Carbon Emissions at 3-Million-Year High

Who is 'we'?

Look at the fertility rates in industrialized countries. South Korea's is lower than 1, meaning that women of reproductive age are having an average of one child each. Korea's population is presently around 60 million - at that rate it will be 30 million before 2090. Long before that, however, major segments of the economy (education, housing, etc.) will downsize enormously.

Keyword search 'US General Fertility Rate - CDC'. It shows a trend, and this trend, if it continues on it's current path, has the US at 1 child per woman around 2030.

It's an interesting idea as to what a woman and her husband/boyfriend/whatever would think about bringing children into the world with the current environmental projections. Why have kids if they're all going to die in environmental catastrophes.

'We' may be doomed, just not in the way you're thinking.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

"Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms."

 

Utter hogwash.  Total nonsense.  Computer model analysis confirms absolutely *nothing*.

Scaremongering Chicken Little bullpoop at its finest, right here folks.

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

screenhunter_1038-feb-11-18-32.gif

image_30689da1-5427-4ea8-b316-51a10307facf20180711_143811.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

screenhunter_1038-feb-11-18-32.gif

 

That Ford Torino Cobra looks rather neat.... Just saying.....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

'We' may be doomed, just not in the way you're thinking.

Could you please Google "irony"? Thank you. If I make my irony any more obvious it will become offensive and I do not wish to offend.

@Tom Kirkman, you're just a hard-headed denialist, admit it. Percontation mark.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mind blown 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alarmist's have been fear mongering since the 1970s and we are still here! Living perhaps the best life with energy now being affordable to more people around the world than ever before! What's this? Genius scientist AOC now predicts we only have 12 years to live!? So, how will going green now and charging "carbon tax" now help us 12 years from now!? If we will all be extinct anyways!?? 

Oil is perhaps the greatest invention off all time! 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Who is 'we'?

Look at the fertility rates in industrialized countries. South Korea's is lower than 1, meaning that women of reproductive age are having an average of one child each. Korea's population is presently around 60 million - at that rate it will be 30 million before 2090. Long before that, however, major segments of the economy (education, housing, etc.) will downsize enormously.

Keyword search 'US General Fertility Rate - CDC'. It shows a trend, and this trend, if it continues on it's current path, has the US at 1 child per woman around 2030.

It's an interesting idea as to what a woman and her husband/boyfriend/whatever would think about bringing children into the world with the current environmental projections. Why have kids if they're all going to die in environmental catastrophes.

'We' may be doomed, just not in the way you're thinking.

The fertility rate is low due to selfishness and not giving up materialistic lifestyles. Our environment has allowed us to reach the high and growing population that we have worldwide. Birth control and abortion are the chief drivers of low birth rates. (fertility rate is a misnomer, you can be fertile and still choose not to reproduce 

 

https://www.census.gov/popclock/  

U.S. and World Population Clock

See my Population Problems topic.

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

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My computer simulations said Gonzaga was a lock to win the NCAA basketball crown this year. Unfortunately, it hasn't refunded my money back although I'm sure it feels badly for me. I can't help but believe the climate modeling computers feel the same way 

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Birth control and abortion are the chief drivers of low birth rates.

While I won't technically argue with the above assertion, the 'materialistic' lifestyle includes people burdened by student debt, people that can't afford a house in the area in which they work, long commutes, and joblessness. I'm sure that if more people gave up their materialistic lifestyles they could focus on raising their children, along with vegetables and livestock in some rural backwater.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

While I won't technically argue with the above assertion, the 'materialistic' lifestyle includes people burdened by student debt, people that can't afford a house in the area in which they work, long commutes, and joblessness. I'm sure that if more people gave up their materialistic lifestyles they could focus on raising their children, along with vegetables and livestock in some rural backwater.

Student debt getting USELESS degrees... Bingo    Lavish lifestyles: Cell phones, internet, cars(multiple), insurance, massive homes, refuse to cook their own food.  Bingo

As for expensive housing?  Hell no.  Only in a very tiny portion of the population in what? 5 cities/regions.  People in those cities bitch the loudest.   Can buy a nice house in Syracuse NY for $120,000. 

Gets back to all those small manufacturing jobs that used to be in small cities throughout the USA feeding small home and garden/general stores etc which have been decimated by the likes of  Homedepot, Walmart, Kroger who buy in massive volumes which is nice, but built almost exclusively in foreign nations where they effectively have slave labor because of stupid Stupid STUPID WTO free trade which is NOT FREE as it actually keeps dictators in power enslaving MILLIONS.  Want free trade with nations like yours with laws etc which are actually enforced?  Ok, I can get behind that.  Free trade with nations who effectively have no laws other than whoever has all the power?  HELL NO!  100% tariffs on such nations on EVERYTHING. 

Edited by Wastral
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

While I won't technically argue with the above assertion, the 'materialistic' lifestyle includes people burdened by student debt, people that can't afford a house in the area in which they work, long commutes, and joblessness. I'm sure that if more people gave up their materialistic lifestyles they could focus on raising their children, along with vegetables and livestock in some rural backwater.

How about a beautiful and traditional rural lifestyle. One that does not involve heavy traffic and long commutes. One where housing is very affordable and kids have room to play outside rather than stay inside the house for fear the criminals or police would pick them up for playing unsupervised? 

If someone wants an education they can get plenty of free or nearly free education online or join the military services and earn one. Or maybe even work to pay for their tuition. I worked full time while getting my bachelors and my master's degrees. I also had my VA educational benefit and it paid for my house payment and my vehicle.

