2
   

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:12 pm
parados wrote:

...
It doesn't matter in the figuring of global warming if HS/HE is greater or less than 1.

Being greater or less than 1 has nothing to do with global warming. The change in He is really all that matters.

Something that recieves 1000 calories of heat and loses the heat from 700 will heat up the same as something that recieves 400 calories of heat and loses 100. Both have a total heat retention caused by 300 calories. The ratio of the one is higher than 1, the other is less.

If the sun's radiation to the earth were reduced enough, it wouldn't take long before the earth was too cold for human life, regardless of the current amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. Likewise if the sun's radiation were increased enough, it wouldn't take long before the earth was too hot for human life, regardless of the current amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.

So first we must determine the net benefit of increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere versus the net benefit of decreasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. And, among other things, that depends on what we think the sun's radiation level is going to be over time.

If we were to cut the CO2 in the atmosphere in half, would that cause the sun to heat up the earth more or less than it does with the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I think that depends on how much of the sun caused earth warming is enhanced or diminished by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I doubt its a linear relationship as suggested by your caloric analysis.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Chumly identified the primary reason why global warming is irrelevant; human population growth. Over and above all that, if this planet goes through climate cycles as a normal consequence, there's nothing humans can do to control it.

With better medical care and science, humans continue to extend life spans (at least in developed countries). I don't see this phenomenon changing.
Right! And not only do we we have the clear and present danger of exponential population growth but we an exponential increase in global per capita consumption of all manner of resources.

I would prefer if the focus was shifted to population, resources, and environmental concerns, as they are much harder to dispute than global warming.

For some reason, global warming seems to be taking center stage these days.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:19 pm
When we strip away all the particulars, one statement about predicting lingers in my mind. During the late 19th C., no futurist predicted the advent of the motion picture. All I am saying in repeating that statement is that prediction is always a roll of the dice.

I firmly believe, however, that our own inability to curb our reproduction will be our undoing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:23 pm
Chumly, You are right, but nothing will happen until crisis hits the human animal, and some action will be taken from the government. Unfortunately, past government control of population ended up as another form of crisis like in China where there are more boys than girls.

It's always been the Catholic belief that birth control is against god's will.

I'm not sure how humans will handle the crisis in the developed countries, but that will be far into the future.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:25 pm
If, for any reason whatsoever, global warming turns out to be less of an immediate threat than some believe, environmental concerns are going to be laughed out of the public arena en mass.

Therein lies the real danger, not global warming per se.

Detractors will simply say: "they could not even predict global warming correctly, so why should we listen to them about other false alarms?"
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 03:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not sure how humans will handle the crisis in the developed countries, but that will be far into the future.
If history is any indicator it won't be handled well.

My prediction in terms of the developed countries:

1) It will start with things like high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation causing "stagflation". This will lead to huge government incentives to stimulate the economy leading to even higher increased global per capita consumption of resources and increased birth rates. In other words the usual short term knee jerk reaction to economic crisis.

2) This process will drag on for quite some time until global per capita consumption of resources and increased birth rates trigger major shortages and numerous smaller wars.

3) A return to "traditional family values" and religiosity as the developed countries struggle to find comfort and a foothold on a desecrated earth, combined with a survivalist mentality looking for an "out" on this world or in space.

My prediction in terms of the underdeveloped countries:

1) Look to the woes of India and Africa today and amply it!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 04:59 pm
I believe the fears of overpopulation are a bit exaggerated. Birthrates throughout the developed world are already well below their equilibrium values and still falling. In Europe they are lowest in the very Catholic countries that Cicerone so thoughtlessly faults for the problem.

We already know the pattern that quickly occurs in developing countries -- birthrates fall dramatically as public health and economic development alter cultural behavior. This has already happened with dramatic effect throughout east Asia. Female fertility in China today is a good deal less than it is in the United States. We have every reason to expect the same will occur in India in the decades ahead. In Africa, populations will rise initially as public health and food distribution are improved, but continued economic development will quickly curtail that in subsequent generations.

