of the "developing"
                  > world that will simply not allow them to become more able to control their
                  > fertility in time. For one thing, the inequality between the sexes is
                  > enormous. In some area, women are nothing more than property. These women
                  > do not have the ability to use contraception, say "no" to sex or marriage,
                  > or in any way control their fertility. Culture is slow to move as well. The
                  > culture is to have a lot of children, and men assess their worth by how
                  > many children they have. Barren women are seen as useless...
                  >
                  > Religion plays a role too. Especially with a lot of the healthcare being
                  > operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which has anti-contraception as an
                  > agenda, and is outright spreading lies about some of it - like condoms
                  > CAUSE AIDS. The anti-condom word has been quite effective in keeping the
                  > AIDS epidemic going. Contraception is just plain not available to them.
                  > Other, more effective means of contraception are just plain blocked, mainly
                  > by religious groups.
                  >
                  > Note that most of these issues are not unique to Africa. The same ones
                  > exist in South America, parts of Asia, polynesia, Oceana, and yes, even in
                  > the US.
                  >
                  > This has nothing to do with race - which really does not exist at all. Nor
                  > does it have to do with racism, other than I, like most other VHEMTers,
                  > think the human race should just stop in a controlled manner. The human
                  > race will cease to exist in not much longer - Stephen Hawkings gives it
                  > 50/50 by 2100.
                  >
                  > Beth
                  >
                  > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not decrease
                  > > there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could there
                  > be a
                  > > racist underpinning to your belief?
                  > >
                  > > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > **
                  >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about
                  > > > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason,
                  > and
                  > > > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you will,
                  > will
                  > > > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit those
                  > in the
                  > > > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age,
                  > complete
                  > > > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough
                  > or
                  > > > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some point.
                  > > >
                  > > > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in fact,
                  > > > declining, because "they" so desire it.
                  > > >
                  > > > Beth
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                  >
                  > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" <augie1015@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
                  > > > > Jun 13, 2013
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
                  > > > >
                  > > > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach
                  > nearly
                  > > > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report
                  > > > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous
                  > > > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the
                  > U.N.
                  > > > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a
                  > larger
                  > > > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African
                  > population
                  > > > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor
                  > of
                  > > > statistics and of sociology.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now
                  > > > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery
                  > and
                  > > > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics &
                  > the
                  > > > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods,
                  > > > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project
                  > the
                  > > > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last
                  > > > population estimate two years ago.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that
                  > anticipate
                  > > > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are
                  > > > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility
                  > continuing
                  > > > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see
                  > modest
                  > > > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he
                  > added,
                  > > > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other
                  > pressing
                  > > > global issues, including poverty and climate ��� both of which have
                  > ties to
                  > > > world population.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in
                  > 1999.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Augie
                  > > > > Live Simply So That
                  > > > > Others May Simply Live
                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
                  > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Les Knight
                  Thanks for the source of charts, Alan. The Dept of Labor is a credible source and I might be able to use some of their charts. Their selective presentation of
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 26, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for the source of charts, Alan. The Dept of Labor is a credible source and I might be able to use some of their charts.

                    Their selective presentation of data, however, could easily mislead people. The bar graph you cited, for example. http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html Comparing TFR of a few countries in 1960 and 1990 is interesting but insufficient for drawing meaningful conclusions.

                    Global TFR in 1950 was 5.0 and now it's 2.6. From that alone, one might conclude that the population bomb is a dud. However, in 1950, human population was growing by 37 million per year and now it's growing by 78 million: twice the growth at half the fertility. TFR becomes more resistant to improvement the lower it gets.

                    Running out of oil isn't the problem, burning what we have is. Human civilization might adjust to climate disruption, but it will accelerate extinctions.

                    Les
                  • Beth
                    Fertility is only part of the story behind population growth. Another part is that lifespans are increasing in most of the world. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 27, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Fertility is only part of the story behind population growth. Another part is that lifespans are increasing in most of the world.

                      Parts of sub-Saharan Africa being an exception because of the AIDS epidemic - and assorted other epidemics including ebola. That's exasperated further because in some regions religious and political leaders resist vaccination of their populations against well-understood deadly diseases such as polio because of misinformation that the vaccinations cause infertility, or are even a plot to sterilize them or their women.

                      Beth

                      --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Les Knight <les@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Thanks for the source of charts, Alan. The Dept of Labor is a credible source and I might be able to use some of their charts.
                      >
                      > Their selective presentation of data, however, could easily mislead people. The bar graph you cited, for example. http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html Comparing TFR of a few countries in 1960 and 1990 is interesting but insufficient for drawing meaningful conclusions.
                      >
                      > Global TFR in 1950 was 5.0 and now it's 2.6. From that alone, one might conclude that the population bomb is a dud. However, in 1950, human population was growing by 37 million per year and now it's growing by 78 million: twice the growth at half the fertility. TFR becomes more resistant to improvement the lower it gets.
                      >
                      > Running out of oil isn't the problem, burning what we have is. Human civilization might adjust to climate disruption, but it will accelerate extinctions.
                      >
                      > Les
                      >
                    • Beth
                      No one has said, let alone believes, that we will run out of food one day and all starve at once. The problem will first hit the poorer people and nations. If
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 27, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        No one has said, let alone believes, that we will run out of food one day and all starve at once. The problem will first hit the poorer people and nations. If a resource is available in any quantity, the wealthy will get it. The lengths they may go to may not leave any of it for anyone though.

                        When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care. When the problem effects a larger number of people, more care. Desperate starving people with nothing to lose will go to any lengths to get what they want... need... Violence will erupt. There's not much that the poor starving peoples now can do. But, when it starts effecting the majority - and the strategic interests of nations, things may get nasty. Some of these countries have nuclear arms and other WMD.

                        Sea level rise from the melting of the polar caps and glaciers will cause another problem. Nations such as Bangladesh will go under water. As a NATION they have nothing to lose. There is a method by which such a low-lying coastal nation could defend itself - by shooting rockets armed with particulates high in the atmosphere - blocking out part of the sun. That will work, but if not done extremely carefully, will throw the world into an ice age.

                        It's true that as equatorial and temperate regions will become too hot to grow food in, that Arctic and Antarctic regions will warm up and melt off revealing the land underneath. However, this is not an answer for growing food. The land revealed by a melting glacier has not had anything grow on or in it for thousands or millions of years. It will lead a low, if any, crop. Also, the polar regions are smaller than the equatorial regions - a matter of geometry. Throw into that the holes in the ozone layer which seem to appear over the polar regions, and they are not such a good place either.

                        Extra carbon in the atmosphere does not just cause greenhouse gasses and global warming. The carbon which is bound in the earth unleashes into the atmosphere NOT as pure carbon - it binds with oxygen. Oxygen levels are decreasing too. Oxygen levels over major cities are down to around 12%. Under 6% it will not sustain animal or human life. This is not a new problem. It was first written about near the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Baron Kelvin of Largs wrote a scholarly paper," On the End of Free Oxygen" in 1901.

                        Ocean currents make a big difference too. They are changing, and nobody knows the precise results of that. It could be as simple as some places that now get little rain get a lot, some places that are warm get cold and some places that are cold get warm. Or, the stopping of the ocean currents could cause Canfield Oceans, or anoxyc oceanic events, are likely to occur if the temperature rises 8C. We already have known, large, oxygen-depleted "dead zones" in the oceans. This has happened in the past, causing the extinction event between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

                        The difference is that it's human kind deliberately putting more carbon in the air, and warming it up, and making more of us like there's no tomorrow. Even a climatologist hired by the Koch brothers to debunk the notions of global warming came back with "Yes, Global Warming is occurring, and it's human caused." That scientific honesty cost her a very lucrative job.

                        Food and air (and a place to call home) are not the only threats. The major threat I see comes from the microbial world. We've already got global pandemics, and a new bird flu or swine flu epidemic breaks out every couple of months. Most of these are regionalized and highly deadly for a time, but they peter out, and don't effect many people. A few of them do.

                        Flu is far from the only threat we have. Tuberculosis has been known as a disease at least since the time of the Pharaohs. We've had antibiotic treatments for it for decades. They killed off a lot of TB, and saved many people. But, sometimes a few lived - especially among people who could not or did not take their entire course of antibiotics. Drug resistant, multiple-drug resistant, and extensively drug resistant strains abound. Other diseases have gone the same way, including (common) staphylococcus aureus has been exposed to antibiotics, and turned into deadly MRSA. Like that isn't enough, Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CREs, which are of the genus Enterobacteriaceae, appear to be deadly in 50% of those infected in their bloodstream. These resistant forms of disease mostly exist in hospitals, although bacteria of the genus Enterobacteriaceae naturally live in soil. We are rapidly approaching what has been termed a "post-antibiotic era". Even the simplest of surgeries will soon be as dangerous as surgery was in the early 19th century.

                        I misattributed the number for Stephen Hawking. He doesn't think we'll survive more than 1000 years on earth. Martin Rees gives a 50/50 chance of extinction by 2100, while John Leslie doesn't see much hope in 500 years.

                        We are in an extinction event such as those that have happened in the past at the boundaries between various geological periods in history. Larger animals go extinct faster than smaller animals. The current weight level at which things are going extinct are things over 40 KG (90 lbs). Average adult humans are significantly heavier than that. Over 99% of the world's species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. We are hanging on with our technology and intelligence. But... all good things must come to an end.

                        Poor countries will not "catch up" to rich countries. Not in their pollution outputs, not socially, not education-wise (for the masses), not culturally. The western "industrialized" nations had a one-time-good-deal when we discovered oil in the 19th century, which we could have used to make something that did not destroy our environment. The discovered oil (the unproven notion that there MAY be an endless supply of hydrocarbons inside the earth notwithstanding) has mostly been used up, and what's left is difficult and expensive to get.

                        Beth


                        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics does
                        > not necessarily apply more broadly.
                        >
                        > What you are describing about culture in parts of Africa sounds like that
                        > in the West less than a century ago. They will catch up. Check out this
                        > chart:
                        > http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html
                        >
                        > I love too how some of you seem to envision the population growing so great
                        > that we all starve at once and crash to zero population. Worst case, food
                        > shortages will simply put an upper limit on population.
                        >
                        > We are not running out of oil:
                        > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/
                        >
                        > And we will adapt to climate change. Might want to buy some land in
                        > northern Siberia and northern Canada, though, while it's still cheap!
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point is turning
                        > > out to be a crock.
                        > >
                        > > The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that there is no
                        > > "developing" world. There's the developed/industrialized world, and there's
                        > > the world which will never be developed. Part of the problem is this notion
                        > > of "carbon credits" - the developed world has access to everything from
                        > > wind power to solar power to wave power. The "developing" world is doing it
                        > > much the same way that The US and Europe did it in the 19th century - coal,
                        > > and to a lesser degree oil. But, we're running out of oil, and we've got
                        > > too much greenhouse gas there now. Having about triple what we have now is
                        > > just not acceptable.
                        > >
                        > > There are realities in much of Africa, and other parts of the "developing"
                        > > world that will simply not allow them to become more able to control their
                        > > fertility in time. For one thing, the inequality between the sexes is
                        > > enormous. In some area, women are nothing more than property. These women
                        > > do not have the ability to use contraception, say "no" to sex or marriage,
                        > > or in any way control their fertility. Culture is slow to move as well. The
                        > > culture is to have a lot of children, and men assess their worth by how
                        > > many children they have. Barren women are seen as useless...
                        > >
                        > > Religion plays a role too. Especially with a lot of the healthcare being
                        > > operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which has anti-contraception as an
                        > > agenda, and is outright spreading lies about some of it - like condoms
                        > > CAUSE AIDS. The anti-condom word has been quite effective in keeping the
                        > > AIDS epidemic going. Contraception is just plain not available to them.
                        > > Other, more effective means of contraception are just plain blocked, mainly
                        > > by religious groups.
                        > >
                        > > Note that most of these issues are not unique to Africa. The same ones
                        > > exist in South America, parts of Asia, polynesia, Oceana, and yes, even in
                        > > the US.
                        > >
                        > > This has nothing to do with race - which really does not exist at all. Nor
                        > > does it have to do with racism, other than I, like most other VHEMTers,
                        > > think the human race should just stop in a controlled manner. The human
                        > > race will cease to exist in not much longer - Stephen Hawkings gives it
                        > > 50/50 by 2100.
                        > >
                        > > Beth
                        > >
                        > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not decrease
                        > > > there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could there
                        > > be a
                        > > > racist underpinning to your belief?
                        > > >
                        > > > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > > **
                        > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads about
                        > > > > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some reason,
                        > > and
                        > > > > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you will,
                        > > will
                        > > > > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit those
                        > > in the
                        > > > > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age,
                        > > complete
                        > > > > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard enough
                        > > or
                        > > > > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some point.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in fact,
                        > > > > declining, because "they" so desire it.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Beth
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                        > >
                        > > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" <augie1015@> wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
                        > > > > > Jun 13, 2013
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach
                        > > nearly
                        > > > > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N. report
                        > > > > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the previous
                        > > > > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where the
                        > > U.N.
                        > > > > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a
                        > > larger
                        > > > > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African
                        > > population
                        > > > > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington professor
                        > > of
                        > > > > statistics and of sociology.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now
                        > > > > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by Raftery
                        > > and
                        > > > > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for Statistics &
                        > > the
                        > > > > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting methods,
                        > > > > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to project
                        > > the
                        > > > > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the last
                        > > > > population estimate two years ago.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that
                        > > anticipate
                        > > > > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are
                        > > > > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility
                        > > continuing
                        > > > > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see
                        > > modest
                        > > > > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he
                        > > added,
                        > > > > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other
                        > > pressing
                        > > > > global issues, including poverty and climate � both of which have
                        > > ties to
                        > > > > world population.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion in
                        > > 1999.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Augie
                        > > > > > Live Simply So That
                        > > > > > Others May Simply Live
                        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
                        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
                        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
                        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Alan Thomas
                        If there is a psychological malady characterised by an excessive level of pessimism, you ve got it. Half Empty Syndrome, perhaps? When it s a poor, starving
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 28, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If there is a psychological malady characterised by an excessive level of
                          pessimism, you've got it. Half Empty Syndrome, perhaps?

                          "When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care"

                          Huh. Could have sworn some of the biggest events in pop culture
                          history--Band Aid, Live Aid, USA for Africa ("We Are the World") revolved
                          around precisely that scenario.

                          I don't deny for a second that there is significant human-caused climate
                          change, and I am no friend of the Koch Brothers (I tend to agree with Bill
                          Maher on most issues, and always vote for, and donate to/volunteer for,
                          Democrats). But we will counter the effects with technology, or adapt to
                          the change. For most of the past billion years, the Earth was warmer and
                          had more CO2 in the air, and it was lusher and more teeming with life than
                          it is now. Where I live, in Missouri, it gets hotter and stormier every
                          year. We get more tornadoes, and one of them killed the nicest, kindest
                          guy I have ever known. But the plants and bugs and critters love it. i
                          feel like I have to cut my lawn and trim my bushes about every five
                          minutes, and the woods are teeming with birds and squirrels and rabbits and
                          deer. Meanwhile farmers are producing bumper crops (including too much
                          factory farmed, federally subsidised corn and beans, but the organic
                          farmers love it too).

                          This idea that we'll go extinct based on our mass, as though our brains and
                          technology make no difference, is risible. Contra Hawking et al, I will
                          counter that I believe humans will never go extinct. Our descendants, and
                          whatever other lifeforms we choose to bring with us, will be safely
                          ensconced on a space station watching, billions of years from now, when our
                          sun becomes a red giant and boils away the oceans.

                          I wonder what you make of these statistics, from the UN:

                          http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

                          Lies? A temporary reprieve before things get worse again? What? Let's
                          hear your sputtering excuse--might be amusing, though I rather doubt it
                          will be convincing.

