Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

world population

raingirl
June 15th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Did you know that the worlds population will double by 2050 if the global birth rate is just slightly more than 2 children per woman? That is so sad...

if we all stick to 2 kids, we are fine (basically replacing ourselves) but if the rate increases to just 2.35 kids per woman, we could reach a population of 11 billion on our planet (we are currently at 6 billion).

I was watching a program on TV last night about it. It's pretty sad.

Guess I won't be having more than 2 kids!

Eleni
June 15th, 2005, 10:54 AM
hehe oops :o

Crazy Hippie
June 15th, 2005, 11:01 AM
Glad to see someone else thinking the way I do! I took a demographics class this year and we talked about the population "problem" a lot. More people = more consumption, more pollution, more destruction of natural resources...I was watching TV the other day adn they showed a view of Toronto...the CN Tower...and it was so smoggy you could barely see it. Too many people I tell ya! I do want a large fam though, so was thinking I'd have 1-2 kids and adopt 2 later on, maybe from a less fortunate country if I can afford it (it's so expensive!). In Canada, our fertility is below 2, but they make up for it with immigration.

raingirl
June 15th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Yeah. What is really sad is the US consumes more energy, food, and such for 1 child than it takes for 6 in india...

Rick C
June 15th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Inerestingly enough, however, is the fact some populations are going to decrease dramatically.

Europe, I believe, will drop from about 770 million to about 500 million people in the next 50 to 100 years (can't remember which).

Russia is obviously undergoing a catastrophic population collapse and the average lifespan of a man there, I believe, is now about 50 years of age.

Japan, one of the most racially homogenous populations on the planet with very little immigration, will also see its population collapse as a high percentage of women refuse to marry or bear children.

The USA has one of the most aggressive immigration programs on the planet and will successfully overcome its aging population problem.

Canada has a less aggressive immigration program but will still see its population rising in spite of an increasing number of seniors.

Global population is forecast, I believe, to peak out at 11 billion then begin shrinking. . . . . although I think a recent study by a UN organization pulled that back to nine billion.

It appears economic prosperity has something to do with lower birth rates . . .

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

heidiho
June 15th, 2005, 11:18 AM
Dont even want to get started on this,BUT with all the help we do to say Africa can we not maybe teach them or fix them[about birth control]...Enough already of these people that cannot afford kids and keep bustin them out.............................................. :evil: :evil:

Rick C
June 15th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Dont even want to get started on this,BUT with all the help we do to say Africa can we not maybe teach them or fix them[about birth control]...Enough already of these people that cannot afford kids and keep bustin them out.............................................. :evil: :evil:

In Africa and other poor parts of the world, a dozen children is your retirement plan.

Its not that easy.

Having said that . . . .

China has been pretty successful in controlling its birth rate with very draconian measures and India has waves of people out in the countryside teaching contraception and handing out condoms.

In Africa, however, where its unmanly to use condoms, places like Uganda and Kenya, you might see a population collapse because of an AIDS epidemic that far surpasses anything we have in developed countries.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Safyre
June 15th, 2005, 12:02 PM
Ok, no one jump on me for this... h owever.
The Tsunami back in December, killing 100 000 or how ever many ppl ... doesn't anyone else think that was natures way of trying to get back into line? I mean, yeah it was said that soo many ppl died, but, natural disasters are needed to help the world.

The other thing I wanted to bring up , seems like an appropriate thread, is that the worlds crude oil will reach its peak THIS YEAR and will start to decline steadily. This has a lot of implication on the way we live.

Prin
June 15th, 2005, 12:03 PM
After taking ecology class after ecology class, I realized that humans only THINK they're in control of everything. Every species has a carrying capacity, the max number of individuals in an area you can have before the resources are scant and the birth rate drops and the death rate rises. We think we're exempt from that, but we aren't. The world does have mysterious methods. Like how in the developed world, where we can almost completely escape death from natural causes, the fertility is declining. People just can't have kids the way they used to. People blame it on diet, global warming or whatever, but I think it's a physiological response to the quality of the world with too many of us in it.

As for Africa... I had an HIV/AIDS lecture by a renouned AIDS researcher (one of the ones who discovered that you can acquire TWO (at least) strains of HIV in the same body) and she explained how in North America, we're working to find a cure for type B HIV, the prevalent strain here. In Africa, they have type C. C spreads much faster and is harder to treat. But we barely have any cases in the US and Canada, so we work on B. To me, if you figure out C, B will be a piece of cake afterward, but curing B won't help with the research of C.

She also said they actually make a conscious decision not to give HIV meds to Africa because the people are not educated enough to understand that they have to take them regularly. Not being regular with the pills means the strain will mutate into even more subtypes, and thus it will end up like the flu- where there is no possibility of a cure.

Bearsmom
June 15th, 2005, 01:16 PM
We've only had one child and are not having more, someone can have my other allotment.

