Stephen Hawking says humans must flee Earth within century

Post by burfordTjustice
WTF? maybe he will take core,buffalo, pantsuit and bama etc.with him?

For a good time see what scientists in the 1960s and 1970s thought
conditions would be on earth by the year 2000. (For a particularly good
belly laugh, read 1972 book 'The Limits to Growth' published by the Club
of Rome.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman Wells

2017-05-09 08:36:30 UTC

Post by burfordTjustice
WTF? maybe he will take core,buffalo, pantsuit and bama etc.with him?

The timing may have been a bit out, because unforeseen events happen.
Futurology is beset with problems like 'events'. However, the basic
principle that you cannot have unlimited exponential growth in
population and consumption with limited resources still holds true.

"In 2011 Ugo Bardi published a book-length academic study of The Limits
to Growth, its methods and historical reception and concluded that "The
warnings that we received in 1972 ... are becoming increasingly more
worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the
... scenario had generated.

"In 2016 a report published by the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Limits to Growth concluded that "there is unsettling evidence that
society is still following the ‘standard run’ of the original study – in
which overshoot leads to an eventual collapse of production and living
standards"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Roger Blake

2017-05-09 19:01:04 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.

With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Norman Wells

2017-05-09 21:07:59 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

Roger Blake

2017-05-09 21:24:01 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

Riiiggghhht.

That's what they said 50 years ago. Disaster Right Around The Corner Unless
Big Drastic Action Is Taken Right Now!

What a pantload. The predictions coming out of the environmentalist movement
and other doomsayers over the decades have amounted to a big fat zero.

Making baseless hysterical predictions has always been part of the
environmentalist, disaster-huckstering playbook. It's really about money
and power. So excuse me if I don't take your warning seriously or accept
the "necessity" of draconian governmental intervention implied by such
fearmongering.

Norman Wells

2017-05-09 21:35:56 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

Riiiggghhht.
That's what they said 50 years ago. Disaster Right Around The Corner Unless
Big Drastic Action Is Taken Right Now!

50 years, 100 years, 150 years *is* right around the corner in any
historical perspective. Just because a person who has jumped from the
59th floor hasn't hit the ground just yet doesn't mean he won't.

Post by Roger Blake
What a pantload. The predictions coming out of the environmentalist movement
and other doomsayers over the decades have amounted to a big fat zero.

Only so far. There's no justification for projecting that into the
future. It's just mathematically unsustainable.

Post by Roger Blake
Making baseless hysterical predictions has always been part of the
environmentalist, disaster-huckstering playbook. It's really about money
and power. So excuse me if I don't take your warning seriously or accept
the "necessity" of draconian governmental intervention implied by such
fearmongering.

Please yourself. It's coming whether you believe it or not.

Norman Wells

2017-05-09 21:35:56 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

Riiiggghhht.
That's what they said 50 years ago. Disaster Right Around The Corner Unless
Big Drastic Action Is Taken Right Now!

Post by Roger Blake
What a pantload. The predictions coming out of the environmentalist movement
and other doomsayers over the decades have amounted to a big fat zero.

Only so far. There's no justification for projecting that into the
future. It's just mathematically unsustainable.

Please yourself. It's coming whether you believe it or not.

burfordTjustice

2017-05-10 11:26:52 UTC

On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly
is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock.
However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a
world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth
uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other
resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

You and those near to you could stop living, that would help some.

Norman Wells

2017-05-10 14:35:09 UTC

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly
is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock.
However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a
world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth
uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

You and those near to you could stop living, that would help some.

No it wouldn't. You see, you haven't understood the problem. We're OK
at the moment and probably will be until after I die, which I'll do in
the normal course of events if it's all the same to you.

World population was about 1 billion in 1800, about 5 billion in 1980, 7
billion now, and forecast to be about 10 billion by 2050. We may be
able to cope, just, in 2050. Beyond that, we will have got beyond any
massive increases in agricultural productivity, and the inevitable
consequence is that we'll experience unconquerable mass famines and deaths.

All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way. They
expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then they suffer
massive and sudden population decline through death and disease. Humans
are no different. They will go the same way unless and until there is a
pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of which there is no sign or
any likelihood.

Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

burfordTjustice

2017-05-10 16:13:14 UTC

On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:35:09 +0100

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth
certainly is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off
this rock. However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to
touch off a world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to
make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about
50% every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other
resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

You and those near to you could stop living, that would help some.

No it wouldn't. You see, you haven't understood the problem. We're
OK at the moment and probably will be until after I die, which I'll
do in the normal course of events if it's all the same to you.
World population was about 1 billion in 1800, about 5 billion in
1980, 7 billion now, and forecast to be about 10 billion by 2050. We
may be able to cope, just, in 2050. Beyond that, we will have got
beyond any massive increases in agricultural productivity, and the
inevitable consequence is that we'll experience unconquerable mass
famines and deaths.
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way.
They expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then
they suffer massive and sudden population decline through death and
disease. Humans are no different. They will go the same way unless
and until there is a pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of
which there is no sign or any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

Blah Blah Blah...More fiddle wanting others to carry the water.

Norman Wells

2017-05-10 16:29:32 UTC

Post by burfordTjustice
On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:35:09 +0100

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth
certainly is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off
this rock. However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to
touch off a world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to
make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about
50% every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other
resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

You and those near to you could stop living, that would help some.

No it wouldn't. You see, you haven't understood the problem. We're
OK at the moment and probably will be until after I die, which I'll
do in the normal course of events if it's all the same to you.
World population was about 1 billion in 1800, about 5 billion in
1980, 7 billion now, and forecast to be about 10 billion by 2050. We
may be able to cope, just, in 2050. Beyond that, we will have got
beyond any massive increases in agricultural productivity, and the
inevitable consequence is that we'll experience unconquerable mass
famines and deaths.
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way.
They expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then
they suffer massive and sudden population decline through death and
disease. Humans are no different. They will go the same way unless
and until there is a pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of
which there is no sign or any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

Blah Blah Blah...More fiddle wanting others to carry the water.

Sorry, I have no idea what point you're concealing behind your
nonsensical utterances.

burfordTjustice

2017-05-10 20:02:36 UTC

On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:29:32 +0100

Post by burfordTjustice
On Wed, 10 May 2017 15:35:09 +0100

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The
only question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case
scenario and fail to take into account technological progress.
I do scoff and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and
for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth
certainly is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off
this rock. However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to
touch off a world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to
make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about
50% every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or
other resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

You and those near to you could stop living, that would help some.

No it wouldn't. You see, you haven't understood the problem.
We're OK at the moment and probably will be until after I die,
which I'll do in the normal course of events if it's all the same
to you.
World population was about 1 billion in 1800, about 5 billion in
1980, 7 billion now, and forecast to be about 10 billion by 2050.
We may be able to cope, just, in 2050. Beyond that, we will have
got beyond any massive increases in agricultural productivity, and
the inevitable consequence is that we'll experience unconquerable
mass famines and deaths.
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way.
They expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then
they suffer massive and sudden population decline through death and
disease. Humans are no different. They will go the same way
unless and until there is a pretty immediate global curb on
breeding, of which there is no sign or any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

Blah Blah Blah...More fiddle wanting others to carry the water.

Sorry, I have no idea what point you're concealing behind your
nonsensical utterances.

Good....

Ed Pawlowski

2017-05-11 00:31:38 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way. They
expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then they suffer
massive and sudden population decline through death and disease. Humans
are no different. They will go the same way unless and until there is a
pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of which there is no sign or
any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

One question I have, is it going to be catastrophic or phased in? There
may be a weather related catastrophe, volcanic, earthquake, or human
started nuclear wipe out of millions, maybe billions of people.

Next, will it happen next week, next year, or in two centuries. I think
it will happen.

Natural resources will eventually be drained too.

Roger Blake

2017-05-11 02:10:02 UTC

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Natural resources will eventually be drained too.

The sun will eventually run out of hydrogen, expand, and burn the earth
to a cinder too.

Ophelia

2017-05-11 07:44:21 UTC

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 08:27:48 UTC

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Norman Wells
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way.
They expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then they
suffer massive and sudden population decline through death and
disease. Humans are no different. They will go the same way unless
and until there is a pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of
which there is no sign or any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

One question I have, is it going to be catastrophic or phased in? There
may be a weather related catastrophe, volcanic, earthquake, or human
started nuclear wipe out of millions, maybe billions of people.
Next, will it happen next week, next year, or in two centuries. I think
it will happen.
Natural resources will eventually be drained too.

