Re: How China is Dumping the Dollar

On Nov 30, 4:20 pm, h...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Unless you've actually seen a study that shows liberals, as a group,
have significantly smaller families that conservatives, as a group or you
unless you mean that liberals support draconian imposition of "birth
control" by force (something on the Chinese model, which most people would
hardly call "progressive) then your claim is false anyway. In any case, the
"population control" that liberals forward is neither effective nor
necessary. The most effective method of population control to date is
wealth. Get yourself a copy of the World Almanac--or look up the figures
online. Plot per capita GNP of nations against birth rate. See that
negative correlation? Now do it with various time lags (where per capita
GNP is from a later or earlier year than the birth rate). See how first the
wealth changes then the birthrate changes?

and so in your simplistic reasoning your obvious conclusion to the
problem of world population is to simply make everyone wealthy.
Right?

Wow...hal is owning this exchange; I never thought I'd live to see the
day where the sun shone on this dog's ass.

Wealth requries consumption of resources, including energy.
Exponentially.

wow. Are you on drugs? The whole point is that the carrying capacity
of the planet is being/has been exceeded because of over consumption
of resources by too many people and your answer to all of that is to
simply consume more? OMFG. I see the problem now. People like you
are just plain stupid, and you think the Ponzi scheme of economic
growth is somehow going to solve the problem when that IS the problem.

Wealth has permitted us to exceed natural carrying capacity.

Energy supply growth permitted that.

Because predictors did not know the exact
carrying capacity and when we passed it does not mean that it wasn't
there.

And this statement is blatantly false even _given_ your non-standard
definition of carrying capacity (or any other . If we had passed it,
population would be falling. That's the _definition_ of carrying capacity.

BSSSSST !!! Wrong. You don't understand, do you? The rising
population ALWAYS overshoots carrying capacity, dumbass. Then after
the overshoot the dieoff begins. I believe, as do most ecologists,
that we are now in the overshoot period. Question is how long and how
high the overshoot will go before the dieoff begins. No one knows.

Again, hal is correct. Wow. He must've cribbed this from somebody
else.

In an exponential growth problem, ANY "ponzi," the system always
overshoots steady-state carrying capacity. Then, there is a crash.
Whether that occurs with human population remains to be seen.

But, Peak Oil and Peak Water, things like this, are hugely
significant. Technology does not power cars and lights, energy does.
And, GDP (wealth) is energy * efficiency coefficient.

Some nations may get more GDP growth for an equivalent energy supply
growth, but ALL still require more energy for more GDP. To make the
3rd world wealthy is going to require a TON of new cars, TONS of new
energy, TONS of new houses, TONS of new STUFF.

That is, in fact, the problem! As 3rd world oil exporters receive
more money, be it euros or dollars for their oil, they will spend that
on domestic needs and these include GDP growth and "development," all
of which requires them to increase their domestic CONSUMPTION. This
is why I can make what appear to be insane statements like "there
won't be any oil available for export in 10 years." The exporters
will be using so much more of it as THEY try to develop that they will
have less and less for export. Look at Mexico, for fk's sake. They
are switching to net importer because they grew their consumption for
development while they were growing their production. Now that they
have hit Peak, consumption demand is STILL there while production
growth is not. Russia, Brazil, India, China...all this vaunted growth
comes at a cost of increased resource use.

Industrial society DEMANDS consumption growth and there simply isn't
energy supply growth any longer.

Furthermore, carrying capacity, by any definition, isn't a nice sharp
line where everything's fine before it and then suddenly everything dies.
In general, populations don't grow at ever increasing speed (that
"exponential growth" thing) until suddenly they hit a limit. Once they
start nearing carrying capacity, growth starts slowing. Have you looked at
UN figures for long range population growth? I daresay not, since the
figures don't agree with the claims of the extremists.

Who wrote this ***? B/c it is absolutely defied by the facts of any
unchecked population growth example. Deer on islands grow until there
are systemic food supply shortages, then there is a massive dieoff.
They do not self-regulate to match the system.

Could humans? Sure, we have the intelligence, but lack the will. It
would require a MASSIVE downward revision of lifestyle. People don't
want to go backwards. We like our plasmas and extra cars. It's about
more, more, more. More people, too. People like children.

***, if you don't believe me, READ. Read ANY article reporting on
spending, consumption, same-store sales, earnings, ANYthing economic.
In EVERY SINGLE article, the metric is followed by "growth." It's
assumed. Steady-state doesn't please anyone.

clearly you now nothing about ecology or population dynamics so once
again you must resort to your usual denial and personal attacks.

Here ya go, read it if you aren't too afraid.

http://dieoff.org/page14.htm

Hal

Score one for the Fourth Square.

To whomever is interested, think about a fish tank. You can
theoretically pack it with fish so long as you INCREASE the rate of
water cleansing and waste removal. Eventually, if you can no longer
keep up with the rate at which you have to change the water, the tank
becomes toxic.

With human population, NOBODY is freezing the rate of increase. We
keep adding fish. So, sure, it's a big tank, we can just increase our
water cleaning rate. Yeah, until our power supply peaks. With wall
current, it's steady, 110V. With energy supply from oil, it's not.
The voltage is going down past-peak, meaning the pumps run slower.
The carrying capacity decreases. Industrial agriculture is the thing
that keeps ALL of us alive here in the western world, a model built
upon ENERGY use. Does anyone believe that our major cities are not
just like fish tanks? They could not RUN without access to MASSIVE
energy supply surpluses.

I'm sorry to rain on parades, but our society is built around an
ASSUMPTION of perpetual energy supply growth; this is so obvious that
I cannot believe anyone doesn't see it and immediately do a deductive
chain of what if's to see where it leads.

Can the earth sustain the people in current lifestyles that it has now
at the current rate of consumption of resources? NO. Oil has peaked,
helium has peaked, NG is soon to peak, hell even fresh water is
peaking in some places while they build more golf courses in the
desert. We continue to demand EVER MORE electricity to power more
STUFF and to run the factories that BUILD that stuff. Gold looks to
have peaked too. My theory is that industrial society, functioning on
an evolutionary model, finds industrial uses for all things at the
same time and following roughly the same curve. I propose that all
non-recycled industrial materials will peak nearly simultaneously.
Once we discovered oil, the thing that causeth to become, we started
to reconfigure all the other things. They found uses for iron,
helium, gold, silver, water, etc.; the thing lacking prior to the
Industrial Revolution was the energy to reconfigure the matter. It
should not be surprising that the industrial demand that has acted
upon the markets for all things has undergone the same exponential
curve as it did for oil.

If we cannot create more stuff for more people, those who have are
going to either have to give a share of what they have to those who do
not have, or else let them rot.

Trav
.

Loading