Cactus Flower
June 15th, 2005, 02:47 PM
All the more reason to adopt.

I got my tubes tied right after I had my son. The doc asked "What if you want to have more children in the future?". I told him that if that became the case, there were plenty of children out there who want parents- I'm pretty sure we can work something out :) .

A gal I met recently adopted her daughter, and has no biological children of her own. As she and her husband have no fertility problems, I asked why they adopted. She doesn't believe in having her own, until there are no kids in orphanages (kind of like how many feel about breeding dogs versus adopting from a shelter). She says "Someone else has already had our children for us".

raingirl
June 15th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Prin, I actually heard the opposite about the medications in africa. Aparently an african, if given the option to have medication to treat AIDS, is 6 times more likely to take them correctly compared to the US population. Of course, I don't remember where I got those statistics from. Could be in more suburban areas they are more likely, and in rural areas they are not.

Yes, Canada, US, Europe and Asia all have a declining population, in terms of birth rates. Europes population is declining despite birth rates and immigration, whereas canada and US are still increasing in population because of birth rates and immigration. India and Africa and increasing the fastest.

it's going to be a long time before the world takes measures to control population and non-renewable resources. And eventually all the country leaders are going to have to step back and not think about what is best for their country, but what is best for the world. Sad..

Bearsmom
June 15th, 2005, 03:18 PM
She says "Someone else has already had our children for us".


Aw, that's beautiful!!!!!

heidiho
June 15th, 2005, 03:45 PM
What isnt that easy?????????????/To stop having kids...................Yeah it is.............

Eleni
June 15th, 2005, 03:51 PM
sure its easy to stop having kids, but that doesnt stop the desire people feel to ahve their own biological children.

im glad I ahve my 3 kids, and if c sections werent so hard recovery wise id probably have more, but I know my limits:)

as for world population i dont know, its not something tht worries me much, things seem to equal out in the longrun
Eleni

Lissa
June 15th, 2005, 03:55 PM
After taking world issues and environmental courses, I made a decision a long time ago, in middle school actually, to never have any children of my own. If I could, I would have be tubes tied today but my doctor thinks I'll change my mind and refuses to let me go through with it.
If I ever felt the need to raise a child, I would most certainly adopt but I will never personally contribute to over-population.

jjgeonerd
June 15th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Yeah. What is really sad is the US consumes more energy, food, and such for 1 child than it takes for 6 in india...

That is a concern, but I doubt that Canada (or any other industrialized nation for that matter) is far behind!

I agree...2 kids max...1 preferable, maybe none. That's my wife's and my opinion at any rate.

Rick C
June 15th, 2005, 04:33 PM
What isnt that easy?????????????/To stop having kids...................Yeah it is.............

The meaning behind my comment was that in permanently economically depressed areas of the world, having a lot of kids is considered a way to ensure you are well looked after in your old age, hence the term "retirement policy."

Its certainly a factor in why people in places that can ill afford large families have lots of kids while people in countries that could afford the opposite in fact routinely have few or no kids at all.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

heidiho
June 15th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Well i guess it just pisses me off,all the help we give will really never ever be enough if they dont try and help themselves..............

chico2
June 15th, 2005, 04:54 PM
I am older than most here,but I honestly believe I became a better person after having my 3 sons.
Were I young today,I might reconsider having any children and stuck to animals....but the whole process of being pregnant,seeing this beautiful little life born from you and your partner,was an experience I would not have wanted to miss.
I went from a selfish 17yr old to become an 18yr old mom and boy did I change fast.
I am not saying everyone should have children,but to me it was a great experience,up until their teenage years,then I wished I had never had any kids :D

Prin
June 15th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Prin, I actually heard the opposite about the medications in africa. Aparently an african, if given the option to have medication to treat AIDS, is 6 times more likely to take them correctly compared to the US population. Of course, I don't remember where I got those statistics from. Could be in more suburban areas they are more likely, and in rural areas they are not.

I'm not saying they won't take their meds, I'm saying that's the reasoning western world leaders give to sleep better at night.

As for having kids, I don't believe you can just "shut it off" because of the world situation. We're driven by physiology more than we like to believe and biologically, you're unfit if you don't have at least 2 kids... I never wanted kids until I became a biology student. I can't fathom being unfit, not leaving kids means I am not among Darwin's "survival of the fittest"....

heidiho
June 15th, 2005, 05:30 PM
My point is people that keep having kid after kid after kid that cannot afford them,and we foot the bill,something has got to gve,if u can afford them and provide a great home,hey keep having them,but if u cant then stop........IF YOU CANT FEED EM DONT BREED EM........................

melanie
June 15th, 2005, 05:51 PM
the world will never sustain such numbers in the long term,we jsut dont have the resources to do it and sadly many humans wont adapt and take on their own environmental responsibilities, having our big destructive brains really is not a great evolutionary advantage.....

