The Root Cause of All Environmental Problems and Why We Will Not Address It

I was just reading an article concerning the Green New Deal being proposed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and once again I am amazed at the lengths supposedly educated people will go to solve a problem that they apparently do not understand.

Let's forget that, with the data available, it is impossible to conclusively prove that climate change is caused by human habitation of the planet. Let's just assume that it is a fact. That said, we would agree that humans are responsible for the islands of trash in the oceans, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the use of fossil fuels to provide their lifestyle, and so forth.

According to www.worldometers.info, the following numbers for world population by year, are accurate:

1804     1.0 billion

1900     1.6 billion

2019     7.71 billion (estimated)

As you can see, 215 years ago the Earth was supporting roughly 13% of the population it is now supporting. In 1900, roughly two generations after the Industrial Revolution, Mother Nature was only being forced to support approximately 21% of the present population. To put it in other terms, the global population has increased by a factor of 4.8 in the last 119 years. In a more drastic 'visual', in the 96 years between 1804 and 1900 the world population increased by 0.6 billion, in the next 119 years the population increased by 6.1 billion!

Keep in mind that each new member of the global community will require a certain amount of fresh water, food, and energy to survive. This same individual will create a certain amount of human waste, garbage, and greenhouse gases during their lifetime. The planet has not grown larger and the amount of natural resources available has not increased along with the increase in population. Common sense will tell you that at some point in time, there will be a problem.

The issue is not our carbon footprint, the problem is that there are too many feet. I think that would be obvious. How do we limit or decrease the global population? I have no idea. This gets into entitlement issues (everyone seems entitled to have kids) and religion. What I am attempting to point out is that if we do not choose to address the root cause of these issues, which is the population explosion on the planet, we have no chance of solving any of the 'Green' issues.

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Douglas, happy to see you de-lurked.  How's it going these days?

Good analysis.  But now I'm bracing for the usual incoming wave of anti-oil & gas 'Climate Change will kill us all' commenters.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind that each new member of the global community will require a certain amount of fresh water, food, and energy to survive. This same individual will create a certain amount of human waste, garbage, and greenhouse gases during their lifetime. The planet has not grown larger and the amount of natural resources available has not increased along with the increase in population. Common sense will tell you that at some point in time, there will be a problem.

The issue is not our carbon footprint, the problem is that there are too many feet. I think that would be obvious. How do we limit or decrease the global population? I have no idea. This gets into entitlement issues (everyone seems entitled to have kids) and religion. What I am attempting to point out is that if we do not choose to address the root cause of these issues, which is the population explosion on the planet, we have no chance of solving any of the 'Green' issues.

Bill Burr has some ideas, and they favor our green friends too, as a bonus:

Bill Burr - Population Control

WARNING:  THE LINK TAKES YOU TO A YOU-TUBE VIDEO AND CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE!  (Don't go there if you're too weak to take a joke!)  But if you do go there, watch some more on the side bar.  Good stuff, Maynard!

This one's actually my favorite:

Final Solution : Bill Burr (Full View)

It also has strong language!

Edited by Dan Warnick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One unforeseen result of a more gentle society, the much lower homicide rates, was a dramatic expansion of the population itself.  Then you have dramatic improvements in crop generation and animal husbandry, so with more food you can avoid famines. The planet supports that.  Once you get to machined construction of housing, with sawn lumber and concrete forms and even structural steel, the planet becomes ever more capable of supporting more people. 

In case you think this is an inexorable exponential growth, it is not.  As the societies become more educated and more secure in their place, with food security and housing security (and even burial security), the pressure for offspring drops way off.  Most parts of the planet, away from the Equator, have negative population growth -  some with dramatic population declines.  Even India, which is pretty much a basket case of a country, the fecundity rate is just a touch above replacement value.  The big areas of growth are in the Middle East, especially among Palestinians,  in Central Africa, and in Central America, places such as Guatemala. But even that will all go negative over the next thirty years.  After that, world population will dramatically fall. 

I anticipate a decrease of 25% per generation in societies that have established Western standards of health care and education.  You will see drops of 10%+  in other societies, places such as Argentina. In another 100 years the entire planet will have profound population drops.  Large parts of the planet will revert back to forest.  Where will you see that first?   Try East Germany. I predict that in 50 years all of East Germany will b e one vast uninhabited forest.  Big chunks of Siberia also.  