When populations begin to exceed supply, you get shortages and price
hikes. At first these will be coincident with poor harvests. In poor
countries, like Ethiopia, that will lead to local malnutrition and
deaths from associated disease. As it gets worse, you will get people
dying of hunger. The world will be inadequately compassionate and
supply some aid but that will not turn back the tide.

As world populations grow further there will be more 'bad harvests'
because even average ones will no longer be enough.

Those countries that produce a surplus will sell their excess to those
in other countries that can afford to buy them. As more and more
countries cannot produce enough to feed their ever-increasing
populations, supplies to other countries in trouble will of course
diminish further. There will be protectionism. Countries that can
produce enough for themselves will keep their food for themselves and
will not share it. And people elsewhere will starve.

We in Britain will be in trouble then because, although we're rich,
money can't buy food from those who are starving themselves. And we can
produce here only enough to feed 50-60% of the current population.

So, keep an eye on the world population, see famines anywhere as just
the start, worry about reports of poor harvests anywhere, and see price
rises in the shops as an early indicator of things to come.

As for time scale, that's the curse of all futurologists. We'll be OK
for a bit, but can we support a world population increase from 7 billion
at the moment to over 10 billion by 2050? That's for you to decide, but
you'd better have a pretty good idea of where an extra 50% of cultivable
land is going to come from if you say yes. And then some after that as
populations expand even further.

Sorry to be so gloomy on a lovely Thursday morning, but it's inevitable.

tim...

2017-05-11 09:21:33 UTC

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Norman Wells
All animal populations throughout history have gone the same way.
They expand and expand until they outrun their resources and then they
suffer massive and sudden population decline through death and
disease. Humans are no different. They will go the same way unless
and until there is a pretty immediate global curb on breeding, of
which there is no sign or any likelihood.
Sorry, but life as we know it is doomed, and sooner than you think.

One question I have, is it going to be catastrophic or phased in? There
may be a weather related catastrophe, volcanic, earthquake, or human
started nuclear wipe out of millions, maybe billions of people.
Next, will it happen next week, next year, or in two centuries. I think
it will happen.
Natural resources will eventually be drained too.

That theory worked well in stopping the Irish starving in 1850, didn't it

Oh wait a minute

tim

pensive hamster

2017-05-11 10:27:44 UTC

On Thursday, 11 May 2017 09:27:48 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]

Post by Norman Wells
So, keep an eye on the world population, see famines anywhere as just
the start, worry about reports of poor harvests anywhere, and see price
rises in the shops as an early indicator of things to come.
As for time scale, that's the curse of all futurologists. We'll be OK
for a bit, but can we support a world population increase from 7 billion
at the moment to over 10 billion by 2050? That's for you to decide, but
you'd better have a pretty good idea of where an extra 50% of cultivable
land is going to come from if you say yes. And then some after that as
populations expand even further.

We may not need extra cultivable land, we could probably grow
loads more in skyscraper glasshouses with hydroponics. That
would be mostly veggies though, perhaps with a few new
foodstuffs such as Quorn. Livestock are a relatively inefficient
way of producing food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#History

'... In recent decades, NASA has done extensive hydroponic
research for its Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS).
Hydroponics intended to take place on Mars are using LED lighting
to grow in a different color spectrum with much less heat. Ray
Wheeler, a plant physiologist at Kennedy Space Center’s Space Life
Science Lab, believes that hydroponics will create advances within
space travel. He terms this as a bioregenerative life support system.[13]

'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 11:14:10 UTC

That may help to a small extent in protectionist first world countries
that have the money and expertise to do it. But it will only ever be
small scale in comparison to the millions of acres currently producing
staple crops like wheat which we actually need to live.

In third world countries that will be the first to go under, it's a
non-starter without a global government.

Post by pensive hamster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#History
'... In recent decades, NASA has done extensive hydroponic
research for its Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS).
Hydroponics intended to take place on Mars are using LED lighting
to grow in a different color spectrum with much less heat. Ray
Wheeler, a plant physiologist at Kennedy Space Center’s Space Life
Science Lab, believes that hydroponics will create advances within
space travel. He terms this as a bioregenerative life support system.[13]
'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Compared with millions and millions of acres of wheat grown in fields.

pensive hamster

2017-05-11 11:37:10 UTC

[...]