Doomsday scenarios on timescales associated with human history are far older than Malthus. They evidently continue to appeal, despite their consistently false predictions.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 05:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the fears of overpopulation are a bit exaggerated. Birthrates throughout the developed world are already well below their equilibrium values and still falling.
Define "equilibrium values" vis-a-vis global per capita consumption of resources and environmental degradation.
georgeob1 wrote:
We already know the pattern that quickly occurs in developing countries -- birthrates fall dramatically as public health and economic development alter cultural behavior.
Make your claim vis-a-vis global per capita consumption of resources and environmental degradation.
georgeob1 wrote:
We have every reason to expect the same will occur in India in the decades ahead.
Irrelevant, make your claim vis-a-vis global per capita consumption of resources and environmental degradation.
georgeob1 wrote:
In Africa, populations will rise initially as public health and food distribution are improved, but continued economic development will quickly curtail that in subsequent generations.
Irrelevant, make your claim vis-a-vis global per capita consumption of resources and environmental degradation.
georgeob1 wrote:
Doomsday scenarios on timescales associated with human history are far older than Malthus. They evidently continue to appeal, despite their consistently false predictions.
I provide no "Doomsday scenarios" per se. Further long term human history indicates the present trends have consequential "legs" as per global per capita consumption of resources and environmental degradation, of which I note you have wholly failed to counter.

As a reasonable barometer of global declining environmental living conditions I suggest you draw a parallel between the massive decline of global amphibains and the planets bio-heath. And don't give me any of that "well those damn shoe gazers as per The Club Of Rome were wrong, so nobody can be right sophistry!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 05:15 pm
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 05:23 pm
Canada takes a different tact than the US by having a massive open arms immigration policy, but the net effect is odious as per global declining environmental living conditions.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 05:24 pm
You are merely changing the subject. My point about population trends was accurate as I stated it. You have offered nothing to refute that.

You evidently postulate that "environmental degredation" is an inescapable fact of modern life and that it increases on a per capita basis with increased economic development. While there is no doubt that the industrial age involved much more rapid percapits consumption of resources than the bucolic ages that preceded it, the case is simply not there for continued modern development in recent decades. An excellent example of this is the significant reduction in the former South Asian "Brown Cloud" of massive airborne particulate contamination as a result of massive use of primitive wood and charcoal burning for warmth, food production and energy. Modern methods have significantly reduced these emissions, even as populations have risen.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 05:43 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
You are merely changing the subject. My point about population trends was accurate as I stated it. You have offered nothing to refute that.
Given that the subject was "Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance" I find your claim entertaining. Now if your agenda was to focus on population trends to the exclusion of all else, that's your choice not mine.
georgeob1 wrote:
You evidently postulate that "environmental degradation" is an inescapable fact of modern life.
A supposition not based on facts in evidence. As such, no I do not, only as things stand.
georgeob1 wrote:
and that it increases on a per capita basis with increased economic development.
Yes that a the trend, can you refute it? So far you have not been able to on a net global long term basis.
georgeob1 wrote:
While there is no doubt that the industrial age involved much more rapid percapits consumption of resources than the bucolic ages that preceded it,
Even without the most recent push of the newest leg of the industrial age, the net result would be the same as we are now experiencing, it would just take a little longer.
georgeob1 wrote:
the case is simply not there for continued modern development in recent decades.
Make you case as per:
Chumly wrote:
As a reasonable barometer of global declining environmental living conditions I suggest you draw a parallel between the massive decline of global amphibians and the planets bio-heath. And don't give me any of that "well those damn shoe gazers as per The Club Of Rome were wrong, so nobody can be right sophistry!
georgeob1 wrote:
An excellent example of this is the significant reduction in the former South Asian "Brown Cloud" of massive airborne particulate contamination as a result of massive use of primitive wood and charcoal burning for warmth, food production and energy. Modern methods have significantly reduced these emissions, even as populations have risen.
Simply a myopic minor knee jerk reaction with little net long term global efficacy, but better than doing nothing I suppose. Make your case as per:
Chumly wrote:
As a reasonable barometer of global declining environmental living conditions I suggest you draw a parallel between the massive decline of global amphibians and the planets bio-heath. And don't give me any of that "well those damn shoe gazers as per The Club Of Rome were wrong, so nobody can be right sophistry!


Georgeob1,

Making argument about your perceptions about what you think is happening does not in any way change any of the underlying factual indicators such as the massive decline in amphibians world wide.

Those types of bio-indicators are the measure of global heath and survivability, not meaningless arguments such as South Asian "Brown Cloud" clean up efficacy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 07:03 pm
A common, apparently natural response by animals to overcrowding in a limited physical environment might be true for humans as well. When animals proliferate in such an environment, their birthrates decline.

One animal example is alleged to be an island in Chesapeake Bay, a mid-eastcoast inlet off of the Atlantic Ocean. The deer population expanded rapidly after humans first put a few deer on that island. After some years of prolific procreation, many of the younger as well as older deer ceased procreating to the point that the deer population stabilized at a population much lower than its peak.

Also interesting is the fact that human birthrates in the wealthier educated countries are generally lower than in the poorer uneducated countries. Go figure! Perhaps, application of the metaphor teaching the poor to fish rather than giving them fish is also a better way to moderate the size of human populations.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 07:18 pm
A goodly portion of China has a population density considerably higher than a goodly potion of Canada, yet the domestic non-immigrant birthrate in Canada is much, much lower than in China.

Kind'a blows a big hole in the argument that population density is a function of birthrates in humans.

No doubt education and materialism tend to decrease birthrates, however that correlation in no way automatically infers that said lower birthrates are a benefit to global heath and survivability.

Why?

Because it's easily demonstrable that one average North American is far more destructive as per global heath and survivability than one average Third Worlder. Thus population numbers, in and of themselves, can be rather meaningless.

Thus efforts to moderate the size of human populations, without reference to global heath and survivability, can also be rather meaningless.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:07 pm
sophistry
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:16 pm
Sophistry with much truth. Individuals living in developed countries consume more of the resources of this planet than poorer people of this planet.

I can't imagine how much resources I use as a regular world traveler, but it's way above the average of most humans on this planet.

In St Barts, they have a private yacht so huge, it has a smaller yacht (yes, a yacht) and a helicoptor on it. This particular individual probably has a jet at his disposal too. His consumption of resources is probably in the top ten of private individuals on this planet today.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Sophistry with much truth. Individuals living in developed countries consume more of the resources of this planet than poorer people of this planet.

I can't imagine how much resources I use as a regular world traveler, but it's way above the average of most humans on this planet.

In St Barts, they have a private yacht so huge, it has a smaller yacht (yes, a yacht) and a helicoptor on it. This particular individual probably has a jet at his disposal too. His consumption of resources is probably in the top ten of private individuals on this planet today.


Are you willing to deny him or her the right to do as they please with their own money?
Last time I looked,it wasnt illegal to spend your own money anyway you want,as long as its legal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:50 pm
Hey, dork, who's talking about how people spend their money?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:54 pm
georgeob1,
Since we agreed so wholeheartedly on Canada / US relations in a prior thread (and no I'm not being factious) I'll take your "sophistry" remark as complentary (now I'm tongue in cheek).

Many people are under the mistaken belief that global preservation means anti-materialism, but nothing could be further from the truth, if you georgeob1 adhere to that ideology, then you are the sophist, not me!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 08:59 pm
ican's comments are in blue
Chumly wrote:
A goodly portion of China has a population density considerably higher than a goodly potion of Canada, yet the domestic non-immigrant birthrate in Canada is much, much lower than in China.

Kind'a blows a big hole in the argument that population density is a function of birthrates in humans.

Let's closely examine these statements of yours, Chumly, by parsing them into the following three statements:

1. A goodly portion of China has a population density considerably higher than a goodly portion of Canada;

2. the domestic non-immigrant birthrate in Canada is much, much lower than in China;

3. blows a big hole in the argument that population density is a function of birthrates in humans.

China's human population density is higher than Canada's;
China's human birthrate is higher than Canada's;
Canada's human population density is lower than China's; and,
Canada's human birthrate is lower than China's;

Either,
China's human population density is a function of China's human birthrate, and Canada's human population density is a function of Canada's human birthrate,
or
China's human birthrate is a function of China's human population density, and Canada's human birthrate is a function of Canada's human population density
Question


No doubt education and materialism tend to decrease birthrates, however that correlation in no way automatically infers that said lower birthrates are a benefit to global heath and survivability.

Why?

Because it's easily demonstrable that one average North American is far more destructive as per global heath and survivability than one average Third Worlder. Thus population numbers, in and of themselves, can be rather meaningless.

Comunicable deseases among third worlders is much higher on average than among North Americans.

Thus efforts to moderate the size of human populations, without reference to global heath and survivability, can also be rather meaningless.

What do you think benefits global health and survivability?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 08:06:57