smart51
|
| posted on 8/7/08 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
I heard that sometjhing like 30 % of people that have ever lived are alive right now!!
If the population of the world in 2000 was 6 billion and you assume that it grew by 7% every 20 years then the population of the world was 12 in about
3900 BC. Then the total number of people ever to have lived is 91,000,000,000. Therefore 1 in 15 people who have ever lived in the last 5900 years,
or 6.5%, is alive now.
Of course, this is just fiction. Millions died in wars in the 20th century alone. Plenty used to die of starvation or disese. Until maybe 50 years
ago, a high proportion died during birth, and their mothers.
Technology, medicen and food storage means more of us live long enough to have children of our own. We have naturally compensated by having fewer
children each, even without laws telling us to.
The birth rate in europe now is less than 2 children per couple (per mother, strictly). European populations are only going up because we are
steadily living longer. Once the death rate steadies, the population will fall. Even in countries like India, the birth rate is only a little above
2 per couple. The number of single children families in the UK is at an all time high. I was one of three, which was quite common in my generation.
My mother was one of 6, which was not uncommon. One of my great grandparents was one of 13 births, only 6 of whom grew to be adults.
If we continue as we are, the world's population will peak in about 2075 according to the UN. then there'll be a slow contraction as the
number of births continues between 1 and 2 per couple, but the deaths per couple remain at 2 out of 2.
[Edited on 8-7-2008 by smart51]
|
|
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 8/7/08 at 03:44 PM |
|
|
I take it all those ranting about the need for a large human cull aren't putting themselves or their families forwards? Back in reality we
have to accept our growing population and come up with ways to support and/or regulate its growth!
Biofuels are a bit of a fad with dubious long term prospects imo. Another 'soundbite' not yet mentioned here is that apparently the
damage to the environment from CO2 mitigated by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels is largely offset by damage from NO2 related to all the nitrogen
fertiliser required to grow the biofuel crops. Seems like the biofuel bubble could be bursting already.
As has been mentioned above the best long term solution imo is nuclear - but fusion as opposed to fission. No pollution, no possibility for large
accidents and no long-life radioactive waste - in fact almost no radioactive waste at all. I went round JET in Culham with work last year and
basically they're quietly getting on with solving all the scientific and engineering problems related to producing a commercial fusion power
plant. Will be a few decades yet though at current funding levels. Good luck to them I say (and to hell with the ignorant short-sighted green
brigade who'd prevent money being spent on this kind of research if they could, whilst living comfortably off the back of people who
aren't afraid of technological innovation).
Liam
[Edited on 8/7/08 by Liam]
|
|
|
nstrug
|
| posted on 8/7/08 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/myths.html
Ah the great Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist who is most heavily invested in US ethanol production.
Even his own figures show a maximum of 50% margin - so for every 1000 tonnes of corn/sugarcane you harvest, 400 tonnes will be used in turning the
remainder into ethanol - hardly a great use of resources.
Personally, my own reasons for rejecting biofuels are purely selfish - I'd like my kids to experience rainforests and countryside in the way
I've been able to, rather than the entire planet being covered in oil palm and sugar cane.
Nick
|
|
|
nstrug
|
| posted on 8/7/08 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
As has been mentioned above the best long term solution imo is nuclear - but fusion as opposed to fission. No pollution, no possibility for large
accidents and no long-life radioactive waste - in fact almost no radioactive waste at all. I went round JET in Culham with work last year and
basically they're quietly getting on with solving all the scientific and engineering problems related to producing a commercial fusion power
plant. Will be a few decades yet though at current funding levels. Good luck to them I say (and to hell with the ignorant short-sighted green
brigade who'd prevent money being spent on this kind of research if they could, whilst living comfortably off the back of people who
aren't afraid of technological innovation).
The ITER project currently being built in France is the follow-on to JET and will be the first fusion reactor to produce more energy than it produces
- amazing stuff - http://www.iter.org
But don't write off fission just yet - designs like pebble bed reactors and the energy amplifier are also very exciting.
Nick
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 8/7/08 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
i'm firmly in the nuclear group - so much so my gf had to suffer me arguing with a greenpeace person at glasto.
They wanted me to sign a "no more coal power stations" campagain. I refused until i was told exactly what i'd be signing up for as
greenpeace refuse to accept nuclear and they're not doing that in my name.
Anyway, we had a long 'discussion' (i was drunk, she was 70). She believes society is starting to crumble and wave power is the future. I
asked her what evidence there was wave power worked - she had none (as far as i'm aware the three major trials started recently, two have broken
and one isn't generating anything like the eleccy they expected). She refused to consider anything else but wave - with ZERO evidence it works
& kept asking me to sign the petition whilst telling me society was knackered and we're heading to chaos .......... so why sign the
petition, its not as tho they'll get built as in 10 years we'll be every man for himself.
I despair!
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 9/7/08 at 09:05 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Anyway, we had a long 'discussion' (i was drunk, she was 70).
your gf is 70...how old are you?
[Edited on 9/7/08 by Mr Whippy]
|
|
|