:eek: i dont think the tsunami was natures way of cleaning up :sick: (i wonder if you would have such an attitude if it was a white west country), the tsunami was a warning from mother nature to tell us things are way of kilter, and we should alltake responsibility for contributing to global warming and such that caused such violent env revolt as the tsunami.... (NOT TO MENTION PLATE TECTONICS IN RELATION TO GLOBAL WARMING) if nature wanted to get back in line it should probably take europe and america first, they have the biggest eco footpirnts of most countires, indonesia does not produce any where near the amount of polution or resource use that our countries do...and the tsunami was caused by a side shift in the plates, not by some hooby dooby god...

global warming now there is the killer, we keep breeding and using and poluting and soon enough we will have full scale climatological changes that will stuff us and and our crops...population decline is a wonderful thing, humans are too destructive..


apart from the reasons mentioned, heidi if you lived in a third world patriachially dominated and christian dominated society how would you stop your husband having sex with you?? hwo would you stop being forced?? you cant run away, where to??? there is no support, i dont think it is fair to ever judge other woman without putting yourself in the shoes......there are many factors to other societies, not everyone lives in the western world..and in africa droughts, being ripped off, war, govt conflict and the list goes on for reasons of socio-economic positons of these ppl..

and its not only your country that commits, on the scale of things, a very small amount of funds to feed the poor, my country does too...and i dont mind...considering the past and more recent past of the american govt (and sometimes aus govt), i think its only fair they give, they certainly steal and take from far more than they give thats for sure, such as iraq oil, now surely helping the poor will help even out the score here...(this is an example only, i could think of a million others)....

australia has a decline in pop growth, i say good, that means more space for me..... :p

heidiho
June 15th, 2005, 06:29 PM
I dont know,i just feel that maybe we need to put a stop to how many kids you can have,i know that will never happen,but,it just makes me mad that if i needed help i couldnt get it,even though i work full time and have since i was 15,BUT if i had some kids i could,it is not right..................

Vas
June 15th, 2005, 10:12 PM
Inerestingly enough, however, is the fact some populations are going to decrease dramatically.

That's true... Lots of countries ar getting "old" and people ceased having babies because of shortage of money in the first place. Second, I think it's because of feminism movement: women want to have carriers, have a choice of lifestyle, abortion availbility and etc. People now get married late in their lives and have 1 or 2 babies.

Europe, I believe, will drop from about 770 million to about 500 million people in the next 50 to 100 years (can't remember which).


Europe seems to be in crisis. Population is decreasing in countries such as Finland, Sweden, France, Baltic states , but especially Scandinavian countries. Scandinavian women are the biggest feminists in the world. Family concept is very weak. Almost every woman works. In Finland immigration policy is very strict because they make sure they get only good and educated people (usually lots of them come from universities). They've seen the situation in Sweden and learned a lesson by watching their neigbour. Sweden is stormed by immigrants from poor countries who now threatens the well being of Swedes themselves (they're attacking Swedes and are very violent http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-swedish-democracy-collapsing.html ). Gouverment opened wide their doors for "poor" because of "human rights" and because swedish population is dangerously shrinking and getting old. Unfortunatly new arrivals don't appreciate that they get the best social help possible and prefer to cheer for terrorist attacks in Iraq.


Canada has a less aggressive immigration program but will still see its population rising in spite of an increasing number of seniors.

That's false! Canada has a very aggresive immigration program. They need people and who will make lots of babies- immigrants! We think that Canada is already overpopulated, but it's not true.


Global population is forecast, I believe, to peak out at 11 billion then begin shrinking. . . . . although I think a recent study by a UN organization pulled that back to nine billion.

It appears economic prosperity has something to do with lower birth rates . . .


Maybe economic prosperity has something to do with it but the core problem is different. People in USA have quite big families because of low taxes and high income. Family concept is very strong and important to religious Americans. They believe kids are a blessing and they have the means to support their families.

In Scandinavians countries both women and her husband must work. They avoid children because that means that somebody won't be able to work like before. As I mentioned above, Scandinavian women are feminist. To compare, In US it's very normal to be a stay at home mom. You'll rarely find a stay at home mom in Finland or Sweden. Average Finnish cannot support a big family. And by the way why do you think there is a such high rate of suicides in Sweden? That's to reflect when you'll have time.

Important factors are also religion and tradition. People from poor countries have lots of babies because they know little about birth control and religious believes discourage contraceptic use. Women have babies also because they have now choice: they're dominated by their men and traditions dictate their role in society. Women must give birth to as many children as possible so they can work and support family and remplace parents later.

Western people have distanced themselves from lots of traditions and even religion. So it's not because of economic prosperity that birth rates are lower.

Vas
June 15th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Did you know that the worlds population will double by 2050 if the global birth rate is just slightly more than 2 children per woman? That is so sad...

