[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

(This was in the early 70’s, methinks.)

I think a common peak value was 4 or 5 billion but it varies alot, depending on the inputs, which affect how different variables relate to each other. The peak-to-steady-state value also fluctuated.

The remarkable thing about the model was not the peak value, but the fact that the shape was always the same. It rose to a peak, and a drop always came before the steady state.

[sdduuuude]

Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.

I don’t have to harm anyone, force anyone to do anything against their will, trespass, steal from anyone, or lie to anyone under contract to safely drive a safe, low-smog, low-MPG vehicle. It is a peaceful and honest activity.

Taking on public debt forces millions of people into indebtedness who do not want to go into debt. Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest. Thus, it imposes upon them.

Saying that I wish to impose on anyone is exactly wrong. I wish to prevent impositions in all cases.

Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil. I’m just saying, I have the right to and that you don’t have the right to stop me.

I am also saying that we have no clue if using less oil would result in a better outcome or not.

I am done w/ this thread.

[sdduuuude]

Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.

I don’t have to harm anyone, force anyone to do anything against their will, trespass, steal from anyone, or lie to anyone under contract to safely drive a safe, low-smog, low-MPG vehicle. It is a peaceful and honest activity.

Taking on public debt forces millions of people into indebtedness who do not want to go into debt. Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest. Thus, it imposes upon them.

Saying that I wish to impose on anyone is exactly wrong. I wish to prevent impositions in all cases.

Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil. I’m just saying, I have the right to and that you don’t have the right to stop me.

I am also saying that we have no clue if using less oil would result in a better outcome or not.

I am done w/ this thread.

[sdduuuude]

Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.

I don’t have to harm anyone, force anyone to do anything against their will, trespass, steal from anyone, or lie to anyone under contract to safely drive a safe, low-smog, low-MPG vehicle. It is a peaceful and honest activity.

Taking on public debt forces millions of people into indebtedness who do not want to go into debt. Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest. Thus, it imposes upon them.

Saying that I wish to impose on anyone is exactly wrong. I wish to prevent impositions in all cases.

Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil. I’m just saying, I have the right to and that you don’t have the right to stop me.

I am also saying that we have no clue if using less oil would result in a better outcome or not.

I am done w/ this thread.

[sdduuuude]

Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.

I don’t have to harm anyone, force anyone to do anything against their will, trespass, steal from anyone, or lie to anyone under contract to safely drive a safe, low-smog, low-MPG vehicle. It is a peaceful and honest activity.

Taking on public debt forces millions of people into indebtedness who do not want to go into debt. Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest. Thus, it imposes upon them.

Saying that I wish to impose on anyone is exactly wrong. I wish to prevent impositions in all cases.

Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil. I’m just saying, I have the right to and that you don’t have the right to stop me.

I am also saying that we have no clue if using less oil would result in a better outcome or not.

I am done w/ this thread.

[sdduuuude]

Because, justme, I have very rigorous, objective definition of what is and what isn’t a right. I follow the series of actions all the way through and identify which actions force other people away from any peaceful and honest activity. Those actions are violations of rights. I believe at any time, everyone has the right to be peaceful and honest.

I don’t have to harm anyone, force anyone to do anything against their will, trespass, steal from anyone, or lie to anyone under contract to safely drive a safe, low-smog, low-MPG vehicle. It is a peaceful and honest activity.

Taking on public debt forces millions of people into indebtedness who do not want to go into debt. Staying out of debt is a peaceful and honest activity. Nobody has the right to force them away from it, in my opinion.

So, note – taking on public debt and mandating MPG requirements both force people away from actions that are peaceful and honest. Thus, it imposes upon them.

Saying that I wish to impose on anyone is exactly wrong. I wish to prevent impositions in all cases.

Lets be clear – I don’t want to waste oil. I’m just saying, I have the right to and that you don’t have the right to stop me.

I am also saying that we have no clue if using less oil would result in a better outcome or not.

I am done w/ this thread.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=justme]Again, that’s called Democracy. Deal with it.[/quote]

Is this argument any better than “It’s called a ‘market.’ Deal with it.”

Or “It’s called ‘other people’s rights.’ Deal with it.”

I’m thinking “no.”

If you want to believe that rights can be voted on, then you do not believe they are inalienable, which is my original point. You want to make other people behave how you want them to behave. It’s that simple. No different than a Republican voting that you can’t smoke pot or engage in odd sexual behaviors because they think there should be more morality in the world.

[Author]

Posts