We currently have a near record low jobless rate so finding work should not be much of a problem. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

My computer simulations said Gonzaga was a lock to win the NCAA basketball crown this year. Unfortunately, it hasn't refunded my money back although I'm sure it feels badly for me. I can't help but believe the climate modeling computers feel the same way 

Sad for you but I am rooting for Michigan State since I was born in Michigan. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Sad for you but I am rooting for Michigan State since I was born in Michigan. 

indeed. Go green! Go white!!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We currently have a near record low jobless rate so finding work should not be much of a problem. 

The 'unemployment rate' is at record lows. The 'labor participation rate' is also at near record lows.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rural populations tend to have high birth rates, industrialized ones, much lower.  Been that way for many, many years.

The overall trend to urban is global. There are birth rates that are quite high, but for the most part, not countries you'd want to live in. Rural areas are losing their youth to the urban ones. One farmer can easily feed a hundred in the USA. Take away the small banks, churches, contracting retail business, schools, and small government jobs, and there isn't much else to do that pays a decent wage in the rural part on NC my father lives. And it's also quite segregated in the roles people do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The 'unemployment rate' is at record lows. The 'labor participation rate' is also at near record lows.

That is because of our very generous social programs that feed and house people in real need and many who prefer not to work although they actually could if motivated. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, John Foote said:

Rural populations tend to have high birth rates, industrialized ones, much lower.  Been that way for many, many years.

The overall trend to urban is global. There are birth rates that are quite high, but for the most part, not countries you'd want to live in. Rural areas are losing their youth to the urban ones. One farmer can easily feed a hundred in the USA. Take away the small banks, churches, contracting retail business, schools, and small government jobs, and there isn't much else to do that pays a decent wage in the rural part on NC my father lives. And it's also quite segregated in the roles people do.

What kind of segregation are you referring to? Racial? 

There are many people who are moving to rural areas, but most prefer to be near a city that offers the basic amenities that most people want. I technically live in the city of Decatur, Illinois "The Soybean Capital of the World" but I live on an acre full of trees. I am within ten minutes of most of the amenities including two large hospitals. After moving from California I lived in a town of 500 between the state capital of Illinois in Springfield Illinois and Decatur. That was about 30 minutes to either one. We loved the rural lifestyle but found that we spent a lot of time and money driving to our jobs in Springfield or Decatur (No traffic though). I definitely classify as suburban now but it feels very rural. I think most people prefer suburban over city life, it is actually a complex issue defining suburban vs. rural, and what is considered urban. 

I winter in Chino Hills California which is great unless you want to go somewhere. Being retired you often have the possibility of picking the best traffic time to go somewhere but not always. The traffic is a really big problem for working folks. It really grates on the nerves and takes a lot of time and money to commute much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

That is because of our very generous social programs that feed and house people in real need and many who prefer not to work although they actually could if motivated. 

In short, the world is full of a lot of worthless people.

I'm surrounded by people that 'know' all kinds of things about people they've never met, or don't interact with in any meaningful way. Some of those people are grinding their axes here. Some of them I meet in restaurants or other local social engagements. Some of these things people 'know' are about hedge fund managers, others about the homeless panhandling on traffic islands.

One of my research topics recently has been 'DNA methylation'. People studying epigenetics are finding that people exposed to various stressors, such as depression, pollution, violence, or whatever pass on certain 'markers' to their offspring. Much of this research is on mice, so one can only infer how this relates to human gene expression. It suggests two things - there are no blanket categorizations, and it may be possible to objectively identify epigentic markers and their subsequent influence on individuals and populations.

It might also be possible to figure out why this happens, and what populations are 'at risk' at present. From the looks of it, urbanization seems to be one factor driving large population segments into ruin.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

In short, the world is full of a lot of worthless people.

I'm surrounded by people that 'know' all kinds of things about people they've never met, or don't interact with in any meaningful way. Some of those people are grinding their axes here. Some of them I meet in restaurants or other local social engagements. Some of these things people 'know' are about hedge fund managers, others about the homeless panhandling on traffic islands.

One of my research topics recently has been 'DNA methylation'. People studying epigenetics are finding that people exposed to various stressors, such as depression, pollution, violence, or whatever pass on certain 'markers' to their offspring. Much of this research is on mice, so one can only infer how this relates to human gene expression. It suggests two things - there are no blanket categorizations, and it may be possible to objectively identify epigentic markers and their subsequent influence on individuals and populations.

It might also be possible to figure out why this happens, and what populations are 'at risk' at present. From the looks of it, urbanization seems to be one factor driving large population segments into ruin.

I tend to go along with that theory. Twenty years working in the psychiatric field leaves me to believe that nature is more powerful than nurture. I have a lot of direct observations from familial perspectives also. Cultural values and traditions also have a powerful influence. Groups that value education normally do better than those that do not. The type of education needed may have changed, however. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to Google Percontation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2019 at 1:39 PM, ronwagn said:

The fertility rate is low due to selfishness and not giving up materialistic lifestyles. Our environment has allowed us to reach the high and growing population that we have worldwide. Birth control and abortion are the chief drivers of low birth rates. (fertility rate is a misnomer, you can be fertile and still choose not to reproduce 

 

 

https://www.census.gov/popclock/  

U.S. and World Population Clock

See my Population Problems topic.

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

 

I like to think negative population growth is more attributable to common sense than selfishness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Marc Savoie said:

I had to Google Percontation

I see what you did there. Well played sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Oil_Engineer said:

I like to think negative population growth is more attributable to common sense than selfishness.

It depends on whether or not you think your genes are worth reproducing in the situation you can provide. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites