HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2016, 7:30 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Lets rail it in on the name calling. No one wants edits or posts removed. Greatly appreciated.
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2016, 10:39 PM
SkydivePilot SkydivePilot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: REGINA
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
CO2 is good for plants. I support the increase in CO2. This study shows that increased CO2 is good for the world economy(until 2080), even if you accept that CO2 causes the levels of warming with positive feedback.(I have been convinced of negative feedback by ocean temperature data, but you may disagree) Cold kills many more people than heat.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.2.29
We know that CO2 is good for plants - that's all fine-and-dandy. Global warming expands the volume of water as it heats up as well; ask the folks of southern Florida and Cuba. Miami experiences high tide every day --- and within the inner city as well. (That's nothing new anymore. In fact, city councillors are not permitted to publicly discuss the fact that Miami is being overrun by seawater on a daily basis.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 1:36 AM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
The birth rate exceeds the death rate in all developing countries. We cannot even feed 7 million people, and you seriously think we will have no problem feeding 11 million people?
The birth rates are higher than the death rates, because less people are dying. As the populations age the death rates will increase. The problem with feeding more people is not the resources, but the fact that 90% of the farms in the world use very inefficient and labour intensive subsistence farming. You seem to think that the world just produces x amount of food, and cannot feed more people, when in fact it is the fact that the methods of getting food without much capital almost everywhere in the world don't produce the amount of food from one person's labour that you would see as enough to feed one person. Less people doesn't solve the problem, investments in agriculture do.
Quote:
I never said anything of the sort.
You didn't say it, it just seems like it.
Quote:
BY denying that the World has too many human beings, you are simply ignoring the problem.
What is an actual problem in the world right now that would be solved had less people had been born?

You are saying that it would be better if x number of people had not been born. I think that is wrong, as people create wealth, and generally do not destroy it. There is lots of land that isn't farmed, so more people can get more food from the land if they put in the work than they need. To say there are too many people I assume means that there are more people than the earth can provide for. You might look at resources like water and oil as things that are being used too fast, but there are replacements for oil, and the ocean has lots of water that can be used for a price that would still allow people to be quite wealthy, even if it had to be used for irrigation. Where in the world would it be better to have less people? If you take a poor African village as an example, what would have happened if only 1/4 of the people had been born there? Do you think life there would be better?

Quote:
Quote:
The industrial revolution brought the population from a dirt poor 1 billion to a much richer 7.4 so far. If China-style industrial development can reach the entire world, the entire world will be rich, and can use the money to overcome the problems(like using desalination for water problems.)
That will never happen.
It happened in Britain, many european nations, and the US and Canada. It is happening in much of Asia, and you are saying that it can't happen for the entire world? Government incompetence (i.e. land transfers in Zimbabwe) is usually why companies don't build factories in areas of extreme poverty, so they prefer places like Bangladesh instead of much of Africa. As more and more governments wake up, industry will flourish in them and create wealth.
Quote:
Additionally, most of the World's population lives in poverty. You are ignorant to the problems the World is facing. Have you ever been on a reserve? There are problems with poverty, inadequate housing, and water supplies for a substantial amount of people in Canada.
^ You are giving hints of your past affecting you...

Quote:
Now you are being a condescending prick.
... ^ and now you are rejecting looking into it... I'm condescending? You are saying a large portion of the people alive shouldn't have been born...
Quote:
To tell you the truth, I would much rather live to only be 45, and lead a happy and fulfilling life, than live to be 80, and be a product of the rat race. Our first Nations people lived this way for thousands of years.
... ^ I think this is it. The rat race? What kind of rat race were you brought up in? ...
Quote:
What has increased life expectancy brought them? It must be wonderful to live a life with complete indifference and ignorance to the plight of most of the World's population. Just look no further then what is happening with the migrant problem in Europe as a example of this.
^ ... You see the light outside, thinking about how wonderful your life would be if you rejected your ideas, but you can't, so you say I am ignorant, because you are ignorant of the knowledge of how this "rat race" has affected you. Seriously, I know you are not going to have a good reaction to this, but hold that reaction back and think about why you see developments as bad.