                          On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Beth wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > No one has said, let alone believes, that we will run out of food one day
                          > and all starve at once. The problem will first hit the poorer people and
                          > nations. If a resource is available in any quantity, the wealthy will get
                          > it. The lengths they may go to may not leave any of it for anyone though.
                          >
                          > When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care. When the
                          > problem effects a larger number of people, more care. Desperate starving
                          > people with nothing to lose will go to any lengths to get what they want...
                          > need... Violence will erupt. There's not much that the poor starving
                          > peoples now can do. But, when it starts effecting the majority - and the
                          > strategic interests of nations, things may get nasty. Some of these
                          > countries have nuclear arms and other WMD.
                          >
                          > Sea level rise from the melting of the polar caps and glaciers will cause
                          > another problem. Nations such as Bangladesh will go under water. As a
                          > NATION they have nothing to lose. There is a method by which such a
                          > low-lying coastal nation could defend itself - by shooting rockets armed
                          > with particulates high in the atmosphere - blocking out part of the sun.
                          > That will work, but if not done extremely carefully, will throw the world
                          > into an ice age.
                          >
                          > It's true that as equatorial and temperate regions will become too hot to
                          > grow food in, that Arctic and Antarctic regions will warm up and melt off
                          > revealing the land underneath. However, this is not an answer for growing
                          > food. The land revealed by a melting glacier has not had anything grow on
                          > or in it for thousands or millions of years. It will lead a low, if any,
                          > crop. Also, the polar regions are smaller than the equatorial regions - a
                          > matter of geometry. Throw into that the holes in the ozone layer which seem
                          > to appear over the polar regions, and they are not such a good place either.
                          >
                          > Extra carbon in the atmosphere does not just cause greenhouse gasses and
                          > global warming. The carbon which is bound in the earth unleashes into the
                          > atmosphere NOT as pure carbon - it binds with oxygen. Oxygen levels are
                          > decreasing too. Oxygen levels over major cities are down to around 12%.
                          > Under 6% it will not sustain animal or human life. This is not a new
                          > problem. It was first written about near the beginning of the Industrial
                          > Revolution. Baron Kelvin of Largs wrote a scholarly paper," On the End of
                          > Free Oxygen" in 1901.
                          >
                          > Ocean currents make a big difference too. They are changing, and nobody
                          > knows the precise results of that. It could be as simple as some places
                          > that now get little rain get a lot, some places that are warm get cold and
                          > some places that are cold get warm. Or, the stopping of the ocean currents
                          > could cause Canfield Oceans, or anoxyc oceanic events, are likely to occur
                          > if the temperature rises 8C. We already have known, large, oxygen-depleted
                          > "dead zones" in the oceans. This has happened in the past, causing the
                          > extinction event between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
                          >
                          > The difference is that it's human kind deliberately putting more carbon in
                          > the air, and warming it up, and making more of us like there's no tomorrow.
                          > Even a climatologist hired by the Koch brothers to debunk the notions of
                          > global warming came back with "Yes, Global Warming is occurring, and it's
                          > human caused." That scientific honesty cost her a very lucrative job.
                          >
                          > Food and air (and a place to call home) are not the only threats. The
                          > major threat I see comes from the microbial world. We've already got global
                          > pandemics, and a new bird flu or swine flu epidemic breaks out every couple
                          > of months. Most of these are regionalized and highly deadly for a time, but
                          > they peter out, and don't effect many people. A few of them do.
                          >
                          > Flu is far from the only threat we have. Tuberculosis has been known as a
                          > disease at least since the time of the Pharaohs. We've had antibiotic
                          > treatments for it for decades. They killed off a lot of TB, and saved many
                          > people. But, sometimes a few lived - especially among people who could not
                          > or did not take their entire course of antibiotics. Drug resistant,
                          > multiple-drug resistant, and extensively drug resistant strains abound.
                          > Other diseases have gone the same way, including (common) staphylococcus
                          > aureus has been exposed to antibiotics, and turned into deadly MRSA. Like
                          > that isn't enough, Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CREs, which
                          > are of the genus Enterobacteriaceae, appear to be deadly in 50% of those
                          > infected in their bloodstream. These resistant forms of disease mostly
                          > exist in hospitals, although bacteria of the genus Enterobacteriaceae
                          > naturally live in soil. We are rapidly approaching what has been termed a
                          > "post-antibiotic era". Even the simplest of surgeries will soon be as
                          > dangerous as surgery was in the early 19th century.
                          >
                          > I misattributed the number for Stephen Hawking. He doesn't think we'll
                          > survive more than 1000 years on earth. Martin Rees gives a 50/50 chance of
                          > extinction by 2100, while John Leslie doesn't see much hope in 500 years.
                          >
                          > We are in an extinction event such as those that have happened in the past
                          > at the boundaries between various geological periods in history. Larger
                          > animals go extinct faster than smaller animals. The current weight level at
                          > which things are going extinct are things over 40 KG (90 lbs). Average
                          > adult humans are significantly heavier than that. Over 99% of the world's
                          > species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. We are hanging on with
                          > our technology and intelligence. But... all good things must come to an end.
                          >
                          > Poor countries will not "catch up" to rich countries. Not in their
                          > pollution outputs, not socially, not education-wise (for the masses), not
                          > culturally. The western "industrialized" nations had a one-time-good-deal
                          > when we discovered oil in the 19th century, which we could have used to
                          > make something that did not destroy our environment. The discovered oil
                          > (the unproven notion that there MAY be an endless supply of hydrocarbons
                          > inside the earth notwithstanding) has mostly been used up, and what's left
                          > is difficult and expensive to get.
                          >
                          > Beth
                          >
                          > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                          > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics does
                          > > not necessarily apply more broadly.
                          > >
                          > > What you are describing about culture in parts of Africa sounds like that
                          > > in the West less than a century ago. They will catch up. Check out this
                          > > chart:
                          > >
                          > http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html
                          > >
                          > > I love too how some of you seem to envision the population growing so
                          > great
                          > > that we all starve at once and crash to zero population. Worst case, food
                          > > shortages will simply put an upper limit on population.
                          > >
                          > > We are not running out of oil:
                          > >
                          > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/
                          > >
                          > > And we will adapt to climate change. Might want to buy some land in
                          > > northern Siberia and northern Canada, though, while it's still cheap!
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > **
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point is
                          > turning
                          > > > out to be a crock.
                          > > >
                          > > > The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that there is
                          > no
                          > > > "developing" world. There's the developed/industrialized world, and
                          > there's
                          > > > the world which will never be developed. Part of the problem is this
                          > notion
                          > > > of "carbon credits" - the developed world has access to everything from
                          > > > wind power to solar power to wave power. The "developing" world is
                          > doing it
                          > > > much the same way that The US and Europe did it in the 19th century -
                          > coal,
                          > > > and to a lesser degree oil. But, we're running out of oil, and we've
                          > got
                          > > > too much greenhouse gas there now. Having about triple what we have
                          > now is
                          > > > just not acceptable.
                          > > >
                          > > > There are realities in much of Africa, and other parts of the
                          > "developing"
                          > > > world that will simply not allow them to become more able to control
                          > their
                          > > > fertility in time. For one thing, the inequality between the sexes is
                          > > > enormous. In some area, women are nothing more than property. These
                          > women
                          > > > do not have the ability to use contraception, say "no" to sex or
                          > marriage,
                          > > > or in any way control their fertility. Culture is slow to move as
                          > well. The
                          > > > culture is to have a lot of children, and men assess their worth by how
                          > > > many children they have. Barren women are seen as useless...
                          > > >
                          > > > Religion plays a role too. Especially with a lot of the healthcare
                          > being
                          > > > operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which has anti-contraception as
                          > an
                          > > > agenda, and is outright spreading lies about some of it - like condoms
                          > > > CAUSE AIDS. The anti-condom word has been quite effective in keeping
                          > the
                          > > > AIDS epidemic going. Contraception is just plain not available to them.
                          > > > Other, more effective means of contraception are just plain blocked,
                          > mainly
                          > > > by religious groups.
                          > > >
                          > > > Note that most of these issues are not unique to Africa. The same ones
                          > > > exist in South America, parts of Asia, polynesia, Oceana, and yes,
                          > even in
                          > > > the US.
                          > > >
                          > > > This has nothing to do with race - which really does not exist at all.
                          > Nor
                          > > > does it have to do with racism, other than I, like most other VHEMTers,
                          > > > think the human race should just stop in a controlled manner. The human
                          > > > race will cease to exist in not much longer - Stephen Hawkings gives it
                          > > > 50/50 by 2100.
                          > > >
                          > > > Beth
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                          > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will not
                          > decrease
                          > > > > there as development increases, just like everywhere else? Could
                          > there
                          > > > be a
                          > > > > racist underpinning to your belief?
                          > > > >
                          > > > > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > > **
                          > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of those ads
                          > about
                          > > > > > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for some
                          > reason,
                          > > > and
                          > > > > > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if you
                          > will,
                          > > > will
                          > > > > > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to exploit
                          > those
                          > > > in the
                          > > > > > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old age,
                          > > > complete
                          > > > > > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE hard
                          > enough
                          > > > or
                          > > > > > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at some
                          > point.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is, in
                          > fact,
                          > > > > > declining, because "they" so desire it.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Beth
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                          > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                          > > >
                          > > > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" <augie1015@> wrote:
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
                          > > > > > > Jun 13, 2013
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > >
                          > http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-99257
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population could reach
                          > > > nearly
                          > > > > > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a U.N.
                          > report
                          > > > > > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than the
                          > previous
                          > > > > > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa, where
                          > the
                          > > > U.N.
                          > > > > > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they have.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or stalled to a
                          > > > larger
                          > > > > > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the African
                          > > > population
                          > > > > > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington
                          > professor
                          > > > of
                          > > > > > statistics and of sociology.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now
                          > > > > > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed by
                          > Raftery
                          > > > and
                          > > > > > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for
                          > Statistics &
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting
                          > methods,
                          > > > > > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used to
                          > project
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa since the
                          > last
                          > > > > > population estimate two years ago.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics that
                          > > > anticipate
                          > > > > > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population changes are
                          > > > > > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of fertility
                          > > > continuing
                          > > > > > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe may see
                          > > > modest
                          > > > > > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world population, he
                          > > > added,
                          > > > > > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of other
                          > > > pressing
                          > > > > > global issues, including poverty and climate ��� both of which have
                          > > > ties to
                          > > > > > world population.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6 billion
                          > in
                          > > > 1999.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Augie
                          > > > > > > Live Simply So That
                          > > > > > > Others May Simply Live
                          > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
                          > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
                          > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
                          > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Beth
                          ... of ... It s only a psychological malady or disorder if you wish it were not so. According to an article in the BBC in October, 2011
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 30, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas wrote:
                            >
                            > If there is a psychological malady characterised by an excessive level
                            of
                            > pessimism, you've got it. Half Empty Syndrome, perhaps?

                            It's only a psychological malady or disorder if you wish it were not so.
                            According to an article in the BBC in October, 2011
                            <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15214080> pessimists' brains work
                            fundamentally differently than do optimists' brains. Optimists are 80%
                            of the population. Optimists' brains process information that says good
                            news about the future while anything negative is practically ignored.
                            People underestimate their personal risk when confronted with statistics
                            such as the probability of getting cancer or getting a divorce. That is
                            the reason that messages such as "Smoking Kills" has not eradicated
                            smoking since this message was started nearly half a century ago.

                            Pessimists live shorter lives than do optimists, even though optimists
                            tend to underestimate dangers and risks.

                            The difference involves a fundamental difference in how the brain works.
                            It's one of those things which cannot be changed. The trick is to learn
                            to live with it. Personally, I've learned to enjoy it, while realizing
                            that it's one of those things that cannot be changed. When I predict the
                            worst, and something better happens, I've got a pleasant surprise. When
                            it doesn't, I'm prepared. Optimists rely on the best happening, and are
                            disappointed when something worse happens and are usually ill-prepared
                            to deal with it when it does. Pessimism is much more functional.

                            A similar study was done in the 1970s comparing clinically depressed
                            people with non-depressed people on their estimates of how they did on a
                            math test - with objective right or wrong answers. The depressed people
                            left the test with a pretty good estimate of how they scored on the
                            test, while the non-depressed had grossly inflated estimates of their
                            scores. This seems to indicate... that the non-depressed are actually
                            delusional? That depressed people are realists? That left the
                            researchers saying "more study is needed", but follow-on studies have
                            lead to similar results. Perhaps there's an evolutionary advantage in
                            some amount of delusion?
                            >
                            > "When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care"
                            >
                            > Huh. Could have sworn some of the biggest events in pop culture
                            > history--Band Aid, Live Aid, USA for Africa ("We Are the World")
                            revolved
                            > around precisely that scenario.

                            And just how much actual help to those people did all of this
                            awareness-raising consumerism produce? Desertification of North Africa
                            continues to accellerate. What country has offered to take in all of the
                            climate refugees this has created? If we continue to give them food aid
                            (and water aid, and medical aid) while leaving them in place, conditions
                            will not improve, and their population will continue to expand. That is,
                            until some global disaster or emergency distupts the aid. Then,
                            suddenly, a lot more of them will starve or die of other preventable
                            causes.

                            While we're about it, how about Bangladesh and the several island
                            nations in the Pacific whose existence is limited because of sea level
                            rise? Are we going to stop or reverse sea level rise, relocate those
                            people (and their nation), or are we going to allow them to become
                            desperate with nothing to lose?
                            >
                            > I don't deny for a second that there is significant human-caused
                            climate
                            > change, and I am no friend of the Koch Brothers (I tend to agree with
                            Bill
                            > Maher on most issues, and always vote for, and donate to/volunteer
                            for,
                            > Democrats).

                            I agree with the Democrats on most issues as well, and cast my vote
                            accordingly. It's good that you view this as primarily human-caused. I'm
                            in a discussion on another forum where my opponents are disputing that
                            global warming is happening, but rather insist (without evidence other
                            than that from evangelical sources) that the world is cooling and going
                            into another ice age.

                            The passage of the Orwellian-named Data Quality Act in 2001, which
                            greatly hampers the scientific process involving peer review vs who can
                            have information about an even partly government-funded research
                            project. Nearly EVERY scientific project receives government funds, to a
                            small or large degree. This greatly hampers how science can operate,
                            while studies which are TOTALLY funded by corporatations can be carried
                            on much differently, and cannot be reviewed by those receiving
                            government funds. It's almost like there's a two-teired science, and the
                            truth is lost in the shuffle.

                            > But we will counter the effects with technology, or adapt to the
                            change.

                            Ah, the faith that tech will save us. There's nothing on the horizon
                            that shows that it will or can. The more desperate people become, the
                            less resources will be available for scientific research. As you say,
                            the problem is not just going to happen "one day", but will be gradual.
                            One problem with this in the United States, which is the #1 consumer of
                            resources of all types on the planet, is that as the more radical
                            elements of Evangelical Christianity take control of the Republican
                            Party, and get elected into positions of authority, science illiteracy
                            becomes more rapant. Not just on climatology but in biology, geology,
                            and chemistry.

                            With the Data Quality Act, with enough money, you can scientifically
                            prove about anything you want. You cannot, however, make any regulation
                            involving a scientific discovery if it was researched or peer-reviewed
                            by anyone who makes their money in anything involving the field of
                            research. That leaves out all professors, anyone employed in a field
                            using that field of study. or anyone not legally residing in the US.
                            That leaves out using research or information from scientists' foreign
                            colleagues.