And societies will no longer be drilling from oil.  They will make their gasoline and jetfuel out of CO2 and water, in reactor vessels with catalysts. That part is coming soon enough. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big chunk of my previous post has evaporated.  I will attempt to reconstruct the first part, so that you can see the continuity.  I said:

What is being overlooked is that until about 1500 perhaps 20% to 30% of the population died through murder.  That kept the population expansion way down.  Societies proceeded to self-select the more violent people out of the reproduction system, by using both prisons and executions.  The breeding was done similarly to what folks do today with dogs:  breeding for specific characteristics. With the more violent out of the way, then societies could concentrate on families, and families did increase in numbers and lived to fecundity. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

One unforeseen result of a more gentle society, the much lower homicide rates, was a dramatic expansion of the population itself.  Then you have dramatic improvements in crop generation and animal husbandry, so with more food you can avoid famines. The planet supports that.  Once you get to machined construction of housing, with sawn lumber and concrete forms and even structural steel, the planet becomes ever more capable of supporting more people. 

In case you think this is an inexorable exponential growth, it is not.  As the societies become more educated and more secure in their place, with food security and housing security (and even burial security), the pressure for offspring drops way off.  Most parts of the planet, away from the Equator, have negative population growth -  some with dramatic population declines.  Even India, which is pretty much a basket case of a country, the fecundity rate is just a touch above replacement value.  The big areas of growth are in the Middle East, especially among Palestinians,  in Central Africa, and in Central America, places such as Guatemala. But even that will all go negative over the next thirty years.  After that, world population will dramatically fall. 

I anticipate a decrease of 25% per generation in societies that have established Western standards of health care and education.  You will see drops of 10%+  in other societies, places such as Argentina. In another 100 years the entire planet will have profound population drops.  Large parts of the planet will revert back to forest.  Where will you see that first?   Try East Germany. I predict that in 50 years all of East Germany will b e one vast uninhabited forest.  Big chunks of Siberia also.  

And societies will no longer be drilling from oil.  They will make their gasoline and jetfuel out of CO2 and water, in reactor vessels with catalysts. That part is coming soon enough. 

COOL...

But i am not sure your prediction about germany will pan out,  as i expect it to be overrun with more Muslims instead......  many more people than now,  not less....   We will see i guess...

 

I was wondering where you have been Jan,  hadn't read anything from you in a couple of weeks...

I was gone for a while,  and then you were gone just as i got back.

 

Did you see the new thread where the guy asks about the BRENT / WTI spread...?

I was wondering what your thoughts on it were....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi Douglas, happy to see you de-lurked.  How's it going these days?

Good analysis.  But now I'm bracing for the usual incoming wave of anti-oil & gas 'Climate Change will kill us all' commenters.

 

Alternatively it will be one of 'us' that provides some tangible data that sheds some light on global birth rates. 

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.dyn.tfrt.in

The good news on this front is that global birth rates have fallen and the replacement ratio is down to about 2.5 births per couple. 2.1 is the deemed level at which population will eventually stabilise. 

Interesting comparison between 1960 and 2016 especially the economic sterilisation in western countries caused in my opinion by house price inflation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Illurion said:

COOL...

But i am not sure your prediction about germany will pan out,  as i expect it to be overrun with more Muslims instead......  many more people than now,  not less....   We will see i guess...

 

The Muslims are headed towards WEST Germany.  Nobody wants to live in the old East-bloc section, including the younger Germans.  The only people left there are the old, who do not want to be dislocated.  When that group ultimately dies off, the East Sector will go back to forest.  And since there is no money to maintain the roads, it will become one vast primeval hunting park, filled only with wild boar, and deer.  It used to be that way, and Prussian generals and kings would go into the Eastern Forest to hunt the boar, which grow to 1,100 lbs and are fierce killers.  You need a 50-caliber gun to take on a boar. Or bigger!  

