You first!BAGTIC wrote: Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
+1El Mac wrote:You first!BAGTIC wrote: Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.
if you really ananlyze it, it is likely that if even 20% of the worlds population vanished in short order, civilization, of the advanced variety we are used to, would collapse. a decrease of 25-50% would have to occur over at least a CENTURY OR TWO in order not to cause a severe collapse.Grizz wrote:+1El Mac wrote:You first!BAGTIC wrote: Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.
the something has gotta be done crowd should be the first lemming to jump off the precipice.
you know, act on their convictions, like they really mean it.
but usually that isn't even close to what they really mean.
what they usually mean is that about 75% of the world's population should disappear for their benefit....
so, like the man said: you first.
+1 When those some environmental bed-wetters start endorsing - no, demanding - that we increase electrical generation through the cleanest and most efficient means at our disposal - nuclear - then I may take them a bit seriously. All the "global warming/climate change" movement is about is worldwide socialism pushed by destroying capitalism and freedoms to "save the planet".oldmax wrote:When The Rich and Famous ( Al Gore included )
Give up there Private Jets, Big Houses ( Plural ) , Yachts, etc....
THAN CALL ME, THAN I will consider doing my part...
Untill than , Leave me the Hell alone....
IT'S ABOUT CONTROL> CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.
IT"S ABOUT THEM, !!!!!!! NOT THE EARTH....
The GM economy cars w/ manual trannys are excelent gas savers while being very reliable (don't get the autos, they are plagued with numerous mechanical problems).Noah Zark wrote:The difference in fuel economy between a standard 4 cyl Honda Civic and a Civic Hybrid does not justify the multi-$ thousand price premium. Get the standard Civic or an equally economical compact. My daughter drives a 2001 Toyota Solara 4 cyl coupe and gets 32 MPG. It's not worth trading to get a 38 mpg car just for the difference in mileage until here Solara dies. And at 64,000 miles, it's still a youngster.Gas is almost $4.00 a gallon here, anybody know about those new fangled hybrids?
Noah
Exactly!IT'S ABOUT CONTROL> CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.
IT"S ABOUT THEM, !!!!!!! NOT THE EARTH....
I have said for years that if those who believe man is such a threat to the planet followed thier convictions to thier utlimate end, they would do the planet a favor and kill them selves. I usually get in a lot of trouble for that one. Which is fine.Grizz wrote:+1El Mac wrote:You first!BAGTIC wrote: Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.
the something has gotta be done crowd should be the first lemming to jump off the precipice.
you know, act on their convictions, like they really mean it.
but usually that isn't even close to what they really mean.
what they usually mean is that about 75% of the world's population should disappear for their benefit....
so, like the man said: you first.
The environmental impact of a hybrid is much higher due to the batteries. Also, batterries degrade, so a hybrid only gets that higher mileage for a portion of the batteries lifetime. As the batteries degrade, mileage is reduced. This is all beside the fact that the hybrid uses a mechanical drivetrain, something we should have abandoned decades ago, just like locomotives did, so it really is no revolutionary advancement. However the gear and lubricant manufacturers can't have that, so we are saddled with outdated technology in the age of space travel and stealth.Noah Zark wrote: The difference in fuel economy between a standard 4 cyl Honda Civic and a Civic Hybrid does not justify the multi-$ thousand price premium. Get the standard Civic or an equally economical compact. My daughter drives a 2001 Toyota Solara 4 cyl coupe and gets 32 MPG. It's not worth trading to get a 38 mpg car just for the difference in mileage until here Solara dies. And at 64,000 miles, it's still a youngster.
Noah
Not sure what to do about it Grizz. I figure nature will do it just like she does when fish in a pond over populate. I'm not asking for more regulation but I think lacking any our over population would be obvious.Grizz wrote:So, what are you willing to do about it?I do think theres too many of us tho. Cant see how it matters if we could all fit in Rhode Island.
I believe God meant what He said when He gave the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. I'm good with it because it's God's will. The earth isn't overpopulated, it's over-regulated by do-gooders who think they know what's best...... like there's even one of them I'd care to follow....
Grizz
Hobie, put down the cabbage and beans and back slowly away....Hobie wrote:But Paul, there's more of us humans, also gas emitters... just sayin'...
AmBraCol wrote:Hobie, put down the cabbage and beans and back slowly away....Hobie wrote:But Paul, there's more of us humans, also gas emitters... just sayin'...