There are lots of Europeen countries that are sad for not having enough children!


if we all stick to 2 kids, we are fine (basically replacing ourselves) but if the rate increases to just 2.35 kids per woman, we could reach a population of 11 billion on our planet (we are currently at 6 billion).

I was watching a program on TV last night about it. It's pretty sad.

Guess I won't be having more than 2 kids!

The threat of overpopulation comes from poor countries. You shouldn't worry about yourself. Government will be more than happy if you have more than 2 babies! :love:

Safyre
June 15th, 2005, 10:25 PM
I dont think the tsunami was natures way of cleaning up (i wonder if you would have such an attitude if it was a white west country),

WHOA, that was WAY outta line. I don't care where the Tsunami hit, whether it woulda been in the usa, indonesia, canada or australia even. For you to even suggest that ... I can't even come up with words. Incredibly Rude, insulting, and just plain ignorant.

the tsunami was a warning from mother nature to tell us things are way of kilter, and we should alltake responsibility for contributing to global warming and such that caused such violent env revolt as the tsunami....

I was mis stating 'natues way of getting the earth back in line' i couldn't think of the words I needed. Your last quote, I completely agree with. I think the tsumani was mother natures way of telling us to get our act together and fix this earth.

Schwinn
June 16th, 2005, 11:19 AM
Personally, I think the Tsunami was mother nature's way of telling us there was an earthquake in the middle of the ocean.


I've read we are almost out of oil, that oil is about to peak, that it will peak in 100 years, that there are bazillions of barrels of oil that haven't even been discovered, and even that oil is actually self-replenishing, constantly being reproduced. I've read that global warming is a result of humans, that it is a result of a natural phenomanon, that is the causing the earth to get warmer and that the earth is cooling off. I've also heard the hole in the ozone is getting bigger, is getting smaller, is a crisis, is a natural occurence, is getting worse, and is getting better.

My point? I've given up with "the world is doomed" predicitions. I'm going to do what I can in my little corner to do the right thing. I think the people who cry that the world is nearing the end are wrong, and the ones who say everything is fine is wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Rick C
June 16th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Experts think the Tsunami in southeast Asia may trigger a baby boom in that region as many women who lost children are looking to reverse sterilization procedures. The Sri Lankan government will pay for the reversals.

You may have to subscribe to read this story:

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a730f548-6f50-4a98-b94f-f504f9c9985b

Regarding an exchange with VAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick C
Canada has a less aggressive immigration program but will still see its population rising in spite of an increasing number of seniors.

Originally Posted by Vas
That's false! Canada has a very aggresive immigration program. They need people and who will make lots of babies- immigrants! We think that Canada is already overpopulated, but it's not true.

In the context above in which I stated it, I was quite correct. Canada has a less aggressive immigration policy than the USA, but is more aggressive than most of the world, hence Canada can expect its population to increase even though its population is aging.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

jjgeonerd
June 16th, 2005, 12:27 PM
the world will never sustain such numbers in the long term,

the tsunami was a warning from mother nature to tell us things are way of kilter, and we should alltake responsibility for contributing to global warming and such that caused such violent env revolt as the tsunami.... (NOT TO MENTION PLATE TECTONICS IN RELATION TO GLOBAL WARMING)



I agree with the world not sustaining such large numbers. I'm reading an interesting book now called "Collapse". It is by the same person who wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and deals with why various societies have collapsed in the distant and near past...a large factor is always environmental.

As far as the tsunami comment...I just can't stay quiet since I work in this field. There is absolutely no evidence that climatological changes, especially on the scale we have seen currently, affect plate tectonics. Plate tectonics are affected by convection currents of molten rock beneath the earth's crust. The tsunami was caused by an undersea landslide which was triggered by an extremely large offshore earthquake. There is evidence of massive earthquakes and tsunamis thousands of years ago...long before global warming was an issue. Although Hollywood may disagree, events such as extremely heavy localized rain (which may be caused by global warming) have no effect on the movement of faults...the majority of which are greater than 20 miles in depth below the earth's surface.

The cause of global warming in fact is very debatable. The earth's climate has continually gone through warming and cooling cycles and humans have only been studying it in detail with satellites and such for less than 50 years. What is happening may not even be related to our activities. Remember that there have been 3 separate ice ages...extreme examples of warming and cooling trends. NOW BEFORE EVERYONE JUMPS ON ME..:rolleyes:..In spite of this I wholeheartedly agree that people should be doing EVERYTHING possible to minimize our impact on the earth, just IN CASE we are the causing any problems. Dramatically less reliance on fossil fuels is a major step (too bad our president doesn't agree :mad: ). The Netherlands are an excellent example of what a country commited to environmentalism can achieve.

Cactus Flower
June 16th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I took a geology lab recently, and my prof said "We are coming out of an ice age. That is why the earth is warming. Not that we don't need to reduce our emissions and pollutants all around- that is also true".

Personally, I think the Tsunami was mother nature's way of telling us there was an earthquake in the middle of the ocean. LOL!!!!!!!!!

Rick C
June 16th, 2005, 02:50 PM
The most usual way that nature has told us there are too many people around is war, the old-fashioned, reliable way of reducing populations that never seems to get old.

Human nature.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Cactus Flower
June 16th, 2005, 03:05 PM
I don't find anything "natural" about war, sorry.

nymph
June 16th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Scandinavian women are the biggest feminists in the world. Family concept is very weak. Almost every woman works.

Please enlighten me, so working women = feminists = anti-family?

melanie
June 16th, 2005, 05:56 PM
uot 'As far as the tsunami comment...I just can't stay quiet since I work in this field. There is absolutely no evidence that climatological changes, especially on the scale we have seen currently, affect plate tectonics. Plate tectonics are affected by convection currents of molten rock beneath the earth's crust. The tsunami was caused by an undersea landslide which was triggered by an extremely large offshore earthquake. There is evidence of massive earthquakes and tsunamis thousands of years ago...long before global warming was an issue. Although Hollywood may disagree, events such as extremely heavy localized rain (which may be caused by global warming) have no effect on the movement of faults...the majority of which are greater than 20 miles in depth below the earth's surface'

i would have to agree to disagree on this point...i believe that all ecological, climatological, geological, hydrological, biological process are all interconnected, the world acts as a system as a whole...

i am not saying tectonic shift is not natural (and it was an upward shift for the big one, and the secound one was sideways, that is why it was not so dramatic the secound time, tectonic activite is the reason for mountain rangers etc due to the natural upward and overlap shifts of the plates, but plates are always moving, even as we speak they move, its just the big ones we feel)...

BUT all natural planetary activities are interconnected...without giving a 10 page reply, in a nut shell many scientists agree that you cannot heat the outside of the planet without adding more heat and activity to the inside therefore increasing tectonic and ohter geological activities, 1degree on the surface of a natural system can have massive effects. and many scientist disagree on this point, i am one that agrees. science is one of those areas that is very subjective and we will never have all in agreeance. so you may be right, so may i, who really knows.....

safre that was not intended as an insulting comment, just a statement. we live in a very socially different world, it was an inquiry....i am apologetic if it was taken the wrong way. i must explain that i have spent many years on the minds and lives of my indigenous ppl of late (due to my studies) so that comment simpy came from the way i now think, i am always a bit defensive of my koori ppl or other indigenous ppl around the world...that is one of those quesitons that i ask many ppl, and you gave me a nice answer, i have often had very different ones, again not meaning to upset, jsut a bit of a foreward person, sorry i often state my mind, i have a habbit of stating what i think (you can imagine the trouble that gets me into) (AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS, GOSH IT MUST BE HARD SOME DAYS FOR YOU ALL :p sorry i can be areal shocker at times):D


and heidi :angel: , i do understand what you are saying. unlike you i come from a country that has a intense welfare system (and its not all that good to just give hand outs i might add, but thats another story for anotherday). so it must be hard coming from a country without one, over here you never go hungry and can get food and shelter and often money if you need it, very different i must admit, it must be really tricky in the US, i mean you cant jsut quit a job and travel or such, you must have to be more responsible....

But lets never judge other woman, life sucks for some chics in this world....ah we are pretty lucky in the westernworld (no materehow much i complain) :D :p

jjgeonerd
June 16th, 2005, 09:17 PM
BUT all natural planetary activities are interconnected...without giving a 10 page reply, in a nut shell many scientists agree that you cannot heat the outside of the planet without adding more heat and activity to the inside therefore increasing tectonic and ohter geological activities, 1degree on the surface of a natural system can have massive effects. and many scientist disagree on this point, i am one that agrees. science is one of those areas that is very subjective and we will never have all in agreeance. so you may be right, so may i, who really knows.....


I would agree that natural activities are interconnected and not all is known; however, global climate change (warming, cooling, whatever) and plate tectonics are not related. This can be proven by simple thermodynamics as follows:

We all agree that plate tectonics are driven by convection currents within the molten portion of the earth. The temperature of that molten portion is not exactly known, but it is believed to be between 9,000F and 13,000F (5,000-7,000C for all the non US :p )...very hot. Increasing that temp. may increase tectonic activity...agreed.

I'm not sure what the average atmospheric temperature of the earth is, but if I had to guess I would say it was about 70F. It doesn't matter though...80F, 90F, 100F...whatever.

Temperature equates proportionally to energy...the higher the temperature of a system, the higher amount of energy it has. Thus the molten portion of the earth is a MUCH higher energy system than the atmosphere. Thermodynamics states that a lower energy system cannot transfer energy to a higher energy system. Therefore, if the 70F average atmospheric temp increased to 80F there is no way it could possibly transfer additional heat to a system that is already sitting somewhere around 10,000F and thus increase tectonic activity.