Germany is right now in a "death spiral" in terms of population regeneration.  Merkel does not grasp the reality of the population internal collapse, I think in part because she is stupid, and in part because she never married and never had children, so it is beyond her consciousness.  She is the German equivalent of Janet Reno  (remember her?  The woman who murdered 27 children below the age of six, before breakfast?):  stupid and without empathy.  Those are the worst kind of public servants.  Today is is quite common for a German woman to have her first marriage at or past 40.  The German fecundity rate is somewhere around 1.4, not quite as bad as Italy, but way below replacement value.  Absent immigration, Germany will shrink from 75 million Germans today to 25 million in 75 years. B ye-b ye Germany.

Merkel thinks she can immigrate millions of high-reproducing Arabs and convert them to become Germans.  I don't think so.  That is a deal that is not going to work.  It will work out for the Syrians, who are largely of the Syrian professional and merchant class, and in two generations they will be acculturated into Germany (assuming they become either secular [most likely] or Christian [a possibility]). It is definitely not going to work for the migrants from Afghanistan.  And right now Germany has no ability to deal with Afghan migrants.  They (the German authorities) are like deer in the headlights - frozen in time. The Afghans are a mortal threat to Germany and the Germans, and will have to be deported or placed in internment camps.  I don't see Germany having the political will to do any of that. It will be a huge mess. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
added "the German authorities" for clarification
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

One unforeseen result of a more gentle society, the much lower homicide rates, was a dramatic expansion of the population itself.  Then you have dramatic improvements in crop generation and animal husbandry, so with more food you can avoid famines. The planet supports that.  Once you get to machined construction of housing, with sawn lumber and concrete forms and even structural steel, the planet becomes ever more capable of supporting more people. 

In case you think this is an inexorable exponential growth, it is not.  As the societies become more educated and more secure in their place, with food security and housing security (and even burial security), the pressure for offspring drops way off.  Most parts of the planet, away from the Equator, have negative population growth -  some with dramatic population declines.  Even India, which is pretty much a basket case of a country, the fecundity rate is just a touch above replacement value.  The big areas of growth are in the Middle East, especially among Palestinians,  in Central Africa, and in Central America, places such as Guatemala. But even that will all go negative over the next thirty years.  After that, world population will dramatically fall. 

I anticipate a decrease of 25% per generation in societies that have established Western standards of health care and education.  You will see drops of 10%+  in other societies, places such as Argentina. In another 100 years the entire planet will have profound population drops.  Large parts of the planet will revert back to forest.  Where will you see that first?   Try East Germany. I predict that in 50 years all of East Germany will b e one vast uninhabited forest.  Big chunks of Siberia also.  

And societies will no longer be drilling from oil.  They will make their gasoline and jetfuel out of CO2 and water, in reactor vessels with catalysts. That part is coming soon enough. 

Hi Jan, great to see you back again.  Hope you are doing well these days.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi Jan, great to see you back again.  Hope you are doing well these days.

I am emphatically not "back."  Just having a slow day and looking over the Forum.  I devote my time to helping the unfortunate, the poor, and the dispossessed.  At my age, I consider that a worthwhile project.  Or series of projects.  

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I was just reading an article concerning the Green New Deal being proposed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and once again I am amazed at the lengths supposedly educated people will go to solve a problem that they apparently do not understand.

Let's forget that, with the data available, it is impossible to conclusively prove that climate change is caused by human habitation of the planet. Let's just assume that it is a fact. That said, we would agree that humans are responsible for the islands of trash in the oceans, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the use of fossil fuels to provide their lifestyle, and so forth.

According to www.worldometers.info, the following numbers for world population by year, are accurate:

1804     1.0 billion

1900     1.6 billion

2019     7.71 billion (estimated)

As you can see, 215 years ago the Earth was supporting roughly 13% of the population it is now supporting. In 1900, roughly two generations after the Industrial Revolution, Mother Nature was only being forced to support approximately 21% of the present population. To put it in other terms, the global population has increased by a factor of 4.8 in the last 119 years. In a more drastic 'visual', in the 96 years between 1804 and 1900 the world population increased by 0.6 billion, in the next 119 years the population increased by 6.1 billion!

Keep in mind that each new member of the global community will require a certain amount of fresh water, food, and energy to survive. This same individual will create a certain amount of human waste, garbage, and greenhouse gases during their lifetime. The planet has not grown larger and the amount of natural resources available has not increased along with the increase in population. Common sense will tell you that at some point in time, there will be a problem.