I think this is misleading. The US is slipping because other countries are producing more. Further, the environmental movement has produced pressure away from domestic production and refining growth over the most recent decades ... examples would be the refusal to pull oil out from the gulf coast near Florida or that no new refineries have been built in the US in the last 30 years. We're not dependent here because we're running out ... our politicians have made a conscious choice to make us dependent on foreign oil because they lack the will to push domestic production.KWK wrote:As for oil supplies, folks, if you've been reading the financial press for some years, you'll be hard pressed to find serious oil analysts who predict that supply can keep up with demand for more than another decade or two. After that, the price goes through the roof. Expect gasoline to run well over $15/gal on a good day. Such prices are needed to get people to cut back, and shortages always produce prices high enough to drop demand. It's over $8/gal in Europe already (due to taxes), and people still drive cars a lot.
Yeah, there were claims the oil was running out in the 70s, but that was no lie. It was said to be running out in the US, and production there has in fact declined. The US is still the 3rd largest producer of oil, but it is slipping. Total world production is likely to follow in the not distant future.
You may want to revisit your second link and the site owners request not to hotlink his site to preserve bandwidth. However I see that the whole premise of that site is that we should limit our usage. How am I to believe my cutting back on usage will have any real effect, when just one cargo container ship hauling stuff from China uses as much fuel in 8 hours as my F350 has in 250,000 miles over a 12 year period? That site is pretty pictures that mean nothing. It does not address all the offshore oil we are restricted from tapping due to EPA concerns, meanwhile Russian and Chinese interests that care nothing for the environement are freely tapping these sources.KWK wrote:I think this is misleading. The US is slipping because other countries are producing more.
Sorry, the sad fact is that despite massive investment in incredible new technologies, oil production at home has been in decline for three decades now. How desperate the measures have been can be seen in the factoids on this site.
Which debate is that? And apparently you missed the context in your rush to criticize me. Read the other posts I quoted. If my remarks are to be categorized as silly, yours would be best categorized as irrelevant, shortsighted, and the product of Marxist ecoterrorist dogma.I have said for years that if those who believe man is such a threat to the planet followed thier convictions to thier utlimate end, they would do the planet a favor and kill them selves.
Such silly remarks add nothing to the debate. If couples have two children on average, the population begins a long steady decline. In all the western countries, people have taken to having about 1.8 per couple on the average.
If people are willing to give up meat, wildlands, etc., we can likely support twice the current worldwide population, at least for a while. Certainly, the more minds there are, the better the odds of finding solutions to limits to continued growth. Whether such a population density will have the resources needed to seek and implement the solutions is debatable.
That's pretty much how I feel about the population problem. I'm sure the planet can even handle even more people. however, I'd be willing to bet that any continued increase in population will be accompanied by a decrease in quality of life.Leverdude wrote:Not sure what to do about it Grizz. I figure nature will do it just like she does when fish in a pond over populate. I'm not asking for more regulation but I think lacking any our over population would be obvious.Grizz wrote:So, what are you willing to do about it?I do think theres too many of us tho. Cant see how it matters if we could all fit in Rhode Island.
I believe God meant what He said when He gave the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. I'm good with it because it's God's will. The earth isn't overpopulated, it's over-regulated by do-gooders who think they know what's best...... like there's even one of them I'd care to follow....
Grizz
If not for the doo gooders we would be seeing many more populations decimated by starvation, disease & war than today. Many of these do gooders do their good in Gods name in the form of charity & other support from church groups. I donate frequently myself. As a human being, seeing human suffering bothers me. But facts are facts & the fact is most of our population only survives by taking from other places. If you cant get what you need from your own environment theres too many of you, from a biological standpoint anyway & eventually things will catch up.
I dont try to blame God for our problems. He said be fruitfull & multiply sure. But he also created many population controlers we defeat regularly.
In the end His will will prevail, no question about it.
Yes, there was one in the news recently ... I believe you may be referring to the 80.0 billion in the Dakotas that was in the news in the last couple of weeks. Though 80.0 may be a bit of a stretch. I'm sure we'll hear of a new Green campaign to save the grasslands of the Dakotas soon.KWK wrote:I've not read of any major new fields off the US. There was one in the news recently, but nothing more is being reported. The greenies may have temporarily halted production in a few spots, but nothing stops the oil companies from searching for more.
That is not what I said.KWK wrote:It is patently silly to suggesting someone who feels there are too many people on the plant go kill himself.
