How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Warrior1979]

“But the effects of various gases in closed environments is known”. Not entirely true.

I noted gases. Yes, the effects are known fairly well at the macro level when it comes to gases, from both experiments here on earth and the analysis of atmospheres of other planets. What is less know is how these gases are handled in nature.

And besides the Planet Earth is very far from a closed environment AND we know very little of the effects of the various gases and other things on Planet Earth.

When it comes to gases for all practical purposes it is.

 

[Warrior1979]

You do not really know what the sum total of the Earth’s resources are.

Actually, we have a good idea of the limit of resources, simply by using Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equations. Of course, we can never approach that limit, because it means converting all mass to energy, leaving nothing be empty space.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Actually, we have a good idea of the limit of resources, simply by using Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equations. Of course, we can never approach that limit, because it means converting all mass to energy, leaving nothing be empty space.

Actually, we do not have a good idea of the limit of resources.

The Earth is NOT a closed system.

 

[GEddie]

Actually, we do not have a good idea of the limit of resources.

The Earth is NOT a closed system.

Materially, it is. The hundreds of tons of star-dust it receives from space each year, and the tons of atmosphere it loses into space, are negligible compared to the sextillions of tons of the solid Earth.

Energetically, it is not a closed system, as it receives abundant energy from the Sun. It will require serious human effort to convert this energy, however.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Warrior1979]

Actually, we do not have a good idea of the limit of resources.

The Earth is NOT a closed system.

Please reread. I noted gases.

Obviously it is not closed as it pertains to energy. We have a idea of the amount of energy that the earth receives also, and can consider that in our calculations.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How much energy (name removed by moderator)ut does the Earth get from cosmic rays?

 

[MillTownCath]

You point out tho them that if they really believed in overpopulation they would have committed suicide by now but they haven’t. So if they don’t believe it why should you?

Hmmmm, I think they are just arguing that less people should be born, not more killed.

 

[Warrior1979]

How much energy (name removed by moderator)ut does the Earth get from cosmic rays?

Plenty…radiation from space keeps us alive in the first place.

But as I’m sure you know, various “closed” environment experiments on Earth have already been performed that allow in naturally occurring radiation; e.g., Biosphere projects. So we have an idea of the results.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a useful chart:

npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Since you guys are good quant physicists and good with numbers, …

... what is the crossover point?

At which population level, will the Planet Earth run out of resources?

And at which year will that crossover point be reached?

 

[Warrior1979]

Since you guys are good quant physicists and good with numbers, …

... what is the crossover point?

At which population level, will the Planet Earth run out of resources?

And at which year will that crossover point be reached?

Nobody knows for certain. The reason is that the system is so complex it is difficult to determine how all the variables interact. It’s the same reason why western medical doctors are so unsuccessful with treating chronic diseases; they don’t understand the interactions in the body, and think giving someone a pill can solve everything. However, we do understand the underlying science behind the various events, and those various events are playing out as predicted.

When it comes to resources, asking when we will run out of resources is the wrong question. The right question to ask is when will will run out of resources at an affordable level. For example, it makes no sense to produce 1 gallon of gasoline if you need for 4 gallons to produce it. The same goes for any other resource; e.g., why mine for gold if the cost is $100,000 per ounce to obtain it?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Nobody knows for certain. The reason is that the system is so complex it is difficult to determine how all the variables interact. It’s the same reason why western medical doctors are so unsuccessful with treating chronic diseases; they don’t understand the interactions in the body, and think giving someone a pill can solve everything. However, we do understand the underlying science behind the various events, and those various events are playing out as predicted.

When it comes to resources, asking when we will run out of resources is the wrong question. The right question to ask is when will will run out of resources at an affordable level. For example, it makes no sense to produce 1 gallon of gasoline if you need for 4 gallons to produce it. The same goes for any other resource; e.g., why mine for gold if the cost is $100,000 per ounce to obtain it?

Weasel worded cop out!

You lose!

 

[Warrior1979]

Weasel worded cop out!

You lose!

This isn’t win nor lose; it’s an exchange of ideas. But at least now I know that your concern is not for the discussion, but to prove (at least to yourself) that you are “better” than everyone else and can “win.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This isn’t win nor lose; it’s an exchange of ideas. But at least now I know that your concern is not for the discussion, but to prove (at least to yourself) that you are “better” than everyone else and can “win.”

I’m not the one using Einstein as my source.

[If you’re using Einstein, then you should be able to do the calculation. If not, then it means that, in reality, you have NO IDEA…]

[Just making stuff up is not acceptable.]

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m not the one using Einstein as my source.

[If you’re using Einstein, then you should be able to do the calculation. If not, then it means that, in reality, you have NO IDEA…]

[Just making stuff up is not acceptable.]

Is this the new scientific standard? If one can’t predict an exact date, then one is not credible?

Interesting you bring this up, though, because there is a parallel situation in the Bible. In the Book of Revelations, we are told we see will see the signs, but the date of the events are unknown. If you are consistent with your standards, you could not possibly believe God.

We understand the concepts of science, and we see the results which are consistent with those theories. Many people don’t like that; they want exactness. The natural world does not work that way, no matter how much people wish it to be for their own comfort. This type of thinking is one of the main reasons for state of modern society and its problems.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s a useful chart:

npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

Peace,
Ed

Thank you for the link

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s a useful chart:

npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

Useful in what way, I wonder?

If one looks at the numbers from 1973 to 2050 and likes them, then the conclusion is that contraception, legalized abortion, and same-sex relationships - even the breakup of the family - are all good things for society from a population control and conservation of world resources standpoint. And by the way, let’s celebrate with the argument of “See! Overpopulation is a myth!”.

If one looks at the numbers from 1950 to 1973 and extrapolates them, what would the world population be now in 2011 and later in 2050. One would say, “See the problems those Christians who don’t take effective measures to limit family sizes with contraception would do to our world population and resources.”.

People who are Pro-Choice for population control and eugenics reasons think that they are being reasonable. They think Pro-Lifers are fanatics whose lack of family planning would bring on its own self-fulfilling Four Horseman of the Apocalypse - pestilence, war, famine and death - the Malthusian forecast when populations strain the resources available.

 

[Warrior1979]

If one looks at the numbers from 1973 to 2050 and likes them, then the conclusion is that contraception, legalized abortion, and same-sex relationships - even the breakup of the family - are all good things for society from a population control and conservation of world resources standpoint.

The reality of the situation is the numbers are just a lucky guess. With regard to having children, there is a right and a wrong way to do things.
.

They think Pro-Lifers are fanatics whose lack of family planning would bring on its own self-fulfilling Four Horseman of the Apocalypse - pestilence, war, famine and death - the Malthusian forecast when populations strain the resources available.

Interestingly enough, this could happen. Combine moral breakdown with resource shortages, and many of the events that occur in that Book can be readily explained.

 

[Eugenius]

I think we have more to worry about who is controlling the resources. The world produces more than enough food for everyone right now, but there are still people starving because they can’t get it.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think we have more to worry about who is controlling the resources. The world produces more than enough food for everyone right now, but there are still people starving because they can’t get it.