                            Other countries could do the research and come up with the "tech" which
                            will somehow save us. But, the US has historically been the front-runner
                            in such innovation, and has the institutions and people in place to do
                            it. There is nothing out there in the pipeline to save us just in the
                            nick of time. Faith in tech is akin to faith in God... with about as
                            much evidence supporting either's ability to produce such salvation/

                            For most of the past billion years, the Earth was warmer and
                            > had more CO2 in the air, and it was lusher and more teeming with life
                            than
                            > it is now. Where I live, in Missouri, it gets hotter and stormier
                            every
                            > year. We get more tornadoes, and one of them killed the nicest,
                            kindest
                            > guy I have ever known. But the plants and bugs and critters love it.
                            i
                            > feel like I have to cut my lawn and trim my bushes about every five
                            > minutes, and the woods are teeming with birds and squirrels and
                            rabbits and
                            > deer. Meanwhile farmers are producing bumper crops (including too
                            much
                            > factory farmed, federally subsidised corn and beans, but the organic
                            > farmers love it too).

                            Weather is not climate. It was hot and dry where I live (high plains),
                            such that the crops mainly failed because of little rainfall. We had 2
                            inches during all of 2012, whereas we get nearly 20 inches of
                            precipitation in an average year. We've gotten more rainfall this year,
                            and it has been cooler than last year. Does this mean that the problem
                            is over? No, it means we have wet weather and we have dry weather, just
                            as we always have. It is known that hurricanes are getting more common
                            and larger. The area categorized as "tornado alley" has broadened as
                            well. One tornado had hit the county where I live since its inception in
                            1908 - in 1938. We had one in 2011, several in 2012, and several already
                            in 2013 - and the NWS expanded tornado alley to include us.

                            Conditions were indeed "lusher" but some areas were harsh deserts in
                            previous geological periods too. As climate changes, some areas will
                            get wetter and others will get dryer.
                            >
                            > This idea that we'll go extinct based on our mass, as though our
                            brains and
                            > technology make no difference, is risible. Contra Hawking et al, I
                            will
                            > counter that I believe humans will never go extinct. Our descendants,
                            and
                            > whatever other lifeforms we choose to bring with us, will be safely
                            > ensconced on a space station watching, billions of years from now,
                            when our
                            > sun becomes a red giant and boils away the oceans.

                            Note that humankind, or any intelligent species, has not lived on this
                            planet for most of its existence. Things might have been "lusher and
                            greener", but what did it get? Ferns, insects, fish, amphibians,
                            dynosaurs...? 99.9% of all species which have ever lived on earth are
                            now extinct What is exceptional about humans that we can be or should be
                            exempt from this statistic?

                            If we survive long enough to give us the ability of interplanetary
                            flight, building of space stations, such salvation is only going to be
                            available to a few of us. That's the same few as have always gotten what
                            they wanted - the wealthy and powerful. 99.9999% of us are going to be
                            left behind to die.

                            After we succeed in evacuating earth, on a space station we are only one
                            catastrophic failure away from extinction. That could be anything from a
                            cascading power failure, to a short out in some main system, to a meteor
                            strike by even a small meteor. We won't have miles of atmosphere and
                            magnetic fields protecting us from those. In a utopian society that
                            seems to somehow overcome ALL of the challenges that face us short and
                            medium term, such escape will allow the survivors to live for years more
                            - or a couple of decades longer at the most.

                            >
                            > I wonder what you make of these statistics, from the UN:
                            >
                            > http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml
                            >
                            > Lies? A temporary reprieve before things get worse again? What?
                            Let's
                            > hear your sputtering excuse--might be amusing, though I rather doubt
                            it
                            > will be convincing.

                            Sputtering excuse? Again, lack of starvation shows a relatively smooth
                            method of distribution. As soon as that's disrupted, more people will
                            starve. If they have enough "tech", it might save them if they're
                            willing and able to wage an all-out war.

                            Why are poeple exceptional as to expect to not go the way of almost
                            everything else, historically?

                            Oh, sure. We are! Nevermind the above. Everything is fine. 46% of
                            Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and Jesus
                            is coming back in their lifetimes, will get rid of all of the bad things
                            and people, and take the rest to eternal paradise. Belief in this, they
                            believe, is all that is going to save anyone.

                            On a more reality-based look at things, TB-XDR, CREs, amd MRSA are no
                            longer problems. A new medicine is coming out any day which will be
                            fast-tracked through the FDA, will kill all of those diseases, with no
                            side effects. We have newly-developed plants which are removing the
                            carbon dioxide and monoxide, and increasing the oxygen levels. The EPA
                            has guaranteed us clean water, and clean air. All of our electric is
                            produced by solar, wind, and wave power. Gasoline and diesel engines are
                            a thing of the past. Nuclear waste will be blasted into space next week.
                            Crime has all been wiped out, corporate greed will go away, biggotry
                            against other peoples has been eliminated. That's why Congress gutted
                            the voter rights act, because racism is a thing of the past. Move on.
                            Nothing to see here. Have plenty of children so you won't have time to
                            think about all of this. Everything is great. We'll all live happily
                            ever after for billions and billions of years.

                            Beth
                            >
                            > On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Beth wrote:
                            >
                            > > **
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > No one has said, let alone believes, that we will run out of food
                            one day
                            > > and all starve at once. The problem will first hit the poorer people
                            and
                            > > nations. If a resource is available in any quantity, the wealthy
                            will get
                            > > it. The lengths they may go to may not leave any of it for anyone
                            though.
                            > >
                            > > When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care. When the
                            > > problem effects a larger number of people, more care. Desperate
                            starving
                            > > people with nothing to lose will go to any lengths to get what they
                            want...
                            > > need... Violence will erupt. There's not much that the poor starving
                            > > peoples now can do. But, when it starts effecting the majority - and
                            the
                            > > strategic interests of nations, things may get nasty. Some of these
                            > > countries have nuclear arms and other WMD.
                            > >
                            > > Sea level rise from the melting of the polar caps and glaciers will
                            cause
                            > > another problem. Nations such as Bangladesh will go under water. As
                            a
                            > > NATION they have nothing to lose. There is a method by which such a
                            > > low-lying coastal nation could defend itself - by shooting rockets
                            armed
                            > > with particulates high in the atmosphere - blocking out part of the
                            sun.
                            > > That will work, but if not done extremely carefully, will throw the
                            world
                            > > into an ice age.
                            > >
                            > > It's true that as equatorial and temperate regions will become too
                            hot to
                            > > grow food in, that Arctic and Antarctic regions will warm up and
                            melt off
                            > > revealing the land underneath. However, this is not an answer for
                            growing
                            > > food. The land revealed by a melting glacier has not had anything
                            grow on
                            > > or in it for thousands or millions of years. It will lead a low, if
                            any,
                            > > crop. Also, the polar regions are smaller than the equatorial
                            regions - a
                            > > matter of geometry. Throw into that the holes in the ozone layer
                            which seem
                            > > to appear over the polar regions, and they are not such a good place
                            either.
                            > >
                            > > Extra carbon in the atmosphere does not just cause greenhouse gasses
                            and
                            > > global warming. The carbon which is bound in the earth unleashes
                            into the
                            > > atmosphere NOT as pure carbon - it binds with oxygen. Oxygen levels
                            are
                            > > decreasing too. Oxygen levels over major cities are down to around
                            12%.
                            > > Under 6% it will not sustain animal or human life. This is not a new
                            > > problem. It was first written about near the beginning of the
                            Industrial
                            > > Revolution. Baron Kelvin of Largs wrote a scholarly paper," On the
                            End of
                            > > Free Oxygen" in 1901.
                            > >
                            > > Ocean currents make a big difference too. They are changing, and
                            nobody
                            > > knows the precise results of that. It could be as simple as some
                            places
                            > > that now get little rain get a lot, some places that are warm get
                            cold and
                            > > some places that are cold get warm. Or, the stopping of the ocean
                            currents
                            > > could cause Canfield Oceans, or anoxyc oceanic events, are likely to
                            occur
                            > > if the temperature rises 8C. We already have known, large,
                            oxygen-depleted
                            > > "dead zones" in the oceans. This has happened in the past, causing
                            the
                            > > extinction event between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
                            > >
                            > > The difference is that it's human kind deliberately putting more
                            carbon in
                            > > the air, and warming it up, and making more of us like there's no
                            tomorrow.
                            > > Even a climatologist hired by the Koch brothers to debunk the
                            notions of
                            > > global warming came back with "Yes, Global Warming is occurring, and
                            it's
                            > > human caused." That scientific honesty cost her a very lucrative
                            job.
                            > >
                            > > Food and air (and a place to call home) are not the only threats.
                            The
                            > > major threat I see comes from the microbial world. We've already got
                            global
                            > > pandemics, and a new bird flu or swine flu epidemic breaks out every
                            couple
                            > > of months. Most of these are regionalized and highly deadly for a
                            time, but
                            > > they peter out, and don't effect many people. A few of them do.
                            > >
                            > > Flu is far from the only threat we have. Tuberculosis has been known
                            as a
                            > > disease at least since the time of the Pharaohs. We've had
                            antibiotic
                            > > treatments for it for decades. They killed off a lot of TB, and
                            saved many
                            > > people. But, sometimes a few lived - especially among people who
                            could not
                            > > or did not take their entire course of antibiotics. Drug resistant,
                            > > multiple-drug resistant, and extensively drug resistant strains
                            abound.
                            > > Other diseases have gone the same way, including (common)
                            staphylococcus
                            > > aureus has been exposed to antibiotics, and turned into deadly MRSA.
                            Like
                            > > that isn't enough, Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CREs,
                            which
                            > > are of the genus Enterobacteriaceae, appear to be deadly in 50% of
                            those
                            > > infected in their bloodstream. These resistant forms of disease
                            mostly
                            > > exist in hospitals, although bacteria of the genus
                            Enterobacteriaceae
                            > > naturally live in soil. We are rapidly approaching what has been
                            termed a
                            > > "post-antibiotic era". Even the simplest of surgeries will soon be
                            as
                            > > dangerous as surgery was in the early 19th century.
                            > >
                            > > I misattributed the number for Stephen Hawking. He doesn't think
                            we'll
                            > > survive more than 1000 years on earth. Martin Rees gives a 50/50
                            chance of
                            > > extinction by 2100, while John Leslie doesn't see much hope in 500
                            years.
                            > >
                            > > We are in an extinction event such as those that have happened in
                            the past
                            > > at the boundaries between various geological periods in history.
                            Larger
                            > > animals go extinct faster than smaller animals. The current weight
                            level at
                            > > which things are going extinct are things over 40 KG (90 lbs).
                            Average
                            > > adult humans are significantly heavier than that. Over 99% of the
                            world's
                            > > species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. We are hanging on
                            with
                            > > our technology and intelligence. But... all good things must come to
                            an end.
                            > >
                            > > Poor countries will not "catch up" to rich countries. Not in their
                            > > pollution outputs, not socially, not education-wise (for the
                            masses), not
                            > > culturally. The western "industrialized" nations had a
                            one-time-good-deal
                            > > when we discovered oil in the 19th century, which we could have used
                            to
                            > > make something that did not destroy our environment. The discovered
                            oil
                            > > (the unproven notion that there MAY be an endless supply of
                            hydrocarbons
                            > > inside the earth notwithstanding) has mostly been used up, and
                            what's left
                            > > is difficult and expensive to get.
                            > >
                            > > Beth
                            > >
                            > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com > >
                            'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas alankingsleythomas@
                            > > wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics
                            does
                            > > > not necessarily apply more broadly.
                            > > >
                            > > > What you are describing about culture in parts of Africa sounds
                            like that
                            > > > in the West less than a century ago. They will catch up. Check out
                            this
                            > > > chart:
                            > > >
                            > >
                            http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14\
                            .html
                            > > >
                            > > > I love too how some of you seem to envision the population growing
                            so
                            > > great
                            > > > that we all starve at once and crash to zero population. Worst
                            case, food
                            > > > shortages will simply put an upper limit on population.
                            > > >
                            > > > We are not running out of oil:
                            > > >
                            > >
                            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run\
                            -out-of-oil/309294/
                            > > >
                            > > > And we will adapt to climate change. Might want to buy some land
                            in
                            > > > northern Siberia and northern Canada, though, while it's still
                            cheap!
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Beth rudrakrsh@ wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > > **
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point
                            is
                            > > turning
                            > > > > out to be a crock.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that
                            there is
                            > > no
                            > > > > "developing" world. There's the developed/industrialized world,
                            and
                            > > there's
                            > > > > the world which will never be developed. Part of the problem is
                            this
                            > > notion
                            > > > > of "carbon credits" - the developed world has access to
                            everything from
                            > > > > wind power to solar power to wave power. The "developing" world
                            is
                            > > doing it
                            > > > > much the same way that The US and Europe did it in the 19th
                            century -
                            > > coal,
                            > > > > and to a lesser degree oil. But, we're running out of oil, and
                            we've
                            > > got
                            > > > > too much greenhouse gas there now. Having about triple what we
                            have
                            > > now is
                            > > > > just not acceptable.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > There are realities in much of Africa, and other parts of the
                            > > "developing"
                            > > > > world that will simply not allow them to become more able to
                            control
                            > > their
                            > > > > fertility in time. For one thing, the inequality between the
                            sexes is
                            > > > > enormous. In some area, women are nothing more than property.
                            These
                            > > women
                            > > > > do not have the ability to use contraception, say "no" to sex or
                            > > marriage,
                            > > > > or in any way control their fertility. Culture is slow to move
                            as
                            > > well. The
                            > > > > culture is to have a lot of children, and men assess their worth
                            by how
                            > > > > many children they have. Barren women are seen as useless...
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Religion plays a role too. Especially with a lot of the
                            healthcare
                            > > being
                            > > > > operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which has
                            anti-contraception as
                            > > an
                            > > > > agenda, and is outright spreading lies about some of it - like
                            condoms
                            > > > > CAUSE AIDS. The anti-condom word has been quite effective in
                            keeping
                            > > the
                            > > > > AIDS epidemic going. Contraception is just plain not available
                            to them.
                            > > > > Other, more effective means of contraception are just plain
                            blocked,
                            > > mainly
                            > > > > by religious groups.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Note that most of these issues are not unique to Africa. The
                            same ones
                            > > > > exist in South America, parts of Asia, polynesia, Oceana, and
                            yes,
                            > > even in
                            > > > > the US.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > This has nothing to do with race - which really does not exist
                            at all.
                            > > Nor
                            > > > > does it have to do with racism, other than I, like most other
                            VHEMTers,
                            > > > > think the human race should just stop in a controlled manner.
                            The human
                            > > > > race will cease to exist in not much longer - Stephen Hawkings
                            gives it
                            > > > > 50/50 by 2100.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Beth
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com > >
                            'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas
                            > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > What is it about Africa that you think means fertility will
                            not
                            > > decrease
                            > > > > > there as development increases, just like everywhere else?
                            Could
                            > > there
                            > > > > be a
                            > > > > > racist underpinning to your belief?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Beth wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > > **
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Ah, but if we just pray hard enough after seeing all of
                            those ads
                            > > about
                            > > > > > > life in Africa, fertility will just suddenly decrease for
                            some
                            > > reason,
                            > > > > and
                            > > > > > > people in the industrialized world - the "superconsumers" if
                            you
                            > > will,
                            > > > > will
                            > > > > > > have such dangerously-low fertility that we'll have to
                            exploit
                            > > those
                            > > > > in the
                            > > > > > > 3rd so there will be someone to take care of us in our old
                            age,
                            > > > > complete
                            > > > > > > with our solar-powered respirators, if we all just BELIEVE
                            hard
                            > > enough
                            > > > > or
                            > > > > > > pray hard enough, that population is going to level off at
                            some
                            > > point.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > ...Or, even believe those pundits that human population is,
                            in
                            > > fact,
                            > > > > > > declining, because "they" so desire it.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Beth
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com > >
                            'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> > > > >
                            > > > > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Augie" wrote:
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > World population could be nearly 11b by 2100
                            > > > > > > > Jun 13, 2013
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > >
                            http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-world-population-nearly-11b-2100-71-\
                            99257
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > A new statistical analysis shows the world population
                            could reach
                            > > > > nearly
                            > > > > > > 11 billion people by the end of the century, according to a
                            U.N.
                            > > report
                            > > > > > > issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or 8%, more than
                            the
                            > > previous
                            > > > > > > projection of 10.1 billion, issued in 2011.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > The projected rise is mostly due to fertility in Africa,
                            where
                            > > the
                            > > > > U.N.
                            > > > > > > had expected birth rates to decline more quickly than they
                            have.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > "The fertility decline in Africa has slowed down or
                            stalled to a
                            > > > > larger
                            > > > > > > extent than we previously predicted, and as a result the
                            African
                            > > > > population
                            > > > > > > will go up," said Adrian Raftery, a University of Washington
                            > > professor
                            > > > > of
                            > > > > > > statistics and of sociology.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it
                            is now
                            > > > > > > expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase,
                            by 2100.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > The new U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed
                            by
                            > > Raftery
                            > > > > and
                            > > > > > > his colleagues at the University of Washington Center for
                            > > Statistics &
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > Social Sciences. The group's improved fertility forecasting
                            > > methods,
                            > > > > > > combined with updated data collected by the U.N., were used
                            to
                            > > project
                            > > > > the
                            > > > > > > long-term consequences of the fertility change in Africa
                            since the
                            > > last
                            > > > > > > population estimate two years ago.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > New to this year's projection are finer-tuned statistics
                            that
                            > > > > anticipate
                            > > > > > > the life expectancies of women and men across this century.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > In other areas of the world, fewer major population
                            changes are
                            > > > > > > expected. Europe may see a small decline because of
                            fertility
                            > > > > continuing
                            > > > > > > below replacement level, and other nations around the globe
                            may see
                            > > > > modest
                            > > > > > > increases due to longer life expectancies, Raftery said.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > There's no end in sight for the increase of world
                            population, he
                            > > > > added,
                            > > > > > > yet the topic has gone off the world's agenda in favor of
                            other
                            > > > > pressing
                            > > > > > > global issues, including poverty and climate � both of
                            which have
                            > > > > ties to
                            > > > > > > world population.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Global population reached 7 billion in 2011. It passed 6
                            billion
                            > > in
                            > > > > 1999.
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > > Augie
                            > > > > > > > Live Simply So That
                            > > > > > > > Others May Simply Live
                            > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
                            > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
                            > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
                            > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
                            > > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Alan Thomas
                            Optimists brains process information that says good news about the future while anything negative is practically ignored. You seem very well informed about
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 30, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "Optimists' brains process information that says good news about the future
                              while anything negative is practically ignored."

                              You seem very well informed about this subject; presumably then you
                              recognize that the reverse is true about pessimists, right? I think though
                              that this binary way of looking at things is a bit oversimplified. There
                              must be at least some people who are fairly accurate in their assessments
                              of risk probability and so on. I do not accept that everyone either is
                              unrealistically optimistic or reflexively gloomy-doomy.

                              I would actually nominate myself as a realist. Compared to you, I must
                              certainly seem like a optimist. But having stated that I tend to agree with
                              Bill Maher on most things, if you know anything about Maher you must know I
                              am not optimistic on many other subjects: the intelligence of voters, the
                              gullibility of the religious, the dietary habits of Americans, etc.

                              "Pessimism is much more functional."

                              Yet you admit that pessimists do not live as long, which strikes me as the
                              opposite of functional. And you support the aims of a movement seeking a
                              voluntary extinction for your species. Again, I'm not seeing the
                              functionality there, LOL.

                              "Ah, the faith that tech will save us. There's nothing on the horizon that
                              shows that it will or can."

                              You contradict yourself, as you earlier stated that a desperate nation like
                              Bangladesh might be able to block out the sun to such a degree as to overdo
                              it and cause an ice age. In which case, I imagine we could purposely crank
                              more carbon into the atmosphere and keep fiddling until the soup tastes
                              right.

                              "Weather is not climate."

                              In the aggregate, it kind of is. And if the growing season is more and more
                              productive in the area I live, which is already the region that produces
                              mass amounts of the nation's, and the world's, food, it compensates for a
                              whole lot of reduction in agriculture somewhere else. And look: they
                              already grow a lot of grain in North Dakota and Canada. A warmer climate
                              will just allow that to happen a little further north.

                              "The area categorized as 'tornado alley" has broadened as well. One tornado
                              had hit the county where I live since its inception in 1908 - in 1938. We
                              had one in 2011, several in 2012, and several already in 2013 - and the NWS
                              expanded tornado alley to include us."

                              I wonder if you just copy and paste talking points from your other debates?
                              I clearly already acknowledged the increase in tornadic activity in the
                              email to which you are replying. It is funny though that you dismiss my
                              personal experience in my region as anecdotal but offer yours as evidence.

                              "Conditions were indeed 'lusher' but some areas were harsh deserts
                              in previous geological periods too. As climate changes, some areas will get
                              wetter and others will get dryer."

                              But this is exactly my point. There will be winners and losers with climate
                              change; but the world as a whole will have more biomass, not less.

                              "99.9% of all species which have ever lived on earth are now extinct What
                              is exceptional about humans that we can be or should be exempt from this
                              statistic?"