I did have some info bookmarked, when I find it I'll post it. It has made financial news. For instance look at drill rig production, mud boat production, and the shortage of crews in the gulf region.KWK wrote:That is not what I said.
My mistake, then.
it's estimated they contain enough usable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.
I think that would have made the financial press. Can you point me to press releases from the relevant oil companies? That could be worth investing in. There were reports this year of a major find off the US coast, but not of that magnitude; the amounts you mention would dwarf Saudi Arabia.
I agree. Even if we find and pump more oil here, it's still a world market and the cost will move with the market. With China and India using more, it will still be hard to keep the price down unless we hit the geological lottery.Old Ironsights wrote:... What we need is more Nukes. And Fast.
CO is enjoying a major oil field boom right now. People with degrees are quitting their jobs to drive water trucks in the oil fields.Grizz wrote:I did have some info bookmarked, when I find it I'll post it. It has made financial news. For instance look at drill rig production, mud boat production, and the shortage of crews in the gulf region.KWK wrote:That is not what I said.
My mistake, then.
it's estimated they contain enough usable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.
I think that would have made the financial press. Can you point me to press releases from the relevant oil companies? That could be worth investing in. There were reports this year of a major find off the US coast, but not of that magnitude; the amounts you mention would dwarf Saudi Arabia.
Excellent point, Grizz.Grizz wrote:The greatest nation on earth is shackled and manacled by the enemies within.
But I am not hopeless because my citizenship is in heaven...
Grizz
Or maybe it just means they are using a lot of water incidental to the drilling process.KWK wrote:[ If they're driving water trucks in CO, that's a sign the fields there aren't especially productive. The high price of oil has made economical many pricey ways of pushing out more of the stuff.
I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.Blackhawk wrote:I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.
![]()
Johnny
You never know!?Jason_W wrote:I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.Blackhawk wrote:I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.
![]()
Johnny
The biggest problem we are likely to deal with is there are X amount of people, and Y amount of resources when X>Y, we're in for a world of hurt.
Either we control our numbers, or nature will do it for us. Us doing it voluntarily will be a lot gentler than Nature's methods.
[/quote]Blackhawk wrote:You never know!?Jason_W wrote:I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.Blackhawk wrote:I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.
![]()
Johnny![]()
The biggest problem we are likely to deal with is there are X amount of people, and Y amount of resources when X>Y, we're in for a world of hurt.
Either we control our numbers, or nature will do it for us. Us doing it voluntarily will be a lot gentler than Nature's methods.
I agree but I don't think us doing controlling numbers of anything is really likely.
Johnny
Not to mention that now that we have shown we will pay for it, it is exceedingly unlikely that the price will ever come down much!Peter M. Eick wrote:No, I have to say that oil prices will fluctuate a bit up or down, but demand is outstripping supply and there is not much we can do about it.
I hate that all the French nuclear waste comes through my state.Rimfire McNutjob wrote:I'm all for Nukes. Look at the French, they're 80+% nuclear ... and they did it without surrendering to anyone along the way.Old Ironsights wrote:... What we need is more Nukes. And Fast.
If you're looking for a new oil field, check out the Bakken field in North Dakota. Last I heard it covers most of North Dakota and into Canada.KWK wrote:My apologies to that site's owner. The most interesting fact they note is that the US output per well is tiny. Surely this indicates many (most?) of the existing fields are pretty well tapped out.
I've not read of any major new fields off the US. There was one in the news recently, but nothing more is being reported. The greenies may have temporarily halted production in a few spots, but nothing stops the oil companies from searching for more. They are quite aware of what the price of oil will become in a few decades, and that gives them every reason to look for more sources locally, even if they can't produce from them in the current political environment, for that environment will change once the price skyrockets. Still, they have little to show for their searches.
It is patently silly to suggesting someone who feels there are too many people on the plant go kill himself. Population can decline without such measures as war and suicide; indeed, it seems to be natural in the developed world.
The oil may be there, but releasing it would be bad business for the powers that be. We Americans must be reigned in a little, and what better way than to control our energy and create a crisis.Peter M. Eick wrote:Minor comment on the "there is 200 more years of oil" from a page back.
So, working in the oil industry, and working in the exploration side of it, I have to ask the question. If we could get that more oil out of the ground, why would we not do it unless we are held back by the greenies and the government? At $120 a barrel, we have to go for it.
No, I have to say that oil prices will fluctuate a bit up or down, but demand is outstripping supply and there is not much we can do about it.