Post by pensive hamster
'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Compared with millions and millions of acres of wheat grown in fields.

But imagine millions and millions of acres of 25-storey hydroponic
greenhouses.

I mean, if it was a choice between ratatouille or extinction,
which would you choose?

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 11:55:45 UTC

Post by pensive hamster
'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Compared with millions and millions of acres of wheat grown in fields.

But imagine millions and millions of acres of 25-storey hydroponic
greenhouses.

It wouldn't work. You see, agricultural production is largely a matter
of how much sunlight falls on the crop, and that's a function of the
land area it occupies. If you build up 25 storeys, most of the lowest
24 will be shaded by the storeys above and won't produce very much at all.

Post by pensive hamster
I mean, if it was a choice between ratatouille or extinction,
which would you choose?

I might actually choose the latter.

pensive hamster

2017-05-11 12:09:18 UTC

Post by pensive hamster
'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Compared with millions and millions of acres of wheat grown in fields.

But imagine millions and millions of acres of 25-storey hydroponic
greenhouses.

I'll repost this bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#History

'... In recent decades, NASA has done extensive hydroponic
research for its Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS).
Hydroponics intended to take place on Mars are using LED lighting
to grow in a different color spectrum with much less heat.'

burfordTjustice

2017-05-11 12:25:40 UTC

On Thu, 11 May 2017 05:09:18 -0700 (PDT)

Post by pensive hamster
hydroponic

Strictly for the snow flakes.

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 14:32:14 UTC

Post by pensive hamster

Post by pensive hamster
'As of 2017, Canada had hundreds of acres of large-scale
commercial hydroponic greenhouses, producing tomatoes, peppers
and cucumbers.[14]'

Compared with millions and millions of acres of wheat grown in fields.

But imagine millions and millions of acres of 25-storey hydroponic
greenhouses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#History
'... In recent decades, NASA has done extensive hydroponic
research for its Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS).
Hydroponics intended to take place on Mars are using LED lighting
to grow in a different color spectrum with much less heat.'

So, I have to imagine millions and millions of acres of 25 storey high
hydroponic greenhouses, 24 floors of which have to be lit with LED
lighting presumably giving a light intensity equal to that of the sun.

Don't you think the world's LED mines would be exhausted well before
that could become a reality?

pensive hamster

2017-05-13 11:42:12 UTC

[...]

You don't have to imagine anything, it's entirely optional. I was
inviting you to consider the possibility that agricultural technology
might develop over the next 200-300 years, enabling us to grow
perhaps 25 times as much food as at present.

Yes, that would take some energy, but we will probably have
developed fusion energy by then.

Actually maybe just 24 times as much produce, I imagine the
top floors will be largely occupied by sunbathing Germans, who
will obviously dominate Europe by then.

Post by Norman Wells
Don't you think the world's LED mines would be exhausted well before
that could become a reality?

Ah, but by then we will have developed robot miners, barely
thicker than a human hair, who will be able to penetrate deep
into the Earth's crust, and able to extract the LEDs wherever
they may be.

Norman Wells

2017-05-13 12:07:11 UTC

Could I invite you, Mr Ostrich, to take your head out of the sand, wake
up, scratch your arse and smell the coffee?

First, we don't have 200-300 years, we probably have 50, maybe a hundred.

And you're relying on advances that are so far out of our reach, even
theoretically, that they are most unlikely to come about even on your
timescale.

pensive hamster

2017-05-13 12:47:38 UTC

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 13:07:11 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]

Post by Norman Wells
Could I invite you, Mr Ostrich, to take your head out of the sand, wake
up, scratch your arse and smell the coffee?

You have been misled by a popular myth:

http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/ostrich

'...Contrary to the popular myth, ostriches do not bury their
heads in the sand! When an ostrich senses danger and cannot
run away, it flops to the ground and remains still, with its head
and neck flat on the ground in front of it. Because the head and
neck are lightly colored, they blend in with the color of the soil.
From a distance, it just looks like the ostrich has buried its head
in the sand, because only the body is visible. '

Post by Norman Wells
First, we don't have 200-300 years, we probably have 50, maybe a hundred.