                              First of all, we are among that small percentage of hardy survivors that
                              have not gone extinct. But like many debates, we must define our terms. I
                              don't believe that all dinosaurs went extinct, because I consider birds
                              simply their descendants, and thus not something completely different. When
                              I say we will never go extinct, I don't mean that there will never come a
                              day when our descendants are a species that would not be able to interbreed
                              with us. I just mean that a billion years from now, I believe there will be
                              lifeforms who can be said to have great-great-great (times however many
                              million "greats") grandparents who were human beings in the 21st century.

                              "If we survive long enough to give us the ability of interplanetary flight,
                              building of space stations, such salvation is only going to be available to
                              a few of us."

                              The Blade Runner scenario. That is possible, and I would not rule it out.
                              However, I think it is more likely that energy will become so plentiful,
                              and automation so ubiquitous, that disparities in wealth are no longer able
                              to be sustained in any meaningful way. All shortages, except I suppose in
                              things like prime beachfront property, will be gone.

                              It has already happened with technology in many respects. My household
                              income is slightly below the US median, but given our four children, we are
                              not that far above the poverty line and qualify for programs like WIC and
                              SCHP. Yet we have an HDTV and for eight bucks a month, we can instantly
                              stream myriad television shows and movies in high definition via Netflix.
                              20 years ago, not even Bill Gates could manage that.

                              Or getting back to Africa, smartphones are becoming ubiquitous there in
                              places where traditional wired land lines never even made it. So now, a
                              relatively poor teenager in sub-Saharan Africa can instantly get
                              information and video in the palm of their hands to an extent the president
                              of the United States would not have been able to 10 or 15 years ago.

                              "99.9999% of us are going to be left behind to die."

                              Wouldn't that be a "win" for VHEMT? ;-)

                              "After we succeed in evacuating earth, on a space station we are only
                              one catastrophic failure away from extinction."

                              I rather doubt it would be just one space station. But even if we did die
                              out at some point, outlasting the freaking SUN would be a pretty good run
                              in my book.

                              "Oh, sure. We are! Nevermind the above. Everything is fine. 46%
                              of Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and
                              Jesus is coming back in their lifetimes, will get rid of all of the bad
                              things and people, and take the rest to eternal paradise. Belief in this,
                              they believe, is all that is going to save anyone."

                              Wow. Can you say straw man? You are aiming this line at someone who has
                              expressed his great admiration for Bill Maher and Sam Harris? As they say
                              on SNL: really?

                              You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                              already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is a
                              great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even in its
                              worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)

                              On Sunday, June 30, 2013, Beth wrote:

                              > **
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                              > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas wrote:
                              > >
                              > > If there is a psychological malady characterised by an excessive level
                              > of
                              > > pessimism, you've got it. Half Empty Syndrome, perhaps?
                              >
                              > It's only a psychological malady or disorder if you wish it were not so.
                              > According to an article in the BBC in October, 2011
                              > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15214080> pessimists' brains work
                              > fundamentally differently than do optimists' brains. Optimists are 80%
                              > of the population. Optimists' brains process information that says good
                              > news about the future while anything negative is practically ignored.
                              > People underestimate their personal risk when confronted with statistics
                              > such as the probability of getting cancer or getting a divorce. That is
                              > the reason that messages such as "Smoking Kills" has not eradicated
                              > smoking since this message was started nearly half a century ago.
                              >
                              > Pessimists live shorter lives than do optimists, even though optimists
                              > tend to underestimate dangers and risks.
                              >
                              > The difference involves a fundamental difference in how the brain works.
                              > It's one of those things which cannot be changed. The trick is to learn
                              > to live with it. Personally, I've learned to enjoy it, while realizing
                              > that it's one of those things that cannot be changed. When I predict the
                              > worst, and something better happens, I've got a pleasant surprise. When
                              > it doesn't, I'm prepared. Optimists rely on the best happening, and are
                              > disappointed when something worse happens and are usually ill-prepared
                              > to deal with it when it does. Pessimism is much more functional.
                              >
                              > A similar study was done in the 1970s comparing clinically depressed
                              > people with non-depressed people on their estimates of how they did on a
                              > math test - with objective right or wrong answers. The depressed people
                              > left the test with a pretty good estimate of how they scored on the
                              > test, while the non-depressed had grossly inflated estimates of their
                              > scores. This seems to indicate... that the non-depressed are actually
                              > delusional? That depressed people are realists? That left the
                              > researchers saying "more study is needed", but follow-on studies have
                              > lead to similar results. Perhaps there's an evolutionary advantage in
                              > some amount of delusion?
                              > >
                              > > "When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care"
                              > >
                              > > Huh. Could have sworn some of the biggest events in pop culture
                              > > history--Band Aid, Live Aid, USA for Africa ("We Are the World")
                              > revolved
                              > > around precisely that scenario.
                              >
                              > And just how much actual help to those people did all of this
                              > awareness-raising consumerism produce? Desertification of North Africa
                              > continues to accellerate. What country has offered to take in all of the
                              > climate refugees this has created? If we continue to give them food aid
                              > (and water aid, and medical aid) while leaving them in place, conditions
                              > will not improve, and their population will continue to expand. That is,
                              > until some global disaster or emergency distupts the aid. Then,
                              > suddenly, a lot more of them will starve or die of other preventable
                              > causes.
                              >
                              > While we're about it, how about Bangladesh and the several island
                              > nations in the Pacific whose existence is limited because of sea level
                              > rise? Are we going to stop or reverse sea level rise, relocate those
                              > people (and their nation), or are we going to allow them to become
                              > desperate with nothing to lose?
                              > >
                              > > I don't deny for a second that there is significant human-caused
                              > climate
                              > > change, and I am no friend of the Koch Brothers (I tend to agree with
                              > Bill
                              > > Maher on most issues, and always vote for, and donate to/volunteer
                              > for,
                              > > Democrats).
                              >
                              > I agree with the Democrats on most issues as well, and cast my vote
                              > accordingly. It's good that you view this as primarily human-caused. I'm
                              > in a discussion on another forum where my opponents are disputing that
                              > global warming is happening, but rather insist (without evidence other
                              > than that from evangelical sources) that the world is cooling and going
                              > into another ice age.
                              >
                              > The passage of the Orwellian-named Data Quality Act in 2001, which
                              > greatly hampers the scientific process involving peer review vs who can
                              > have information about an even partly government-funded research
                              > project. Nearly EVERY scientific project receives government funds, to a
                              > small or large degree. This greatly hampers how science can operate,
                              > while studies which are TOTALLY funded by corporatations can be carried
                              > on much differently, and cannot be reviewed by those receiving
                              > government funds. It's almost like there's a two-teired science, and the
                              > truth is lost in the shuffle.
                              >
                              > > But we will counter the effects with technology, or adapt to the
                              > change.
                              >
                              > Ah, the faith that tech will save us. There's nothing on the horizon
                              > that shows that it will or can. The more desperate people become, the
                              > less resources will be available for scientific research. As you say,
                              > the problem is not just going to happen "one day", but will be gradual.
                              > One problem with this in the United States, which is the #1 consumer of
                              > resources of all types on the planet, is that as the more radical
                              > elements of Evangelical Christianity take control of the Republican
                              > Party, and get elected into positions of authority, science illiteracy
                              > becomes more rapant. Not just on climatology but in biology, geology,
                              > and chemistry.
                              >
                              > With the Data Quality Act, with enough money, you can scientifically
                              > prove about anything you want. You cannot, however, make any regulation
                              > involving a scientific discovery if it was researched or peer-reviewed
                              > by anyone who makes their money in anything involving the field of
                              > research. That leaves out all professors, anyone employed in a field
                              > using that field of study. or anyone not legally residing in the US.
                              > That leaves out using research or information from scientists' foreign
                              > colleagues.
                              >
                              > Other countries could do the research and come up with the "tech" which
                              > will somehow save us. But, the US has historically been the front-runner
                              > in such innovation, and has the institutions and people in place to do
                              > it. There is nothing out there in the pipeline to save us just in the
                              > nick of time. Faith in tech is akin to faith in God... with about as
                              > much evidence supporting either's ability to produce such salvation/
                              >
                              > For most of the past billion years, the Earth was warmer and
                              > > had more CO2 in the air, and it was lusher and more teeming with life
                              > than
                              > > it is now. Where I live, in Missouri, it gets hotter and stormier
                              > every
                              > > year. We get more tornadoes, and one of them killed the nicest,
                              > kindest
                              > > guy I have ever known. But the plants and bugs and critters love it.
                              > i
                              > > feel like I have to cut my lawn and trim my bushes about every five
                              > > minutes, and the woods are teeming with birds and squirrels and
                              > rabbits and
                              > > deer. Meanwhile farmers are producing bumper crops (including too
                              > much
                              > > factory farmed, federally subsidised corn and beans, but the organic
                              > > farmers love it too).
                              >
                              > Weather is not climate. It was hot and dry where I live (high plains),
                              > such that the crops mainly failed because of little rainfall. We had 2
                              > inches during all of 2012, whereas we get nearly 20 inches of
                              > precipitation in an average year. We've gotten more rainfall this year,
                              > and it has been cooler than last year. Does this mean that the problem
                              > is over? No, it means we have wet weather and we have dry weather, just
                              > as we always have. It is known that hurricanes are getting more common
                              > and larger. The area categorized as "tornado alley" has broadened as
                              > well. One tornado had hit the county where I live since its inception in
                              > 1908 - in 1938. We had one in 2011, several in 2012, and several already
                              > in 2013 - and the NWS expanded tornado alley to include us.
                              >
                              > Conditions were indeed "lusher" but some areas were harsh deserts in
                              > previous geological periods too. As climate changes, some areas will
                              > get wetter and others will get dryer.
                              > >
                              > > This idea that we'll go extinct based on our mass, as though our
                              > brains and
                              > > technology make no difference, is risible. Contra Hawking et al, I
                              > will
                              > > counter that I believe humans will never go extinct. Our descendants,
                              > and
                              > > whatever other lifeforms we choose to bring with us, will be safely
                              > > ensconced on a space station watching, billions of years from now,
                              > when our
                              > > sun becomes a red giant and boils away the oceans.
                              >
                              > Note that humankind, or any intelligent species, has not lived on this
                              > planet for most of its existence. Things might have been "lusher and
                              > greener", but what did it get? Ferns, insects, fish, amphibians,
                              > dynosaurs...? 99.9% of all species which have ever lived on earth are
                              > now extinct What is exceptional about humans that we can be or should be
                              > exempt from this statistic?
                              >
                              > If we survive long enough to give us the ability of interplanetary
                              > flight, building of space stations, such salvation is only going to be
                              > available to a few of us. That's the same few as have always gotten what
                              > they wanted - the wealthy and powerful. 99.9999% of us are going to be
                              > left behind to die.
                              >
                              > After we succeed in evacuating earth, on a space station we are only one
                              > catastrophic failure away from extinction. That could be anything from a
                              > cascading power failure, to a short out in some main system, to a meteor
                              > strike by even a small meteor. We won't have miles of atmosphere and
                              > magnetic fields protecting us from those. In a utopian society that
                              > seems to somehow overcome ALL of the challenges that face us short and
                              > medium term, such escape will allow the survivors to live for years more
                              > - or a couple of decades longer at the most.
                              >
                              > >
                              > > I wonder what you make of these statistics, from the UN:
                              > >
                              > > http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml
                              > >
                              > > Lies? A temporary reprieve before things get worse again? What?
                              > Let's
                              > > hear your sputtering excuse--might be amusing, though I rather doubt
                              > it
                              > > will be convincing.
                              >
                              > Sputtering excuse? Again, lack of starvation shows a relatively smooth
                              > method of distribution. As soon as that's disrupted, more people will
                              > starve. If they have enough "tech", it might save them if they're
                              > willing and able to wage an all-out war.
                              >
                              > Why are poeple exceptional as to expect to not go the way of almost
                              > everything else, historically?
                              >
                              > Oh, sure. We are! Nevermind the above. Everything is fine. 46% of
                              > Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and Jesus
                              > is coming back in their lifetimes, will get rid of all of the bad things
                              > and people, and take the rest to eternal paradise. Belief in this, they
                              > believe, is all that is going to save anyone.
                              >
                              > On a more reality-based look at things, TB-XDR, CREs, amd MRSA are no
                              > longer problems. A new medicine is coming out any day which will be
                              > fast-tracked through the FDA, will kill all of those diseases, with no
                              > side effects. We have newly-developed plants which are removing the
                              > carbon dioxide and monoxide, and increasing the oxygen levels. The EPA
                              > has guaranteed us clean water, and clean air. All of our electric is
                              > produced by solar, wind, and wave power. Gasoline and diesel engines are
                              > a thing of the past. Nuclear waste will be blasted into space next week.
                              > Crime has all been wiped out, corporate greed will go away, biggotry
                              > against other peoples has been eliminated. That's why Congress gutted
                              > the voter rights act, because racism is a thing of the past. Move on.
                              > Nothing to see here. Have plenty of children so you won't have time to
                              > think about all of this. Everything is great. We'll all live happily
                              > ever after for billions and billions of years.
                              >
                              > Beth
                              > >
                              > > On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Beth wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > **
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > No one has said, let alone believes, that we will run out of food
                              > one day
                              > > > and all starve at once. The problem will first hit the poorer people
                              > and
                              > > > nations. If a resource is available in any quantity, the wealthy
                              > will get
                              > > > it. The lengths they may go to may not leave any of it for anyone
                              > though.
                              > > >
                              > > > When it's a poor, starving people like Ethiopia, few care. When the
                              > > > problem effects a larger number of people, more care. Desperate
                              > starving
                              > > > people with nothing to lose will go to any lengths to get what they
                              > want...
                              > > > need... Violence will erupt. There's not much that the poor starving
                              > > > peoples now can do. But, when it starts effecting the majority - and
                              > the
                              > > > strategic interests of nations, things may get nasty. Some of these
                              > > > countries have nuclear arms and other WMD.
                              > > >
                              > > > Sea level rise from the melting of the polar caps and glaciers will
                              > cause
                              > > > another problem. Nations such as Bangladesh will go under water. As
                              > a
                              > > > NATION they have nothing to lose. There is a method by which such a
                              > > > low-lying coastal nation could defend itself - by shooting rockets
                              > armed
                              > > > with particulates high in the atmosphere - blocking out part of the
                              > sun.
                              > > > That will work, but if not done extremely carefully, will throw the
                              > world
                              > > > into an ice age.
                              > > >
                              > > > It's true that as equatorial and temperate regions will become too
                              > hot to
                              > > > grow food in, that Arctic and Antarctic regions will warm up and
                              > melt off
                              > > > revealing the land underneath. However, this is not an answer for
                              > growing
                              > > > food. The land revealed by a melting glacier has not had anything
                              > grow on
                              > > > or in it for thousands or millions of years. It will lead a low, if
                              > any,
                              > > > crop. Also, the polar regions are smaller than the equatorial
                              > regions - a
                              > > > matter of geometry. Throw into that the holes in the ozone layer
                              > which seem
                              > > > to appear over the polar regions, and they are not such a good place
                              > either.
                              > > >
                              > > > Extra carbon in the atmosphere does not just cause greenhouse gasses
                              > and
                              > > > global warming. The carbon which is bound in the earth unleashes
                              > into the
                              > > > atmosphere NOT as pure carbon - it binds with oxygen. Oxygen levels
                              > are
                              > > > decreasing too. Oxygen levels over major cities are down to around
                              > 12%.
                              > > > Under 6% it will not sustain animal or human life. This is not a new
                              > > > problem. It was first written about near the beginning of the
                              > Industrial
                              > > > Revolution. Baron Kelvin of Largs wrote a scholarly paper," On the
                              > End of
                              > > > Free Oxygen" in 1901.
                              > > >
                              > > > Ocean currents make a big difference too. They are changing, and
                              > nobody
                              > > > knows the precise results of that. It could be as simple as some
                              > places
                              > > > that now get little rain get a lot, some places that are warm get
                              > cold and
                              > > > some places that are cold get warm. Or, the stopping of the ocean
                              > currents
                              > > > could cause Canfield Oceans, or anoxyc oceanic events, are likely to
                              > occur
                              > > > if the temperature rises 8C. We already have known, large,
                              > oxygen-depleted
                              > > > "dead zones" in the oceans. This has happened in the past, causing
                              > the
                              > > > extinction event between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
                              > > >
                              > > > The difference is that it's human kind deliberately putting more
                              > carbon in
                              > > > the air, and warming it up, and making more of us like there's no
                              > tomorrow.
                              > > > Even a climatologist hired by the Koch brothers to debunk the
                              > notions of
                              > > > global warming came back with "Yes, Global Warming is occurring, and
                              > it's
                              > > > human caused." That scientific honesty cost her a very lucrative
                              > job.
                              > > >
                              > > > Food and air (and a place to call home) are not the only threats.
                              > The
                              > > > major threat I see comes from the microbial world. We've already got
                              > global
                              > > > pandemics, and a new bird flu or swine flu epidemic breaks out every
                              > couple
                              > > > of months. Most of these are regionalized and highly deadly for a
                              > time, but
                              > > > they peter out, and don't effect many people. A few of them do.
                              > > >
                              > > > Flu is far from the only threat we have. Tuberculosis has been known
                              > as a
                              > > > disease at least since the time of the Pharaohs. We've had
                              > antibiotic
                              > > > treatments for it for decades. They killed off a lot of TB, and
                              > saved many
                              > > > people. But, sometimes a few lived - especially among people who
                              > could not
                              > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas alankingsleythomas@
                              > > > wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Cite on Hawking? If he said that, it shows intelligence in physics
                              > does
                              > > > > not necessarily apply more broadly.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > What you are describing about culture in parts of Africa sounds
                              > like that
                              > > > > in the West less than a century ago. They will catch up. Check out
                              > this
                              > > > > chart:
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14\
                              > .html<http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/forums/aging_presentation/slide14.html>
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I love too how some of you seem to envision the population growing
                              > so
                              > > > great
                              > > > > that we all starve at once and crash to zero population. Worst
                              > case, food
                              > > > > shortages will simply put an upper limit on population.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > We are not running out of oil:
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run\
                              > -out-of-oil/309294/<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/>
                              > > > >
                              > > > > And we will adapt to climate change. Might want to buy some land
                              > in
                              > > > > northern Siberia and northern Canada, though, while it's still
                              > cheap!
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Beth rudrakrsh@ wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > > **
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > This notion that fertility will magically decline at some point
                              > is
                              > > > turning
                              > > > > > out to be a crock.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > The reality is, with us approaching peak everything, is that
                              > there is
                              > > > no
                              > > > > > "developing" world. There's the developed/indu
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Beth
                              ... You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and the risks imposed
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 1, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                                > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is a
                                > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even in its
                                > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                >

                                You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and the risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders and researchers.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI
                              • Alan Thomas
                                Thanks! So you ve seen it? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 1, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks! So you've seen it?


                                  On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:

                                  > **
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                                  > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is a
                                  > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even in its
                                  > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the
                                  > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and the
                                  > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders and
                                  > researchers.
                                  >
                                  > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Beth
                                  I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the interview with the CDC director. I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 3, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the interview with the CDC director.

                                    I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might have it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they include a lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast enough internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or Youtube. I'm wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...

                                    Beth

                                    --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > **
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                                    > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is a
                                    > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even in its
                                    > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the
                                    > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and the
                                    > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders and
                                    > > researchers.
                                    > >
                                    > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • Alan Thomas
                                    It s a very good movie, but that s pricey. You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are sold separately from disc plans now. If I were
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 3, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It's a very good movie, but that's pricey.

                                      You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are sold
                                      separately from disc plans now. If I were you I would definitely think
                                      about signing up for a disc plan.

                                      On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Beth wrote:

                                      > **
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the
                                      > interview with the CDC director.
                                      >
                                      > I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might have
                                      > it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they include a
                                      > lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast enough
                                      > internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or Youtube. I'm
                                      > wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...
                                      >
                                      > Beth
                                      >
                                      > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                      > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@...> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > > **
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                                      > > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is
                                      > a
                                      > > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even
                                      > in its
                                      > > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                      > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the
                                      > > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and
                                      > the
                                      > > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders and
                                      > > > researchers.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > The Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI>
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Beth
                                      We were on a disc plan, but about 3 years ago they included a limited amount of streaming with it at no extra fee. Then, they changed the plan so that you
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 6, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        We were on a disc plan, but about 3 years ago they included a limited amount of streaming with it at no extra fee. Then, they changed the plan so that you could get a few discs per month, and unlimited streaming, for about triple the price.

                                        If they've changed their plan, I didn't know about it. For the amount they were charging, I could buy a DVD each month!

                                        $14.99 for streaming is pricy, but driving 60 miles, even in my TINY economy car, will cost a little more than $8 in gas. Then add in the rental fee... and, of course, a little more than 2 hours of time.

                                        Beth
                                        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > It's a very good movie, but that's pricey.
                                        >
                                        > You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are sold
                                        > separately from disc plans now. If I were you I would definitely think
                                        > about signing up for a disc plan.
                                        >
                                        > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > **
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the
                                        > > interview with the CDC director.
                                        > >
                                        > > I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might have
                                        > > it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they include a
                                        > > lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast enough
                                        > > internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or Youtube. I'm
                                        > > wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...
                                        > >
                                        > > Beth
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                        > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                                        > > wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > > **
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have not
                                        > > > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think it is
                                        > > a
                                        > > > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But even
                                        > > in its
                                        > > > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about the
                                        > > > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate, and
                                        > > the
                                        > > > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders and
                                        > > > > researchers.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > The Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI>
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • Alan Thomas
                                        To me, getting to watch several discs a month is worth more than buying one per month. But then I rarely am interested in watching a movie more than once. ...
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 6, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          To me, getting to watch several discs a month is worth more than buying one
                                          per month. But then I rarely am interested in watching a movie more than
                                          once.

                                          On Saturday, July 6, 2013, Beth wrote:

                                          > **
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > We were on a disc plan, but about 3 years ago they included a limited
                                          > amount of streaming with it at no extra fee. Then, they changed the plan so
                                          > that you could get a few discs per month, and unlimited streaming, for
                                          > about triple the price.
                                          >
                                          > If they've changed their plan, I didn't know about it. For the amount they
                                          > were charging, I could buy a DVD each month!
                                          >
                                          > $14.99 for streaming is pricy, but driving 60 miles, even in my TINY
                                          > economy car, will cost a little more than $8 in gas. Then add in the rental
                                          > fee... and, of course, a little more than 2 hours of time.
                                          >
                                          > Beth
                                          > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                          > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                                          > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > It's a very good movie, but that's pricey.
                                          > >
                                          > > You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are sold
                                          > > separately from disc plans now. If I were you I would definitely think
                                          > > about signing up for a disc plan.
                                          > >
                                          > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > > **
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the
                                          > > > interview with the CDC director.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might
                                          > have
                                          > > > it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they
                                          > include a
                                          > > > lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast
                                          > enough
                                          > > > internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or Youtube.
                                          > I'm
                                          > > > wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Beth
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                          > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                          > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                                          > > > wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@> wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > > **
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have
                                          > not
                                          > > > > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think
                                          > it is
                                          > > > a
                                          > > > > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But
                                          > even
                                          > > > in its
                                          > > > > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about
                                          > the
                                          > > > > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate,
                                          > and
                                          > > > the
                                          > > > > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders
                                          > and
                                          > > > > > researchers.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > The Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<The
                                          > Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI>
                                          > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Beth
                                          Ah, but there are other, less-expensive options! For one thing, I can borrow movies from the library. I found a few very good ones that were recently donated
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 9, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Ah, but there are other, less-expensive options!

                                            For one thing, I can borrow movies from the library. I found a few very good ones that were recently donated too.

                                            For another, Hulu can and will stream to me - movies, TV shows, current TV shows on current events... I've got a Hulu "plus" account so I can get more shows and movies, and newer ones. It costs much less than Netflix, and I'm actually getting what I am paying for.

                                            I don't buy that many movies. Only occasionally. And, I watch ones I like more than once.

                                            I'm literally at the end of the line to get DHL. It's only been available here for a few years, since the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation put in a lot of money to bring it to us.

                                            At the same time, I get to live 2 blocks from a farm that grows my corn, 2 blocks from a cattle farm that produces manure for my garden, 1 block from work, in a community with a fertility rate of about 1.2. :) The teenagers don't seem to be in any hurry to have their own kids. One wants to get her doctorate degree first (women with doctorates rarely have kids), another wants to get a masters and get a job for the UN first (that'll at least put it off for quite a number of years - possibly permanently), another is vocal about not living her mother's life of having too many kids (Mom does not like hearing that, telling her that she'll change her mind, as I and others show that might not happen), and another says that she's getting tired of having kids around to babysit - she's looking forward to NOT having kids of her own. And... I'm telling her that it's a viable option, and I (an "old lady" in her view) do not have regrets like some people tell her that she'll have... or "change her mind".

                                            Beth

                                            --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > To me, getting to watch several discs a month is worth more than buying one
                                            > per month. But then I rarely am interested in watching a movie more than
                                            > once.
                                            >
                                            > On Saturday, July 6, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > **
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > We were on a disc plan, but about 3 years ago they included a limited
                                            > > amount of streaming with it at no extra fee. Then, they changed the plan so
                                            > > that you could get a few discs per month, and unlimited streaming, for
                                            > > about triple the price.
                                            > >
                                            > > If they've changed their plan, I didn't know about it. For the amount they
                                            > > were charging, I could buy a DVD each month!
                                            > >
                                            > > $14.99 for streaming is pricy, but driving 60 miles, even in my TINY
                                            > > economy car, will cost a little more than $8 in gas. Then add in the rental
                                            > > fee... and, of course, a little more than 2 hours of time.
                                            > >
                                            > > Beth
                                            > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                            > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                                            > > wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > It's a very good movie, but that's pricey.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are sold
                                            > > > separately from disc plans now. If I were you I would definitely think
                                            > > > about signing up for a disc plan.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > > **
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found the
                                            > > > > interview with the CDC director.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might
                                            > > have
                                            > > > > it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they
                                            > > include a
                                            > > > > lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast
                                            > > enough
                                            > > > > internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or Youtube.
                                            > > I'm
                                            > > > > wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Beth
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                            > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                            > > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                                            > > > > wrote:
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@> wrote:
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > **
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you have
                                            > > not
                                            > > > > > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I think
                                            > > it is
                                            > > > > a
                                            > > > > > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But
                                            > > even
                                            > > > > in its
                                            > > > > > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings survive.)
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director about
                                            > > the
                                            > > > > > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely accurate,
                                            > > and
                                            > > > > the
                                            > > > > > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health responders
                                            > > and
                                            > > > > > > researchers.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > The Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<The
                                            > > Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI>
                                            > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                          • Alan Thomas
                                            She needs to hear from me! ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 9, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              She needs to hear from me!

                                              On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, Beth wrote:

                                              > **
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Ah, but there are other, less-expensive options!
                                              >
                                              > For one thing, I can borrow movies from the library. I found a few very
                                              > good ones that were recently donated too.
                                              >
                                              > For another, Hulu can and will stream to me - movies, TV shows, current TV
                                              > shows on current events... I've got a Hulu "plus" account so I can get more
                                              > shows and movies, and newer ones. It costs much less than Netflix, and I'm
                                              > actually getting what I am paying for.
                                              >
                                              > I don't buy that many movies. Only occasionally. And, I watch ones I like
                                              > more than once.
                                              >
                                              > I'm literally at the end of the line to get DHL. It's only been available
                                              > here for a few years, since the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation put in a
                                              > lot of money to bring it to us.
                                              >
                                              > At the same time, I get to live 2 blocks from a farm that grows my corn, 2
                                              > blocks from a cattle farm that produces manure for my garden, 1 block from
                                              > work, in a community with a fertility rate of about 1.2. :) The teenagers
                                              > don't seem to be in any hurry to have their own kids. One wants to get her
                                              > doctorate degree first (women with doctorates rarely have kids), another
                                              > wants to get a masters and get a job for the UN first (that'll at least put
                                              > it off for quite a number of years - possibly permanently), another is
                                              > vocal about not living her mother's life of having too many kids (Mom does
                                              > not like hearing that, telling her that she'll change her mind, as I and
                                              > others show that might not happen), and another says that she's getting
                                              > tired of having kids around to babysit - she's looking forward to NOT
                                              > having kids of her own. And... I'm telling her that it's a viable option,
                                              > and I (an "old lady" in her view) do not have regrets like some people tell
                                              > her that she'll have... or "change her mind".
                                              >
                                              > Beth
                                              >
                                              > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...>
                                              > wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > To me, getting to watch several discs a month is worth more than buying
                                              > one
                                              > > per month. But then I rarely am interested in watching a movie more than
                                              > > once.
                                              > >
                                              > > On Saturday, July 6, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > > **
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > We were on a disc plan, but about 3 years ago they included a limited
                                              > > > amount of streaming with it at no extra fee. Then, they changed the
                                              > plan so
                                              > > > that you could get a few discs per month, and unlimited streaming, for
                                              > > > about triple the price.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > If they've changed their plan, I didn't know about it. For the amount
                                              > they
                                              > > > were charging, I could buy a DVD each month!
                                              > > >
                                              > > > $14.99 for streaming is pricy, but driving 60 miles, even in my TINY
                                              > > > economy car, will cost a little more than $8 in gas. Then add in the
                                              > rental
                                              > > > fee... and, of course, a little more than 2 hours of time.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Beth
                                              > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@>
                                              > > > wrote:
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > It's a very good movie, but that's pricey.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > You are not up to date on Netflix though! Their streaming plans are
                                              > sold
                                              > > > > separately from disc plans now. If I were you I would definitely
                                              > think
                                              > > > > about signing up for a disc plan.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Beth wrote:
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > > **
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > I have not seen it. I saw the trailer and read reviews, and found
                                              > the
                                              > > > > > interview with the CDC director.
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > I live 60 miles from the nearest video rental store that even might
                                              > > > have
                                              > > > > > it or movie theater. Netflix isn't much of an option since they
                                              > > > include a
                                              > > > > > lot of streaming with all of their plans, and we do not have fast
                                              > > > enough
                                              > > > > > internet service to stream from Netflix. I can from Hulu or
                                              > Youtube.
                                              > > > I'm
                                              > > > > > wondering if it's worth the $14 to pay Youtube to stream it...
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > Beth
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
                                              > > > > > 'Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com');>, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@
                                              > >
                                              > > > > > wrote:
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > Thanks! So you've seen it?
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Beth <rudrakrsh@> wrote:
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > **
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > > You should see the Stephen Soderberg film Contagion if you
                                              > have
                                              > > > not
                                              > > > > > > > > already. I don't mean that recommendation snarkily, as I
                                              > think
                                              > > > it is
                                              > > > > > a
                                              > > > > > > > > great film and seems to be very scientifically accurate. (But
                                              > > > even
                                              > > > > > in its
                                              > > > > > > > > worst case scenario, the vast majority of human beings
                                              > survive.)
                                              > > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > You might want to watch an interview with the CDC director
                                              > about
                                              > > > the
                                              > > > > > > > scenario in the film, and its results, being extremely
                                              > accurate,
                                              > > > and
                                              > > > > > the
                                              > > > > > > > risks imposed by the downsizing of the nation's health
                                              > responders
                                              > > > and
                                              > > > > > > > researchers.
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > The Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real
                                              > life?<The
                                              > > > Early Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<The Early
                                              > Show - Could "Contagion" virus happen in real life?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grH79bBY8pI>
                                              > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.