The issue is not our carbon footprint, the problem is that there are too many feet. I think that would be obvious. How do we limit or decrease the global population? I have no idea. This gets into entitlement issues (everyone seems entitled to have kids) and religion. What I am attempting to point out is that if we do not choose to address the root cause of these issues, which is the population explosion on the planet, we have no chance of solving any of the 'Green' issues.

 

Aside from the African continent population growth is stabilizing in most areas. It seems that there is hope for some sort of equilibrium to take place. 

I have been through all fifty states, and there is plenty of room for a billion people in the USA. The real problem is megalopolises on our coasts. Some are in low lying areas encouraged by flood taxes which have artificially low rates due to government subsidizing them. My major concern is with the lack of preparations for disasters of any kind. We do not seem to want to prepare for them. Food storage is one of those concerns, medical care is another, electrical grid vulnerabilities, communication vulnerabilities etc.

Housing costs and taxes are driving many people out of some states to others, and that is, overall a good thing. 

Population Problems https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P5E7KXffXhi_nqMJETLjtoVfYdVHr-pVrYWzVg36ykk/edit

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

A big chunk of my previous post has evaporated.  I will attempt to reconstruct the first part, so that you can see the continuity.  I said:

What is being overlooked is that until about 1500 perhaps 20% to 30% of the population died through murder.  That kept the population expansion way down.  Societies proceeded to self-select the more violent people out of the reproduction system, by using both prisons and executions.  The breeding was done similarly to what folks do today with dogs:  breeding for specific characteristics. With the more violent out of the way, then societies could concentrate on families, and families did increase in numbers and lived to fecundity. 

IMHO the medical advancements has had a much greater effect on population growth than the natural selection in recent centuries. Wars have not even been able to make large dents in worldwide population growth. A nuclear or natural cataclysm could certainly kill billions of us. Maybe all. 

 

Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all BS..  Just exterminate the Human population.. We did all this and should let mother earth heal herself.   We are incapable of not destroying things  and DESERVE our end.. Nothing we could do is  enough..  We were born with sin and no future child is not part of the evil.. ..We've ruined everything . Th plants and animals are victims and we should take everything we have and fix the world before we jump in the big machine that turns us into fertilizer.   

IT's ONLY FAIR..   MAN is a DESTROYER   
LOL  morons.    - THEY HAVE RECENTLY GONE AFTER Religion. 

It's called Original sin..  No matter what you say or do, you can not make up for the sins of the fathers.  
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mad-trader said:

It's all BS..  Just exterminate the Human population.. We did all this and should let mother earth heal herself.   We are incapable of not destroying things  and DESERVE our end.. Nothing we could do is  enough..  We were born with sin and no future child is not part of the evil.. ..We've ruined everything . Th plants and animals are victims and we should take everything we have and fix the world before we jump in the big machine that turns us into fertilizer.   

IT's ONLY FAIR..   MAN is a DESTROYER   
LOL  morons.    - THEY HAVE RECENTLY GONE AFTER Religion. 

It's called Original sin..  No matter what you say or do, you can not make up for the sins of the fathers.  
Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me

You forgot to add "Amen".  But my sins are better than your sins.

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wrote the essay below around 1981 but only published it in 1987 in the Berkeley Daily Californian when the pope was in SF.I believe the same sea life that created oil deposits also created the world's largest phosphate deposits.You will find in the essay my complaint regarding Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum exporting Florida phosphates to Russia in the 1970's that I believed should have been conserved for national security reasons.Paradoxically the U.S. has quietly become a net  importer of phosphates from Russia !

Strangely I seem to have been the first and only person to have written about this area of science,western and Catholic or Christian history.and if you multiply the pope¡s consumption and excretion of about a pound and a  half of phosphates  by the amount of human inhabitants on the planet in 1987 which  was 6 billion you get 9 billion pounds of phosphate  consumed and excreted by the earth's human population per year or earth orbit not counting soil erosion.That phosphate is what allowed allowed plants to grow in shallow seas and perform photosynthesis which is what created oil in the first place.Perhaps artificial photosynthesis will be developed that can fix CO2 from the atmosphere , although I am sceptical, but up to now the only 'technology' to fix or scrub CO2 from the air or oceans is phosphate that allows plants to perform photosynthesis.And it's the only thing that can provide edible food because humans cannot survive by carbon alone.