Analogy: The inside of your oven is the earth core, the outside of the oven is the earth crust, and your house in the atmosphere. If your oven is at 350F, and you increase the temp in your house from 70 to 80, the oven temp will not increase. No matter what you do, the oven will continue to cool until it reaches the temperature of the house...equilibrium in energy.

OK...I'm done boring you all! :rolleyes:

Cactus Flower
June 16th, 2005, 09:27 PM
*******APPLAUSE*******

Well done!

Rick C
June 16th, 2005, 09:30 PM
I don't find anything "natural" about war, sorry.

No need to apologize. :rolleyes:

What could be more "natural" than mankind's well-established and historic propensity to slaughter his fellow man . . . . about 50 million dead in the last World War as one example, some tens of millions in the world war preceding it.

Hardly the first examples nor the last. Rwanda springs to mind. The Balkans. A homicide bomber calmly walking into a crowd of old people collecting their pension cheques at a bank yesterday in Iraq.

Small scale. Large scale.

Leaders in India and Pakistan just a few years ago thought each could "win" a nuclear exchange until saner heads talked them out of it.

Its not a nice concept but man's inhumanity as a form of population control is part of this conversation.

And yes it is disgusting.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
June 16th, 2005, 11:36 PM
The worst part about war is that supposedly our fittest people are the ones fighting and dying...

As for the tsunami stuff, jjgeonerd, you're the first person I have ever "met" who makes physics sound fun. You should teach it-- I don't know ONE good physics teacher. Hence, I'm in Biology. :)

Cactus Flower
June 16th, 2005, 11:55 PM
I understand your point, Rick C. I just don't think that the trends of humans represent the whole of "nature", hence my issue with war being "natural". It is only part of OUR history, so I don't consider it nature's population control.
Maybe I'm hung up on semantics here. It's been known to happen :o .

I agree that jjgeonerd would make an excellent teacher. And I JUST NOW- as I typed his/her name- realized what it really says: jj GEO nerd. No WONDER jj is so well versed on the topic!

I'll break now to give myself a solid slap in the forehead.

Prin
June 17th, 2005, 01:26 AM
heh heh. I've always read it jigger nerd... LOL

Safyre
June 17th, 2005, 03:24 AM
I understand where your comment caem from melanie, i;'m sorry its a question you feel you have to ask.
I ruined a relationship with my own grandmother when she was racsist towards the man i was dating at the time. i don't put up with racsim of any sort, it makes my bloo boil. so, the comment was taken not as you meant it, it seems.

jjgeonerd
June 17th, 2005, 01:49 PM
I agree that jjgeonerd would make an excellent teacher. And I JUST NOW- as I typed his/her name- realized what it really says: jj GEO nerd. No WONDER jj is so well versed on the topic!



Uh-oh...I've been caught! :) Funny how it is impossible to anticipate how people read things...it seemed obvious when I made it up. :p I'm actually a geotechnical engineer (geo...nerd), although I would love to teach H.S. earth science instead. Physic would also be fun, but I like earth science better. Unfortunately college comes early when you're probably not truly prepared to decide a career...so I'm an enginerd!

Anyways...thanks for the compliment (Prin too)!

Jeremy

melanie
June 18th, 2005, 05:44 PM
again i agree to disagree.... i just dont agree. simply put i believe the env is a whole and one system must effect the other, heating the atmosphere, surface and oceans by one degree will affect all systems natural balances,no system works alone and all are to an extent symbiotic... , and for me the increased incedence of all major env (geo, hydro, climo the lot), catastrophes since the industrial era is too much to be called coincednce. now as i stated this may not be the case, it could jsut be bad luck, but for me working under the precautionary principle i find its too often to be written off to chance....and the oven analogy does not work for me, ever stuck a large rock in the sun all day, it can get very very hot with even minor increases of temp,,, but then i think we should jsut disagree here, and end the conversation, its not going to change..

and you say global warming is very debateable (very dangerous things to say in a sustainable and env sense)as a natural cycle so to speak, well many ppl will agree with you, i just wonder where their interests lie. countless evidence suggests that we have indeed increased the rates of global warming beyond any found in our history, as much data shows the levels of products such as carbondioxide in the env are catalysts for warming, yes they have always been in the natural env but not on the scale they are now, and certinaly not as a result of human activity. as many corse samples have shown the co2 levels of past atmospheres have not been so dramatic or had such wide ranging effects, in effect we are cooking ourselves..check out the results from the core data from antarctic studies, jsut fascinating.......and the effort may not be to save the environment, she is good at fixing herself, but more importantly sustaining our existance on this planet because as we know we can be wiped by nature when she has had enough...

again thanks for the discussion, very interesting and nice to find someone who actually bothers to discuss.....
.....

safre, again i did not mean to offend, i live in a mind frame these days of not being sure if racists are bad ppl, im not sure any more (its killing me, kinda thinking in circles on this one), i wonder if its jsut sad different ppl or ppl expressing a natural instinct in the wrong way or at the wrong group, this is where i have gotten to with this issue so far. so i really did not mean to offend, i just speak what comes to mind and it was an inquiry basically....be glad i asked, i think it is good that ppl dont just accept and question, the human race marches on...

jjgeonerd
June 18th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Agree to disagree then. The basic principles of thermodynamics are very well established. The rock example you gave is not applicable because the mechanism heating the rock is different. The rock is heating up from being hit directly with sunlight (radiation, not direct heat...earth receives no direct heat from the sun). Put that same rock under some shade and it will not get any hotter than the surrounding air. This is exactly why a car parked in the shade gets far less hot than one in the sun.

My main problem is that you keep stating misconceptions as facts. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that tectonic activity is increasing. In fact, it has decreased significantly since the origins of the earth, and has remained steady since humans have been observing it. There is increasing press coverage of natural disasters (earthquakes and volcanos) which creates the perception of increased activities, however; A review of historical data will show that tectonics are not increasing. If you have data that suggests otherwise, then please let us see it. Also keep in mind that activity fluctuates slightly from year to year. 100 or even 500 of our years is a microsecond in geologic time.

Storms (huricanes, floods, tornadoes) on the other hand may be on the increase. I'm not a weather expert, but I don't disagree with this. It would make sense that this is a side effect of global warming. They are however, not related to tectonics. The only relation of weather to tectonics would be that large volcanic eruptions (think St. Helens and Pinatubo (sp?)) can temporarily decrease the temp. of the earth by a degree or two for a couple years. Those are short term occurences though.

As far as global warming, here's my take. There are two camps:

1) Its not happening or it isn't our fault at all if it is. This is the evil oil and power company's official position...as well as that of countless politicians who have been bought by them.

2) It's happening, is out of control, and humans are 100% to blame. This is the official position of environmental extremists.

The traits that both of these groups have in common is that they filter data to prove their point, and are incapable of looking at any data objectively because they let greed (group 1) or emotions (group 2) cloud their judgement. In my opinion both are equally bad and their opinions are worthless. The real answer is somewhere in the middle in the realm of true, objective science.

Note that I said the CAUSE is debatable, and either way we should be doing are absolute best to minimize our impact on the environment...everything, not just CO2 emmissions.

Agree...good discussion.

Safyre
June 18th, 2005, 07:01 PM
I understand what you are saying Melanie, no worries at all. I rather like reading your posts. I think in some instances you'd be better understood in person, than internet. Body language, tone of voice is so important sometimes.

I ask questions a lot as well, just not on here cuz i dont like my head biten off :)

Cactus Flower
June 18th, 2005, 07:33 PM
JJ, how many credit hours was this thread worth, and where should I send my grant money? :D

I just want to thank you for the brain candy. I LOVE LOVE LOVE learning. And when I read something that makes me go "What??? Really??? Wow!!", it's better than bubblebaths, I swear. I read this sentence three times: radiation, not direct heat...earth receives no direct heat from the sun

Living is learning!

Thank you.

This is great.

CyberKitten
June 18th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Re: The most usual way that nature has told us there are too many people around is war, the old-fashioned, reliable way of reducing populations that never seems to get old.

Good grief! Surely you jest! War only profits the people who make bombs, no-one else. Not to mention all the weapons add immesaurably to oiur already fragile eosystem.

I am going to siund high handed and it is not my style but the ideas on another thread about sexual assault have me wondering where I am living. Unless any of you have walked in my shoes and worked in war torn countries (something I do in my work with Les Medecins Sans Frontieres), please so not think war solves anything. I have endured post traumatic stress for what I have seen and that pales in comparison to the people I have treated in those many countries!! I can't believe you would make that comment - it just blows me away that anyone thinks war is a solution. War creates orphans, kills children and leaves a huge mess which the rest of the world - especially those of us in the western world - care less about. Oh we say we do but for the most part we do nothing.

As for AIDS in Africa, as someone of Irish heritage whose ancestors suffered from the Hunger (there was really no famine - other thanan artificial one), I am astonished that we can sit here as children die day after day after day when the medication that would save them is available and we do NOTHING!!!! Oh some of us volunteer and work there but even my own work is just a bandaid solution. Until we really care about our fragile little world and treat every human with the dignity and humanity they deserve, we are all guilty of the selective genoicde that is occuring in Africa.

I know those are strong words but I have had innerable children die in my arms and I sit there, trying to console them , all the while fighting with bureacracies to send in the medications to help extend their lives and feeling enraged at my own govt for saying we are great and wonderful but not doing hardly enough. I have even transported those meds illegally into African countries. God forbit the drug companies not make their huge profits!! In our world, the life of a child in a third world country seems to be not worth very much, sighhhhhh!!

We would actually help create peace if we stopped the dying in those countries. The next generation is furious with us and I cannot say I blame them. They have no parents and their resources are flying out tof the country to North American companies faster than I can say "No More War!

I am not the idealistic university student I once was. The real life world is a scary, dangerous place and those who advocate war are NEVER around (except for the occasional photo op) to fix the mess they created.

Anyway, I'd better stop. It is times like this my ptsd really upsets me!

db7
June 18th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Don't any of you fret about over-population. Some funky new virus is bound to cause a pandemic disease killing of all of us. :sick: Just hope you're on the right half. :fingerscr

CyberKitten
June 18th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Gawd, I am a hospital committee that frets about said virus. You don;t need to tell me about that. Speaking of which, I have a colleague - was in Hfx for a year but is now on the west coast - who wrote a book called Pandemic. It's doing well. Check it out. Fiction of course but it could happen (well not all the melodrama of his characters but certainly we WILL have a pandemic, a la 1918 Spanish flu variety).

LL1
June 18th, 2005, 10:23 PM
Im on chapter 34,it's very good!
I have a colleague - was in Hfx for a year but is now on the west coast - who wrote a book called Pandemic. It's doing well. Check it out.

jjgeonerd
June 19th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Good grief! Surely you jest! War only profits the people who make bombs, no-one else. Not to mention all the weapons add immesaurably to oiur already fragile eosystem.



Hi Cyberkitten. I think you misunderstood Rick C's post. He never said war was right, just that it always seems to happen when overpopulation starts to happen. His later post even calls it "disguisting". As he said, Rwanda is a prime example of overpopulation, which lead to limited resources (i.e. land and food), which lead to civil war and genocide. Haiti (on a smaller scale) is a more recent another example of this.

No one said it is justified, just that it happens.

I also admire you for helping people like this...I can't imagine what that would be like!

jjgeonerd
June 19th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Realted to one of my earlier posts...here's a good link for anyone whose interested about common earthquake myths. :thumbs up The two questions discussed in this thread about increased EQ activity, and earthquakes and weather, are specifically addressed. Also talk about animals and prediction.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/faq/myths.html#2

CyberKitten
June 19th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Ohh! Glad to know it was an observation by Rick C and sorry if I jumped to conclusions - I tend to scan a lot and I was mega tired but that's no excuse. Moucho apologies if I offended anyone - it was not my intent. I did think it might be satirical tho? Like the cartoon in the NY Times that showed off the Patriot missles (which have been proven not to have even worked - read Judith Miller's great book called Germs, kind of pop biochem but it's not bad). The cartoon said "As advertised on TV".

Glad you are enjoying the book LL1. One my best friends was his editor - she is also in medicine but loves to edit. (I almost hate to send her emails now, but she has me looking at novels in a new one, finding errors) There are a couple in Dan's book - a French phrase no one would ever say and the email rec'd by the guy at the CIA might come from Echelon but never from Carnivoire which never really got off the ground. Anyway, other than those minor quibbles, it IS a good book and I recommend it. Tho I am not a virologist by training, lol

iRONKNiGHT
June 19th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Ice Cream anyone?

melanie
June 19th, 2005, 06:20 PM
sorry i was typing fast and not being descriptive, sorry that rock was supposed to be subject to raised atmospheric heat, raised temps in its env...opps was not thinking about that yesterday, i hardly ever read what i have written, my mistake...but i am still happy to say i dont agree :p im such a fuddy duddy some days... :D :p

ah yeah safre, im jsut as infuriating in real life :D :D nah i agree, internet ruins my deliveries :D :p

yes i like hokey pokey icecream local vendor......

Safyre
June 19th, 2005, 08:43 PM
hokey pokey icecream?
I really gotta visit australia at some point. lol
yer not infuriating at all... though, i wish you would spell my name right.

Schwinn
June 20th, 2005, 11:07 PM
yes i like hokey pokey icecream local vendor......

Somehow that doesn't sound very appetizing. I mean, after you put you left leg in, and then when you pull your left leg out, who would want to eat it??

melanie
June 21st, 2005, 02:58 AM
safyre, im sorry, god im lazy. i have told myself that is not how its spelt but never bother to check, again im sorry, im a sloth in a human body.....

:D :p hokey pokey icecream is the best ever, it is a new zealand ice cream, lived there for a few yrs and dads a kiwi so thats how we got hooked :D . you caqn get it at a few places over here....

it is vanilla icecream with chunks of honeycomb through it, the honey comb is in round pieces, its jsut the most divine flavor ever and worth seeking out anywhere.....mmmmmmmmmmm......ohhhh i am droolin..........