Not everyone agrees with your estimate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

'According to the 2015 edition of the United Nations' World
Population Prospects report, the world population is currently
growing by approximately 83 million people each year.[3]:2

'The growth rate keeps slowing, having decreased from 1.55%
per year in 1995 to 1.25% in 2005 and 1.18% in 2015. The
median estimate for future growth sees the world population
reaching 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100,[3]:2
assuming a continuing decrease in average fertility rate from
2.5 in 2015 to 2.25 in 2050 and 2.0 in 2100.[3]:10...'

Post by Norman Wells
And you're relying on advances that are so far out of our reach, even
theoretically, that they are most unlikely to come about even on your
timescale.

Again, not everyone agrees with you. Eg.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

'... Kurzweil describes his law of accelerating returns which
predicts an exponential increase in technologies like computers,
genetics, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence.
Once the Singularity has been reached, Kurzweil says that
machine intelligence will be infinitely more powerful than all
human intelligence combined. Afterwards he predicts intelligence
will radiate outward from the planet until it saturates the universe.'

Norman Wells

2017-05-13 18:38:06 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
Could I invite you, Mr Ostrich, to take your head out of the sand, wake
up, scratch your arse and smell the coffee?

http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/ostrich
'...Contrary to the popular myth, ostriches do not bury their
heads in the sand! When an ostrich senses danger and cannot
run away, it flops to the ground and remains still, with its head
and neck flat on the ground in front of it. Because the head and
neck are lightly colored, they blend in with the color of the soil.
From a distance, it just looks like the ostrich has buried its head
in the sand, because only the body is visible. '

Until I came here I could have sworn hamsters, pensive or otherwise,
couldn't post in newsgroups. That's another myth totally destroyed then.

But at least mine is a popular myth.

Post by pensive hamster

Post by Norman Wells
First, we don't have 200-300 years, we probably have 50, maybe a hundred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
'According to the 2015 edition of the United Nations' World
Population Prospects report, the world population is currently
growing by approximately 83 million people each year.[3]:2
'The growth rate keeps slowing, having decreased from 1.55%
per year in 1995 to 1.25% in 2005 and 1.18% in 2015. The
median estimate for future growth sees the world population
reaching 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100,[3]:2
assuming a continuing decrease in average fertility rate from
2.5 in 2015 to 2.25 in 2050 and 2.0 in 2100.[3]:10...'

'assuming a continuing decrease in fertility rate'. That's a pretty big
assumption for which I can see no real basis other than crossing fingers
and saying 'God, it better had, otherwise we're stuffed'.

There's no law that says it will. There's no law to say it must.
There's no law even to encourage it.

Post by pensive hamster

Post by Norman Wells
And you're relying on advances that are so far out of our reach, even
theoretically, that they are most unlikely to come about even on your
timescale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near
'... Kurzweil describes his law of accelerating returns which
predicts an exponential increase in technologies like computers,
genetics, nanotechnology, robotics and artificial intelligence.
Once the Singularity has been reached, Kurzweil says that
machine intelligence will be infinitely more powerful than all
human intelligence combined. Afterwards he predicts intelligence
will radiate outward from the planet until it saturates the universe.'

Yippee, good for Kurzweil! The trouble is, pure intelligence doesn't
solve practical problems like food production and harnessing nuclear fusion.

tim...

2017-05-11 09:19:28 UTC

Post by Ed Pawlowski

One question I have, is it going to be catastrophic or phased in? There
may be a weather related catastrophe, volcanic, earthquake, or human
started nuclear wipe out of millions, maybe billions of people.
Next, will it happen next week, next year, or in two centuries. I think
it will happen.
Natural resources will eventually be drained too.

The laws of supply and demand will restrict population growth (or
reductions) as that happens.

Once we get to the maximum population that can be sustained by the rest of
the world's food supply people will die of starvation to keep the population
in check

whether it is desirable to reach a state where X% of the world's land is
used for housing the population whilst 100-X% is simply used to grow food to
feed them is another matter

tim

Byker

2017-05-10 19:33:34 UTC

On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly
is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock.
However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a
world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth
uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other
resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

That's what we were hearing 40 years ago. It seems that The End is always
JUST around the corner...

Norman Wells

2017-05-12 14:44:30 UTC

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly
is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock.
However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a
world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth
uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

That's what we were hearing 40 years ago. It seems that The End is
always JUST around the corner...

World population then was under 5 billion. It's now over 7 biilion. It
will be over 10 billion by 2050. It's growing by 50% every 40 years.

Where do *you* think we're going to find 50% more cultivable land to
feed us all by 2050? And where will another 50% come from by 2090?
There are real limits and we're rapidly approaching them.

burfordTjustice

2017-05-12 19:33:15 UTC

On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:44:30 +0100

Post by burfordTjustice
On Tue, 9 May 2017 22:07:59 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario
and fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff
and laugh quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth
certainly is doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off
this rock. However unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to
touch off a world-wide atomic war I don't see anything likely to
make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about
50% every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other
resources.
If you think that's sustainable, think again. We're much nearer
disaster tha n you think.

That's what we were hearing 40 years ago. It seems that The End is
always JUST around the corner...

World population then was under 5 billion. It's now over 7 biilion.
It will be over 10 billion by 2050. It's growing by 50% every 40
years.
Where do *you* think we're going to find 50% more cultivable land to
feed us all by 2050? And where will another 50% come from by 2090?
There are real limits and we're rapidly approaching them.

muslims are killing off a lot and opening land up for growth..
Africa has a lot of open land...and the african Muslims are freeing
up more every day.

If you are really concerned (good money bets NOT) you can gather yours
and do a mass suicide to free up some air, water and land.

Fredxxx

2017-05-10 22:04:58 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 08:01:26 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

unknown

2017-05-11 10:27:23 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

That doesn't mean the exponent can't drop to zero or
lower.

Populations in western countries would be stable or
declining if not for immigration. Japan, iirc, is
actually experiencing population decline.

That's the affluent first world. In the 3rd world,
lacking SS or other forced systems of retirement saving,
people are still determined to make as many babies as
possible, to provide for their old age. Doesn't matter
whether the parents can support their children or not.
That's what poverty does.

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 11:19:27 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

That doesn't mean the exponent can't drop to zero or
lower.

Anything can happen. But it requires a cause. I'm saying if it does
happen that the cause will be starvation. Which is what we're hoping to
avoid. I can't see it being anything else.

burfordTjustice

2017-05-11 11:41:46 UTC

On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:19:27 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
I can't see it being anything else.

Well then, that makes it so?

LOL

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 11:56:35 UTC

Post by burfordTjustice
On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:19:27 +0100

Post by Norman Wells
I can't see it being anything else.

Well then, that makes it so?
LOL

What makes what so, lol?

unknown

2017-05-11 20:15:07 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

That doesn't mean the exponent can't drop to zero or
lower.

Anything can happen. But it requires a cause. I'm saying if it does
happen that the cause will be starvation. Which is what we're hoping to
avoid. I can't see it being anything else.

I just told you a cause of population decline that we see
today, in the real world. You snipped it, then you say
you can't see it.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

Norman Wells

2017-05-11 21:14:57 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

That doesn't mean the exponent can't drop to zero or
lower.

Anything can happen. But it requires a cause. I'm saying if it does
happen that the cause will be starvation. Which is what we're hoping to
avoid. I can't see it being anything else.

I just told you a cause of population decline that we see
today, in the real world. You snipped it, then you say
you can't see it.
There are none so blind as he who will not see.

What you said was:

"Populations in western countries would be stable or
declining if not for immigration. Japan, iirc, is
actually experiencing population decline."

That may be fact in respect of certain selected countries. But it
discloses no *cause* that would imply or prove that *world* population
will not continue its inexorable rise.

Indeed, you added:

"That's the affluent first world. In the 3rd world,
lacking SS or other forced systems of retirement saving,
people are still determined to make as many babies as
possible, to provide for their old age. Doesn't matter
whether the parents can support their children or not.
That's what poverty does."

And that's what will continue to drive world population growth ever
upwards. Their numbers vastly exceed ours. And fewer of their children
die young because of greater knowledge of hygiene and medicine than ever
in the past.

unknown

2017-05-13 18:59:26 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
You can scoff as much as you like, but it will happen. The only
question is when.

Not any time in the foreseeable future. The people making these
predictions tend to fudge data to present the worst-case scenario and
fail to take into account technological progress. I do scoff and laugh
quite a bit at the environmentalists, and for good reason.
With respect to Steven Hawking, in the long run the earth certainly is
doomed and it is probably a good idea to get off this rock. However
unless we are hit by an asteroid or manage to touch off a world-wide
atomic war I don't see anything likely to make the earth uninhabitable
within 100 years.

Except that world population is increasing exponentially by about 50%
every 40 years. And they're not making any more land or other resources.

That is not the general consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Growth is slowing so no longer exponential. Perhaps if we didn't support
famine relief...............

No, it is still exponential. The estimates that an exponential curve
will suddenly reverse direction are just wishful thinking. They're a
triumph of hope over experience.

That doesn't mean the exponent can't drop to zero or
lower.

Anything can happen. But it requires a cause. I'm saying if it does
happen that the cause will be starvation. Which is what we're hoping to
avoid. I can't see it being anything else.

I just told you a cause of population decline that we see
today, in the real world. You snipped it, then you say
you can't see it.
There are none so blind as he who will not see.

"Populations in western countries would be stable or
declining if not for immigration. Japan, iirc, is
actually experiencing population decline."
That may be fact in respect of certain selected countries. But it
discloses no *cause* that would imply or prove that *world* population
will not continue its inexorable rise.

A possible *cause* of population stabilization (or
reduction) is affluence. That's why post-industrial
western countries are not replacing their populations as
fast.

It doesn't apply to the whole world. But it does mean
that part of the world is in a position to potect itself
economic immigrants spilling in. Whether affluent
countries have the political will to keep out starving
hordes, is another question.

Another *cause* is, eg, china's 1-child policy, plus the
unintended bonus that relatively fewer girls have been
born. That resulted in many of the male children not
reproducing. IIRC, china's population is not growing,
tho i'm not really sure.

Post by Norman Wells
"That's the affluent first world. In the 3rd world,
lacking SS or other forced systems of retirement saving,
people are still determined to make as many babies as
possible, to provide for their old age. Doesn't matter
whether the parents can support their children or not.
That's what poverty does."
And that's what will continue to drive world population growth ever
upwards. Their numbers vastly exceed ours. And fewer of their children
die young because of greater knowledge of hygiene and medicine than ever
in the past.

So the 3rd-worlders wreck their own countries and die of
war or starvation. Doesn't mean the whole world is
necessarily doomed. But, of course, if the 1st world
opens the floodgates to starving refugees, we are also
fucked.

Norman Wells

2017-05-13 19:57:08 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
"Populations in western countries would be stable or
declining if not for immigration. Japan, iirc, is
actually experiencing population decline."
That may be fact in respect of certain selected countries. But it
discloses no *cause* that would imply or prove that *world* population
will not continue its inexorable rise.

A possible *cause* of population stabilization (or
reduction) is affluence. That's why post-industrial
western countries are not replacing their populations as
fast.

No, that's not a cause since the two are not directly connected. It may
be a correlation, but correlations have a habit of being proved
transient or even false.

Post by unknown
It doesn't apply to the whole world. But it does mean
that part of the world is in a position to potect itself
economic immigrants spilling in. Whether affluent
countries have the political will to keep out starving
hordes, is another question.

Even if we could defend ourselves and become totally isolated we would
still have an enormous problem. We are only able to produce enough food
in these isles for 50-60% of the population. Before long a large number
of us will also be starving.

Post by unknown
Another *cause* is, eg, china's 1-child policy, plus the
unintended bonus that relatively fewer girls have been
born. That resulted in many of the male children not
reproducing. IIRC, china's population is not growing,
tho i'm not really sure.

That was a positive step towards controlling the population. However,
it has now been phased out, so is no longer.

The critical consideration is the amount of food you can grow to feed
your population. That depends only on the fertile land area you can
defend. It doesn't matter whether you're in the first world or third
world. If you can't produce enough to feed your own people, many of
them will die of starvation. And that includes in the UK.

Frank

2017-05-09 12:18:04 UTC