And by the way, phosphate mining has destroyed much land in Florida and Idaho,etc.

.  

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326685.html

Pope's Misconceptions about conception and science history

Tony Ryals | 29.10.2005 05:40 | Culture | Ecology | Gender

The pope's apparent ignorance of science history and modern agricultural technology obscures from his vision the disastrous effects of his policy of unchecked population growth on future generations who will find "no food on the table" nor the resources with which to grow it. This ignorance also shows that the pope has no more expertise in the fields of agricultural science, population planning, or resoure management than the pope in Galileo's time did in the area of astronomy. 
 
Pope John Paul II may be gone but Pope Benedict XVI maintains a tradition of ignorance and human materialism that has no justification even in a literal interpretation of the Bible and only insures perpetual human ignorance and misery. 





Pope's Stances Lack Scientific Basis 
by Tony Ryals 
The Daily Californian September 22, 1987 

On Nov. 10, 1979, a meeting was held in Rome by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in honor of the 100th year anniversary of the birth of Albert Einstein. The meeting marked the first time in the history of the church, since the formation of its own science academy, that any pope had presided over such a session. 

This meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences may well be more memorable for Pope John Paul II's statements regarding science, Galileo, and the church than for the honoring of the centenary of the birth of Einstein himself. 

In discussing the case of Galileo and the church, Pope John Paul II addressed the academy as follows: 

"Mr.President, you said very rightly that Galileo and Einstein each characterized an era. The greatness of Galileo is recognized by all, as is that of Einstein, but while today we honor the latter before the College of Cardinals in the apostolic palace, the former had to suffer much - we cannot deny it - from men and orgainzations within the church. The Vatican Council has recognized and deplored unwarranted interferences..." 

Approximately one year after his Pontifical Academy of Science speech on Galileo, the pope, in criticizing what he termed "artificial" methods birth control, made a notable statement on modern agriculture, simultaneously. The pope stated: 

"There are attacks on fecundity itself with means that human and Christian ethics must consider illicit... Instead of increasing the amount of bread on the table of a hungry humanity as a modern means of production can do today, there are thoughts of diminishing the number of those at the table through methods that are contrary to honesty. This is not worthy of civilization." 

Now that the pope has pardoned Galileo for telling the church that the earth is in orbit around the sun, it is time to tell the pope that the other half of Aristotle's church-approved cosmology has also come unglued. The "Four Element" concept (earth, air, fire and water) was the other half of the Aristotelian Earth-centered universe adopted by St.Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. 

Although the Renaissance astronomers successfully challenged Aristotle's and the church's geocentric universe several centuries later, atoms still had not been discovered. For this reason the Four Elements remained intact and unchallenged long after the death of Galileo in 1642. 

The discovery of atoms in the last couple of centuries has totally transformed our concept of elements. The former "elements", earth and air, are both composed of a variety of elements. We now know that even the ancient element "water" can be further divided into the elements of hydrogen and oxygen. And the element "fire" is now understood to be a form of radiation. 

Justus Von Liebig, the 19th century father of agricultural chemistry, and other pioneering chemists did to Aristotle's Four Elements what the Renaissance astronomers did to Aristotle's concept of the Earth as the center of the universe - they overturned it! 

Liebig first pointed out the for plants to utilize carbon dioxide in the air for growth, they must have adequate amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in their soil. Unfortunately, in popularizing the N,P,K concept of modern chemical agriculture, Liebig paved the way for overreliance upon energy-intensive fossil fuel consumption in the mining of phosphorus and potassium as well as in industrial production of nitrogen fertilizers. 

We now know that for every orbit of the Earth around the sun - one year - the pope, each member of the Catholic Church, and everyone else on the planet consumes in their food and excretes from their bodies approximately two pounds of phosphorus and various quantities of nitrogen, calcium, potassium, iron, and other trace elements. All these elements generally go unrecycled, often into rivers and oceans or even municipal dumps, further enriching fertilizer industries (who will sell the farmers more for a price) at the expense of the Earth's non-renewable mineral nutrient resources. 

