So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[BobRip]

Yeah, not one of you would go back 30 years, try 1357-1363. Tell me the world isn't better, and way more populated. You see the things you think are fixed (resources), are not. HS

These are excellent points. My world is better than the one I grew up in. This is not true for everybody. It is easy to say there are limits and then someone invents a new device or processes and things work better. Also a large population gives us more incentive and more people to develop new things. However you are betting that improvements are forever. There points of diminishing returns. It is relatively easy to make some that is 10% efficient become 15%. It is very difficult to make something go from 75% to 95%. We need to expand our territory to give us space and opportunity for a growing population. Space exploration would give us this, but we have really slowed down on that. We need to do all of these things (solar, wind, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion) so that we can learn everything we can and take all the opportunities that are out there. Yes, there will be failures and waste. But progress will not occurs without these. Money wasted on research and development is not really wasted.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

You are kidding right. The quality of life has improved as populations have increased. You are exactly wrong! The quality of life world wide has always been improving. You just repeat liberal drivel, please.... Try thinking for yourself. HS

Isn't this the same type of posts that got you kicked off friendly politics? If you can't respond in a civil manner, why don't you keep your pie hole shut... let us enjoy the topic.

 

[buickanddeere]

Let's see, this thread recently added several pages discussing and cussing the pros and cons of nuclear energy. Now, no sane person would claim that anything about nuclear energy--existing from the necessity of the power demanded by a huge population--is anything other than accepting the lesser of evils along with the inherent risks.

Debating the pros and cons of nuclear energy is like discussing the quality of the hand basket we are going to Hades in. Nuclear power is only relevant because our huge population is power hungry. Without that population-driven need, the response to nuclear power would be a simple "No thanks."

Uranium mines, piles of radioactive mine tailings, nuclear accidents and failures, nuclear waste, and a vulnerability to war, terrorism and geologic forces with devastating long-term results are not improvements to anyone's quality of life. They are certainly not what would be chosen by a smaller global population that could satisfy its energy needs from safer sources.

The same applies to fossil fuels. Who would argue that smog, polluted water from spills, destroyed water sheds, global warming, decimated species and denuded forests are an improvement to anyone's quality of life? A smaller population could utilize carbon fuels more freely without exceeding the earth's ability to absorb the pollutants. A huge population using huge amounts of fossil fuels must exercise great care or suffer the consequences of excessive pollution. Because we haven't exercised great care and our population and fossil fuel consumption is still growing, we are now looking at alternatives with lower inherent environmental costs.

It's real simple to connect the dots HS. We are now going to allow undersea sonic blast oil and gas exploration knowing that it will exact a toll on already threatened species such as whales and dolphins. Only a planet with an out of control population and resultant energy demand would accept that as a lesser of evils. It is lowering our quality of life.

No matter how you slice or dice it, population pressures drive choices and requirements; many of those choices are of the lesser of evils in a slow acquiescence to a lower quality of life.

So you are saying what we need is a lottery around the world. That 1 out of 25 persons get to live and 24 die to save the planet ? It's for the greater good you know.

 

[mikehaugen]

So you are saying what we need is a lottery around the world. That 1 out of 25 persons get to live and 24 die to save the planet ? It's for the greater good you know.

Maybe not a lottery... Can't we come up with a way to systematically eliminate people that are more of a drain on society than a contributor? :laughing:

Okay I was just kidding.

 

[Loren49]

So you are saying what we need is a lottery around the world. That 1 out of 25 persons get to live and 24 die to save the planet ? It's for the greater good you know.

You're making things up again. He implied nothing of the sort. Reread how we got to this point in the leaf discussion...Pilot in post #619 posted a Global Warming Denial Opinion (should have been removed and he should go by the rules!) In post #628 Pilot used a claim that population is no problem to show that climate change deniers are right...Then some facts and information to support that fact that 7 billion heading for 10 or more billion is at the root of many problems...then your outrageous assertion that he wants 96% of the population eliminated. Get real!


Throwing Global Warming Denial into a EV discussion when its clear that it is not allowed by the rules is irresponsible and those who continue to sabotage good threads should be restricted.:confused2:

There was some good information on this thread but this nonsense may get it moved!


Loren

 

[dave1949]

Yeah, not one of you would go back 30 years, try 1357-1363. Tell me the world isn't better, and way more populated. You see the things you think are fixed (resources), are not. HS

That is a false equivalency.

You are implying that the advances that have occurred since the age of the Black Death in Europe would not have been possible without population growth. You also have a mathematical problem: population growth is not linear, especially since the late 1800's.





Certainly some advances in various fields are driven by population-related needs and economics. The implication is that population growth creates problems, duh. :laughing:

Solving problems that arise due to expanding population is more like running in place in my mind, not necessarily advancement.

 

[k0ua]

So no one watches Star Trek?... by the 24th century, most of life's problems have been solved... well except for those pesky Romulan's. Well, maybe a couple of others too!:laughing:

 

[dave1949]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/u...reins-in-its-utilities-carbon-emissions.html?

Solar and wind making strides in Minnesota.

 

[dave1949]

So you are saying what we need is a lottery around the world. That 1 out of 25 persons get to live and 24 die to save the planet ? It's for the greater good you know.

I don't know why any discussion about population issues brings on this type of response. It is a problem that will need to be faced or the human existence will be very different in the future. If approaching 10 billion people is not proving to be your cup of tea, imagine what the planet would be like with 20 billion. Who is willing to make a strong argument for the benefits of 20 billion people?

I know of no reason why we shouldn't take our destiny into our own hands. I think we will once people can solidly connect quality of life to population. It is going to, and it must, take awhile though. The economic shock and disruption of a rapidly depleted population would be tremendous. It needs to be a gradual decline measured in lifetimes and driven by values.

 

[k0ua]

I don't know why any discussion about population issues brings on this type of response. It is a problem that will need to be faced or the human existence will be very different in the future. If approaching 10 billion people is not proving to be your cup of tea, imagine what the planet would be like with 20 billion. Who is willing to make a strong argument for the benefits of 20 billion people?

I know of no reason why we shouldn't take our destiny into our own hands. I think we will once people can solidly connect quality of life to population. It is going to, and it must, take awhile though. The economic shock and disruption of a rapidly depleted population would be tremendous. It needs to be a gradual decline measured in lifetimes and driven by values.

Let me tell you how populations density goes in reverse.. Big Wars, and Big disease followed by Big famine. At least that is the past history.