PEAX Equipment

Earth's inability to sustain life comes soon!

Right, population, that's the issue. What's the carying capacity of the earth?

Its a lot more, if we live like third world people and a lot less, if we live like us.
Here's a book on it,
How many people can the Earth Support?, by Joel E. Cohen.

We need more contraceptives around, everywhere, how's that?
 
Agreed that it depends on the topic and to what extent the past has dictated the future. The old growth, IMHO, should not be cut as it isn't truely "renewable" for many, many, lifetimes.
The compromise would come from how you are going to handle the remaining OG timber? Both sides will still have to come to the table to seek a resolution. If it is privately owned there would have to be some sort of negotiation worked out with the owner of the property or footage. I belive Buzz even mentioned "fiscal responsiblity"?

That is what I am speaking to- not one side saying "You're not gonna cut another tree-I'll rope myself to it before I let it happen" and the other side screaming "fugg you you hippy piece o' chit-I'm cutting them ALL!" Thats why the lawyers are getting rich these days...one side looking SOLELY at their pocket book and the other side spending millions trying to do a back door routine like the Spotted Owl to get their way.

Neither extreme will get EVERYTHING they want and though you say that you're refusing to compromise on what YOU think is important neither is the other side on what THEY think of the issue....so what does it gain either party? Call me the naive but I would rather make some steady progress on an issue than take an all or nothing approach.
 
danr- your right theat population is a huge component in the U.S. (and world) but we would need to be smart and develop a game plan regardless of whether our net population was gaining or decreasing as the resource base remains somewhat limited.

The U.S. population stats alone are something like:

One birth every................7 seconds
One death every...............13 seconds
One international migrant (net) every..24 seconds
Net gain of one person every.........10 seconds

Again, even if static (though its not) the problems are already here and require a cooperative effort to solve. Hell more legislation was passed just this last week to push more Northern California water south and its starting to be water we don't have. My first reaction is to get pissed at all the swimming pool SoCal'ers but what does it solve and how do you separate a gallon of water? Sounds like negotiation and compromise to me.....especially since they (SoCal) have all the votes! I can kick my feet and have my tantrum or I can try to methodically gain something back
fight.gif
 
MarvB said, "as I’m sure you wouldn’t want some poor single guy to have to pay for your tax break."

Uhhh, have you ever heard of the "marriage penalty"?????

Married with no kids=heavy tax and less deductions than even single guys.
 
One way to start solving the population problem would be for people to recognize that it is a problem. Next, they (one couple) need to realize that having two kids leads to negative population growth. Gotta start with me before I can work on the rest. My wife and I don't have kids and unless we have a multiple birth on the second pregnancy we won't have more than two. We have both recognized the cons with having more and have made the above decision. If we are lucky to have two children we will then take measures to ensure that is the only two we have. Now if most folks (the number should cover multiple marriages IMO) would follow that strategy we would see a sig. change in one generation. Hell, parts of the world (mostly the developed/educated) are already going through negative population growth. Now we just need to get more folks to follow suit.

One thing that scares me is that the segments of the population (in this country and most of the world) that are having the largest reproduction rates are the poor and uneducated. Maybe the bible should be changed to read the dumb will inherit the earth. :(
 
Buzz matter of fact I have heard of the marriage penalty...fact is that I was single first, then married, then married with kids...its a typical progression thing ya know ;)

The "marriage penalty" was first enacted on the books clear back in the late 60's under the premise that two people together could live (guess they hadn't been to my house) more cheaply than two indivdiuals. The logistics have been changed back and forth numerous times over the years based mostly on AGI (adjusted gross income) and additional relief to totally phase out the so called penalty in expected for tax year 2005 (but that legislation will run out again in 2011 I believe). A-N-Y-W-A-Y....

The "penalty" depends soley upon if there are two wage earners in the house or one. Fact of the matter is if you each earned $40K per year as a (no kids) married couple filed jointly you are indeed "penalized" about $1500 (1.9% AGI) compared to be single but if you are a sole wage earner (one spouse doens't work) with the same total AGI of $80K you would actually benefit in tax breaks by about $4200 (5.26% AGI).
And now we bring to an end Acctng. 101!

Sooooo basically its a mixed bag overall and though we originally planned for the population decreasing two (as per 1_pointer) resource gobblers, chit happens and number three appeared and I'll take the moral, ethical, and financial responsibility for that little toe-head the rest of my life
(Still would like that flat tax though!!)
 
IT, how old is "Old Growth" and how does "Old Growth" get it's start?

Some of the best news I heard around here is that BUZZ isn't reproducing. :D :D :D ;) That explains a lot.

Good bit of explanation MARVB. ;)
 
MarvB,I really enjoy reading your post's.

Some of the best times in my life have to do with little (resource gobblers).
I wouldnt trade them for all the gronala in the world.

;) ;)
They have a way of making you understand that life isn't just about you and being "right" all the time is way underrated.
 
Huh, having two kids doubles the population. Until the parents die, but they are living longer and longer nowadays. So, the population increases if two parents have two kids.

Just thought I'd make a remark there.
 
It takes more than two people to replace the two parents. Some of the offspring will either not be able to reproduce, will not (purposefully) reproduce, and some won't live long enough to reproduce.

So, Tom on a short time scale the population will increase, but if every every man and woman only produces one offspring to replace themselves (2 for a couple ;) ) the death rate will outpace regeneration. I know of no species of which this would not apply.
 
Oh, ok, because some kids die, before they become a man or a woman, those people don't reproduce themselves. They have to make it to reproductive age to be a man or a woman, so the population falls because of that. How do you know that death rate (dieing prior to reproduction) is larger than the increase in population due to increased life expectency?

We used to only live to the 40s, now we live to the 70s on average. That's a lot more people alive. I'm sure the non-adult death rate has decreased too. I don't see the conclusion yet, what's it based one? I sort of see the idea, but its not convincing due to the questions that come to mind there.
 
I some times wonder how far topics can wander?

From the earth's carrying capacity, to tax code discussions to death rates and reproduction to Buzz's fitness as a father.

Man, you couldn't even make that progression of topics up.

Nemont
 
I agree with BUZZ that people with Kids should get taxed Higher... And I have 3 kids with # 4 next year or the year after......
 
Well I am all for phasing out the xtra 1k per child tax credit in 2007. Of course that is when I won't be able to take it anymore. :D ;) :(

But the tax cut I got hasnt been enuff to cover the loss of other things to the tune of 14k a year. (health costs,loss of benefits,etc...not to mention the higher energy costs that I have to pay) Maybe I should not have went into the skilled trades for manufacturing?

My children will need alternative energy sources that are more user friendly and more efficient(sp). If we do not do that there will be a habitat issue for humans.
 
MD4M- Thanks...just saying there are two (usually
diametrically opposed) sides to most issue.

Tom- 1_pointers got it! You can dig through here for more info Population facts

Nemont- Your right and sorry! When a thread poses questions/statements sometimes the answers lead to the next topic (which in all rights should be a different thread)

And I have 3 kids with # 4 next year or the year after......
Click to expand...
Dang it Moosie...tie a knot in that thing!
......there go ALL the resources in Idaho
drool.gif
gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble... gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble...gobble... ;)
 
The death rate is not just dying before reproduction age, as some will die at an old age without having reproduced because of choice or inability to do so. I'm not sure, but life expectancy should have not bearing on population growth over a multi-generational time scale. If anything it will cause the rate of decline to be slower or take longer to reach the threshold where negative pop. growth occurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
120,047
Messages
2,248,063
Members
39,083
Latest member
mpat

Share this page

Back
Top