When the remaining fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, are exhausted, only bacteria and blue-green algae utilizing phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements in "soil-culture" and "aqua-culture" will be likely candidates to fix atmospheric nitrogen for agricultural fertilization. 

Both the trade of grains and the direct trade of phosphates speed the depletion of our limited reserves of phosphate rock in the United States, which comes mainly from mining operations in Florida. Deposits in Idaho are also being mined, at present, and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum has eyed public land near Ojai, Calif. to strip-mine for phosphates. 

We should realize the need to conserve our dwindling reserves of phosphates for future generations. The United States not long ago was a net exporter of petroleum, but now we are importers. The same situation could occur with phosphates if we refuse to learn from the past. Some researchers have suggested that we may become dependent upon yet a new OPEC (or Organization of Phosphate Exporting Countries), such as Morocco, with its relatively large rock phosphate reserves. 

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that our reserves of phosphorus will be depleted some time in the next century. This will inevitably lead to a food and population crisis that will make our oil crisis seem minor by comparison. 

The pope's apparent ignorance of science history and modern agricultural technology obscures from his vision the disastrous effects of his policy of unchecked population growth on future generations who will find "no food on the table" nor the resources with which to grow it. This ignorance also shows that the pope has no more expertise in the fields of agricultural science, population planning, or resoure management than the pope in Galileo's time did in the area of astronomy. 

The nutrients that subsidize the life of the pope, and everyone on the planet, are a finite resource. Unless the pope realizes the seriousness of the linear flow of elements through himself and the rest of humanity, he shall be partly responsible for contributing to the collapse of modern agriculture. 

To sum up, Pope John Paul II is as confused about the movement of atoms as the pope of Galileo's time was about the movement of the Earth and celestial bodies. Based upon the rate of depletion of chemical fertilizers, the present pope does not have 300 years to re-evaluate his view on modern agriculture and birth control. The question still remains as to why the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has not made this disastrous movement of atoms clear to the pope. 
 

Tony Ryals 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

You forgot to add "Amen".  But my sins are better than your sins.

"And in sin my mother conceived me."   ["Amen."] 

Now, that set me to thinking.  Perhaps 30 years ago a quite smart woman offered me $5,000 to get her pregnant the old-fashioned way.  What to do?  Do I say "Amen" and go for it?  Do I turn her down - and break her heart?  This was a (married) woman who nonetheless wanted a child - specifically, with me as the sire.  OK, so I am just a breeding horse.  But I ask you: is having a Contract a mere plebian matter, taking it all out of "sin"?  And if so, "is my sin better than your sins"?    

Life's little moments, to be sure.  Oh, well. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Ryals said:

 

To sum up, Pope John Paul II is as confused about the movement of atoms as the pope of Galileo's time was about the movement of the Earth and celestial bodies. Based upon the rate of depletion of chemical fertilizers, the present pope does not have 300 years to re-evaluate his view on modern agriculture and birth control. The question still remains as to why the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has not made this disastrous movement of atoms clear to the pope. 
 

Tony Ryals 

Very interesting stuff, Tony.  Thank you for posting!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Ryals said:

 

I wrote the essay below around 1981 but only published it in 1987 in the Berkeley Daily Californian when the pope was in SF.I believe the same sea life that created oil deposits also created the world's largest phosphate deposits.You will find in the essay my complaint regarding Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum exporting Florida phosphates to Russia in the 1970's that I believed should have been conserved for national security reasons.Paradoxically the U.S. has quietly become a net  importer of phosphates from Russia !

SNIP


"Mr.President, you said very rightly that Galileo and Einstein each characterized an era. The greatness of Galileo is recognized by all, as is that of Einstein, but while today we honor the latter before the College of Cardinals in the apostolic palace, the former had to suffer much - we cannot deny it - from men and orgainzations within the church. The Vatican Council has recognized and deplored unwarranted interferences..." 

Approximately one year after his Pontifical Academy of Science speech on Galileo, the pope, in criticizing what he termed "artificial" methods birth control, made a notable statement on modern agriculture, simultaneously. The pope stated: 

Except that is all Lies.  The Church did not arrest Galileo for saying the earth orbited the sun.  What is sad, is that the Pope doesn't even know their own history.

Open an actual history book. Not the lies promulgated by Atheists during their Evolution diatribes in the 20th century which they have repeated endlessly even though every historian knows this is not true.  It was a trope trying to shame the other side of the argument to frame others as "unscientific".  Only thing promulgated was that if you lie loud enough often enough, gullible idiots will believe anything and then publish stupid articles like the one you quoted and no one will even know the difference anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

"And in sin my mother conceived me."   ["Amen."] 

Now, that set me to thinking.  Perhaps 30 years ago a quite smart woman offered me $5,000 to get her pregnant the old-fashioned way.  What to do?  Do I say "Amen" and go for it?  Do I turn her down - and break her heart?  This was a (married) woman who nonetheless wanted a child - specifically, with me as the sire.  OK, so I am just a breeding horse.  But I ask you: is having a Contract a mere plebian matter, taking it all out of "sin"?  And if so, "is my sin better than your sins"?    

Life's little moments, to be sure.  Oh, well. 

So you did the deed but you didn't take the money, right?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 3:53 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi Douglas, happy to see you de-lurked.  How's it going these days?

Good analysis.  But now I'm bracing for the usual incoming wave of anti-oil & gas 'Climate Change will kill us all' commenters.

 

 

 

On 2/25/2019 at 3:53 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Hi Douglas, happy to see you de-lurked.  How's it going these days?

Good analysis.  But now I'm bracing for the usual incoming wave of anti-oil & gas 'Climate Change will kill us all' commenters.

 

Sorry to disappoint you Tom, but I happen to agree with Douglas about the population growth exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet. Phosphorus is also a limiting factor for our food supply. Urine is a rich source of phosphorus and we need to stop wasting it. Morocco has most of the readily mineable phosphate on our planet. Education of women leads to falling birth rates. My eight great grandparents have only two great grandchildren to carry on their genes. My family tradition is to value education, marry late, and have few offspring.

Nov 29, 2016 - Western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco, just north along the coast, since 1975. If you include this disputed region, Morocco holds more than 72 percent of all phosphate-rock reserves in the world, according to the most recent United States Geological Survey study.
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you Tom, but I happen to agree with Douglas about the population growth exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet. Phosphorus is also a limiting factor for our food supply. Urine is a rich source of phosphorus and we need to stop wasting it. Morocco has most of the readily mineable phosphate on our planet. Education of women leads to falling birth rates. My eight great grandparents have only two great grandchildren to carry on their genes. My family tradition is to value education, marry late, and have few offspring.

Nov 29, 2016 - Western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco, just north along the coast, since 1975. If you include this disputed region, Morocco holds more than 72 percent of all phosphate-rock reserves in the world, according to the most recent United States Geological Survey study.

I have a fabric conditioner bottle that I collect mine in (some of the time) to feed the tomatoes, kale, broad beans, courgettes and spinach I grow around the garden

The veg tastes a million times better than shop bought stuff hut I rarely disclose the provenance of the Veg cropxD

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2019 at 3:16 AM, mad-trader said:

..  Just exterminate the Human population..

just a friendly reminder that exterminating the human population is against community guidelines. :)

  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rodent said:

just a friendly reminder that exterminating the human population is against community guidelines. :)

You've got to love this woman!  

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2019 at 11:32 PM, Dan Warnick said:

So you did the deed but you didn't take the money, right?

"A gentleman never tells..."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keyword search 'male contraception'. Evidently there are now 'male pills' and similar short-term reversible contraceptives for men. If 40% of the world's pregnancies are unplanned, this might reduce the total number of pregnancies by a significant amount. A lot of countries are already at 'below replacement' fertility rates. India, for example, is close, at 2.4. Drop that number by 40% and India is below replacement. At that point the number of people living in 'below replacement' countries exceeds the population of the countries with 'above replacement' birthrates.

In cases where countries are at TFRs around 1 (Hong Kong, Singapore, or Macau) it's likely that these areas would either shrink to insignificance, or draft vast numbers of immigrants from their immediately surrounding neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites