|
|
"we" don't really need anything in the U.S.Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I personally rarely eat corn. I'd say wheat is my number one plant food (whole wheat and not enriched).
Most of the corn in the U.S. is for livestock (and deer). The corn that humans eat is actually "sweet" corn.
People should stop having so many kids.
The population in the U.S. just hit 300 million not too long ago. There was an article in the Smithsonian magazine. It said you need a reproduction rate of 2.1 for every couple just to sustain your population. Japan is low, around 1, and Russia is less than one. China has some areas at .84.
That means for every two people they only had .84 kids. That's over a 50% reduction in population in a generation. They say that the "baby boomer" effect the U.S. is about to experience pales in comparison to the problems China will have.
They say the U.S. is only increasing due to immigrants and their higher reproductive rates. Soon white non-hispanics will be less than 50% of the total and keep dropping.
Germans are losing native German population and are being replaced with Muslim immigrants, so is most of the rest of Europe.
In the sixties, population "experts" said the world would overcrowd and thermonuclear war would break out over basic resources such as food by the 80's. Sounds kind of like the global warming hype.
The population is still increasing and only when EVERYONE drops the rate to less than one per couple will the crisis lessen. Have not you read Malthus? I found his work in the Shreveport library while I was in elementary school in the late 1940s and been amazed that everyone doesn't share my concern over population growth ever since.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html
I'm tired of traffic congestion - what do you think Malthus would have to say about that?
Without the intention of hijacking this thread - this is a good idea for combating traffic:
http://www.skytran.net/
I HAVE read Thomas Malthus, actually. I have also read people's rebuttal to Malthus.
If you have 1 kid per COUPLE then the population will fall dramatically like it is in the first world countries. When countries become wealthy they stop having as many kids. I don't think population is a problem at all.
If some of the african countries with constant strife keep having kids it doesn't really affect the rest of us because they kill each other, starve, die of diseases, etc. The only way that would bother us would be multiple 3rd world countries completely wiping out all the forests.
Many things Malthus proposed have proven to be faulty.
Introducing the CARBON TRACKER! MU HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! SQUIRM!!!!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2823.htm
"The online data framework distinguishes between changes in the natural carbon cycle and those occurring in human-produced fossil fuel emissions. It also provides verification for scientists using computer models to project future climate change. Potential users include corporations, cities, states and nations assessing their efforts to reduce or store fossil fuel emissions around the world."
did this mention how the measurements are taken? And to distinguish the natural carbon cycle from human emissions, what are they doing? Establishing a baseline that doesn't include human emissions? It's possible, but over what time scale are they drawing the baseline, and are they accounting for the errors in having a reductive baseline as opposed to establishing one independently? Are there measurement errors associated with the number of independent signals in different regions, with the landscape (mountains vs. flatlands, urban skyscrapers vs. rural) or the local environment?
i'd be interested to know all of these things.
More info below(although you obviously didnt read the orig. link)... I'll let you draw your own conclusions. This program was started in 2001 and NOAA admits it will need some fine tuning, which they are working on, but this aint no H.S. science project my friend.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ca...r/summary.html
I did read the link, and I didn't find suitable answers to the questions I had. But I'll look at these as well.
And I understand it isn't a H.S. science project, but as a highly trained scientist in a relevant field, I still have questions about the assumptions and abilities of the system.
Maybe you should apply for a job with NOAA so you can set their two thousand or so highly trained scientists straight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
