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

Re: stopattwo in one nation

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival. Plus several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is essential to a
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2012
      Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival. Plus
      several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is
      essential to a stable population. So I maintain that unless technology
      moves beyond that, the sustainable population is based on the natural
      formation rate of petroleum, which is properly estimated by geologists,
      though they have yet to adequately produce such estimates. I again
      comprehend perfectly, but this time I adamantly disagree.
      Consistent with the precautionary principle, The sustainable
      population estimate should be the MINIMUM, based on current or even some
      backslide in technology and on the DESIRED, consumerist lifestyle
      consumption rate, the amount we want to consume. We can always revise
      the sustainable population upward AFTER, and IF, we have invented
      practical and plentiful alternative energy and meat sources.
      So here I disagree with you adamantly. We should be producing
      hard estimates and VERY pessimistic ones. Mine is 5 million, or about
      0.08% of the current population. Since it would be best if we got there
      within 100 years, the fertility rate goal should be around 0.002. There
      are political reasons where such a high goal might be demoralizing, so in
      the interest of presenting people with baby steps, I often accept higher
      fertility rate goals, but the real one remains 0.002.
      We also need to speed up the process by opposing things like
      mandatory seat belt use and motorcycle helmets. Encouraging antichoice
      people to kill each other, like in the Iran-Iraq war or Poland's
      contribution to the Iraq occupation, helps too, unless rape becomes a big
      componant of war.
      -Alan

      On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:28 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
      writes:
      I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable
      population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a
      damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a
      sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is
      proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

      Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some
      sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil
      doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current
      numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I
      attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must
      get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming
      resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than
      they renew". Could it be worded better?

      jt


      On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

      Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the
      sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per
      capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle. What geologists have
      some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.
      -Alan

      On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
      writes:
      Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention
      this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information
      about that.

      I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the
      concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What
      would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could
      be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and
      technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use
      the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to
      not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of
      that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population
      estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will
      have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to
      providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know
      that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

      Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two
      things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer
      consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers,
      faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring
      according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how
      fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate
      about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by
      figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and
      doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But,
      that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we
      will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering.
      So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

      One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just
      get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth
      rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder
      to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand
      accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One
      could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should
      allow.

      But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should
      arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is
      all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the
      population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that
      can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

      Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it
      is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't
      shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any
      number of scientists.

      jt


      On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

      JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
      population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
      already well under way in this regard. India is less developed and thus
      has a higher per capita income. But as I understand it, they are doing
      much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
      convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests. JT is right
      that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
      scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
      Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
      enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
      for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty. In other
      words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
      population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
      make public.
      A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
      the civil war. They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
      high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
      -Alan

      ____________________________________________________________
      Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
      http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aditmore@juno.com
      True, but I consider ultrasound based selective abortion, as early in pregnancy as possible, to be morally preferable to infanticide. It is replacing
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2012
        True, but I consider ultrasound based selective abortion, as early in
        pregnancy as possible, to be morally preferable to infanticide. It is
        replacing infanticide fairly rapidly in both India and China and that is
        a very good thing. The more advanced ultrasonic equipment we can get to
        them, the less moral compromise we will have to make.
        -Alan

        On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:23:51 +1000 "Gregary Boyles"
        <greg@...> writes:
        Not discouraging Indian and Chinese female infanticide would help. If the
        ratio of males to females could be significantly increased in those
        countries then it would put downward pressure on their populations.

        From: aditmore@... [mailto:aditmore@...]
        Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012 4:48 AM
        To: john.taves@...
        Cc: jenny.goldie@...; sheiladavis05@...;
        greg@...;
        mitch.transparentpictures@...; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com;
        mark@...; gloomndoom@...; madweld@...;
        support.au@...; dae.levine@...;
        robert@...; rboni@...;
        overpopulation@yahoogroups.com; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com;
        Why_breed@yahoogroups.com; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com;
        conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com;
        childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: stopattwo in one nation

        Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival. Plus
        several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is
        essential to a stable population. So I maintain that unless technology
        moves beyond that, the sustainable population is based on the natural
        formation rate of petroleum, which is properly estimated by geologists,
        though they have yet to adequately produce such estimates. I again
        comprehend perfectly, but this time I adamantly disagree.
        Consistent with the precautionary principle, The sustainable
        population estimate should be the MINIMUM, based on current or even some
        backslide in technology and on the DESIRED, consumerist lifestyle
        consumption rate, the amount we want to consume. We can always revise
        the sustainable population upward AFTER, and IF, we have invented
        practical and plentiful alternative energy and meat sources.
        So here I disagree with you adamantly. We should be producing
        hard estimates and VERY pessimistic ones. Mine is 5 million, or about
        0.08% of the current population. Since it would be best if we got there
        within 100 years, the fertility rate goal should be around 0.002. There
        are political reasons where such a high goal might be demoralizing, so in
        the interest of presenting people with baby steps, I often accept higher
        fertility rate goals, but the real one remains 0.002.
        We also need to speed up the process by opposing things like
        mandatory seat belt use and motorcycle helmets. Encouraging antichoice
        people to kill each other, like in the Iran-Iraq war or Poland's
        contribution to the Iraq occupation, helps too, unless rape becomes a big
        componant of war.
        -Alan

        On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:28 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
        writes:
        I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable
        population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a
        damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a
        sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is
        proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

        Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some
        sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil
        doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current
        numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I
        attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must
        get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming
        resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than
        they renew". Could it be worded better?

        jt
        On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:
        Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the
        sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per
        capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle. What geologists have
        some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.
        -Alan

        On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
        writes:
        Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention
        this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information
        about that.

        I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the
        concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What
        would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could
        be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and
        technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use
        the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to
        not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of
        that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population
        estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will
        have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to
        providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know
        that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

        Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two
        things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer
        consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers,
        faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring
        according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how
        fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate
        about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by
        figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and
        doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But,
        that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we
        will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering.
        So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

        One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just
        get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth
        rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder
        to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand
        accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One
        could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should
        allow.

        But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should
        arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is
        all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the
        population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that
        can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

        Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it
        is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't
        shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any
        number of scientists.

        jt
        On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:
        JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
        population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
        already well under way in this regard. India is less developed and thus
        has a higher per capita income. But as I understand it, they are doing
        much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
        convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests. JT is right
        that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
        scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
        Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
        enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
        for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty. In other
        words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
        population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
        make public.
        A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
        the civil war. They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
        high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
        -Alan
        ____________________________________________________________
        Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
        ____________________________________________________________
        53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
        The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
        http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f2ae6d2c8ed615472m08vuc

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • aditmore@juno.com
        We don t have to convince the Chinese or any other national government, even though I believe the Chinese government is monitoring the western overpopulation
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 2, 2012
          We don't have to convince the Chinese or any other national government,
          even though I believe the Chinese government is monitoring the western
          overpopulation movement, including us, for ideas; so we are advising them
          at this moment, India too. But who we have to convince is MAYORS and
          would be mayors. And we only need one of them. Also, being vague about
          specifics does not convey sanity to any sane person, and we need not
          appeal to the insane even if they consititute 99.9% of humanity. What we
          need is a model city with a model mayor. Once we have that we can prove
          our case to the rest of the world.
          -Alan
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/

          On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:06:31 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
          writes:
          Whoops, sorry about that. You did provide more concrete numbers and you
          did put time into it. I failed to respond properly. I don't see how you
          shifted from "geologists don't know this" to "I say 5 million", but that
          doesn't matter. The point still stands that we are in no position to do
          anything with your estimate, and your estimate cannot convince others
          that the problem is real and certainly it does not help to convey
          urgency. You admit this yourself by saying it won't fly politically. My
          point is that people do not come away thinking .002 is absurd, but .1
          makes sense. They stick your whole concept into the "he's a lunatic" bin.
          And this brings me right back to the point I did make in my bad response,
          which is that we are OK with the audience coming up with their own
          urgency factor, as long as they comprehend the concept I stated in bold.

          jt


          On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM, John Taves <john.taves@...>
          wrote:

          Maybe I have not been specific enough. I have no problem with this type
          of discussion if we are supplying answers or guidance to the Chinese
          government. They have the ability to act on this sort of thing. However,
          there is a caveat, which is that there's no point to any sustainable
          estimate if you don't put a time frame on it. The only thing we need to
          know is the rate of decline. We don't need the target population number.
          I proposed that a rate of decline could be determined by keeping the cost
          of oil from increasing. This proposal was mostly for fun, but it had a
          purpose too. The goal was to show others, that have some itch in their
          pants to do some difficult modeling and estimating, that instead of
          attempting to determine a sustainable number using today's technology,
          they could shift their thinking to look for measures that already have
          the time and target number baked in. Instead of trying to figure out a
          distance, and ignore the essential time component, they could figure out
          a velocity.

          However, all of this is pointless because we do not live in China and we
          are not being called upon by that government to help them determine the
          child policy. For all of us that are in democracies, we have work to do
          before we need some rate of decline. We cannot expect that any estimate
          along these lines can be used to convince anyone of the need to decrease
          our numbers. If the audience is typical of most people, they will rely on
          how much expert consensus there is on the topic, and they will find none.
          A numeric estimate is actually damaging towards the the goal of
          convincing people that we must get our numbers down, because nobody will
          agree with those estimates.

          I have read your response a few times and I can't tell what you strongly
          disagree with. Your concept did not provide anything more concrete than
          "we must get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer
          consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers,
          faster than they renew" You got more specific with what resources are
          essential, and thereby opened up lines of argument. "worthwhile"? Really?
          This isn't debatable? But you failed to put any numbers that might convey
          urgency. So, you moved from a statement that was not debatable to one
          that is debatable and gained nothing.

          Right now, in the democracies, we have to convince a bunch of smart
          people that these concepts are sound. We need this coalition to help
          convince either demographers, or large philanthropies. We cannot do that
          with the sort of statement you made because smart people will have no
          problem finding holes in your assertions. The statement in bold above has
          no holes. Its only weakness is that it does nothing to directly convey
          the urgency. But that is one of its strengths. Any reasonably aware
          person will have no trouble seeing how important oil, coal, uranium are
          to our ability to produce and distribute food in the required quantities
          to feed the current 7 billion. They will imagine their own urgency
          factor, and right now it makes no difference if their urgency factor
          results in them concluding that we must have a .01 birth rate, a .1 birth
          rate or a birth rate of 1 or 1.9.

          jt



          On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

          Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival. Plus
          several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is
          essential to a stable population. So I maintain that unless technology
          moves beyond that, the sustainable population is based on the natural
          formation rate of petroleum, which is properly estimated by geologists,
          though they have yet to adequately produce such estimates. I again
          comprehend perfectly, but this time I adamantly disagree.
          Consistent with the precautionary principle, The sustainable
          population estimate should be the MINIMUM, based on current or even some
          backslide in technology and on the DESIRED, consumerist lifestyle
          consumption rate, the amount we want to consume. We can always revise
          the sustainable population upward AFTER, and IF, we have invented
          practical and plentiful alternative energy and meat sources.
          So here I disagree with you adamantly. We should be producing
          hard estimates and VERY pessimistic ones. Mine is 5 million, or about
          0.08% of the current population. Since it would be best if we got there
          within 100 years, the fertility rate goal should be around 0.002. There
          are political reasons where such a high goal might be demoralizing, so in
          the interest of presenting people with baby steps, I often accept higher
          fertility rate goals, but the real one remains 0.002.
          We also need to speed up the process by opposing things like
          mandatory seat belt use and motorcycle helmets. Encouraging antichoice
          people to kill each other, like in the Iran-Iraq war or Poland's
          contribution to the Iraq occupation, helps too, unless rape becomes a big
          componant of war.
          -Alan

          On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:28 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
          writes:
          I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable
          population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a
          damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a
          sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is
          proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

          Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some
          sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil
          doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current
          numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I
          attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must
          get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming
          resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than
          they renew". Could it be worded better?

          jt


          On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

          Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the
          sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per
          capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle. What geologists have
          some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.
          -Alan

          On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...>
          writes:
          Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention
          this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information
          about that.

          I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the
          concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What
          would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could
          be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and
          technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use
          the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to
          not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of
          that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population
          estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will
          have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to
          providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know
          that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

          Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two
          things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer
          consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers,
          faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring
          according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how
          fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate
          about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by
          figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and
          doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But,
          that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we
          will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering.
          So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

          One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just
          get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth
          rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder
          to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand
          accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One
          could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should
          allow.

          But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should
          arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is
          all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the
          population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that
          can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

          Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it
          is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't
          shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any
          number of scientists.

          jt


          On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

          JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
          population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
          already well under way in this regard. India is less developed and thus
          has a higher per capita income. But as I understand it, they are doing
          much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
          convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests. JT is right
          that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
          scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
          Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
          enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
          for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty. In other
          words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
          population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
          make public.
          A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
          the civil war. They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
          high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
          -Alan


          ____________________________________________________________
          Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!




          --

          jt



          John Taves
          425 444 2368
          StopAtTwo







          --

          jt



          John Taves
          425 444 2368
          StopAtTwo
          ____________________________________________________________
          53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
          The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
          http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f2ae6d1783381545em08vuc

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