Re-quoting below to analyze the points instead of the motive.
Quote:
Additionally, most of the World's population lives in poverty. You are ignorant to the problems the World is facing. Have you ever been on a reserve? There are problems with poverty, inadequate housing, and water supplies for a substantial amount of people in Canada.
But poverty is decreasing despite the population increase. The decrease in poverty is the cause of the population increase. It's not like people started having more kids, it is that less children are dying. And for some reason this world of death to most children is where you want to go to to have a "happy and fulfilling life".

I've seen places much worse a reserve. In Canada if you work hard, you can live without poverty, inadequate housing, and inadequate water supplies; there are lots of jobs, they just require skills people have to acquire -- don't tell me that people on the reserves don't have access to acquire such skills, the government dishes out large quantities of money for this purpose with some success. Are you blaming the poor condition of reserves on overpopulation?

Poverty is just an arbitrary word. Before long anyone who can't afford internet and a cell phone will be considered poor.

Quote:
To tell you the truth, I would much rather live to only be 45, and lead a happy and fulfilling life, than live to be 80, and be a product of the rat race. Our first Nations people lived this way for thousands of years.
Now this is strange, and pretty much confirms my suspicion that you are avoiding your past. Do you think it would be better if we lived like the First Nations did?

It is important to realize that the world's population is increasing not because birth rates are rising, but because infant mortality and life expectancy have improved. Do you want to live in a place where parents have many children, but few survive? You said, "There are problems with poverty, inadequate housing, and water supplies," but were these things better the way the First Nations lived? Was that adequate housing? What is stopping them from going into the forests and doing this now? Maybe some cannot because of land availability but no one does. Why are millions of people around the world moving from their subsistence farming villages to the city to work if they prefer living a, "happy and fulfilling life," instead of a "rat race," in the city?
Quote:
What has increased life expectancy brought them? It must be wonderful to live a life with complete indifference and ignorance to the plight of most of the World's population. Just look no further then what is happening with the migrant problem in Europe as a example of this.
It is not just increased life expectancy, it is more food for better nutrition, it is better housing(heated, with electricity). People died at 45 (and continue to do so in many places in the world) of nutritional problems and bad sanitation because of a lack of development -- the very development you (and environmentalism) seem to oppose.

What does the migrant problem have to do with overpopulation? Actually, none of the problems you pointed out would be solved had less people been born.

Capitalistic development is the reason you can read this message. Many people breathed the smoke like in Beijing so you could have the life you have. They sacrificed for the next generations -- and now you are telling them they have done a great disservice to the world. Yet you take my, "Go live in the forest" idea as a joke, as you know your life is much better here. Why?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 1:41 AM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkydivePilot View Post
We know that CO2 is good for plants - that's all fine-and-dandy. Global warming expands the volume of water as it heats up as well; ask the folks of southern Florida and Cuba. Miami experiences high tide every day --- and within the inner city as well. (That's nothing new anymore. In fact, city councillors are not permitted to publicly discuss the fact that Miami is being overrun by seawater on a daily basis.)
So there are a few water issues that come with ocean warming. The ocean has not really warmed since they started measuring the temperatures properly. You can check out NOAA data for more info. Oceans have been rising since forever. The economic benefits still outweigh the costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 4:53 AM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
So there are a few water issues that come with ocean warming. The ocean has not really warmed since they started measuring the temperatures properly. You can check out NOAA data for more info. Oceans have been rising since forever. The economic benefits still outweigh the costs.
A significant portion of Antarctica is sinking into the Ocean, due to Global Warming. Temperatures have indeed been rising in the last 50 years. Even the NOAA site claims that 2015 was the warmest year on record:

http://www.noaa.gov/climate

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 4:26 PM
SkydivePilot SkydivePilot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: REGINA
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
So there are a few water issues that come with ocean warming. The ocean has not really warmed since they started measuring the temperatures properly. You can check out NOAA data for more info. Oceans have been rising since forever. The economic benefits still outweigh the costs.
Dude, say that to the people of Bangladesh. Besides that, the ocean in equatorial regions are warming up. (Ergo, expanding volume-wise.)

All the oceans have to is rise 0.2C [as of 2008/carbon count reaching 450 ppm] in order for the methane and CO2 gases to start to be released. Gee, guess what happens then?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2016, 4:54 PM
James Gablan James Gablan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 53
I am going to make a comparison between fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel based technologies and societies; and scaffolding.

Both are temporary: fossil fuel are temporary by the very nature of their non-renewability, scaffolding is temporary in that its only purpose is to facilitate the construction of a permanent structure.

I believe that when the fossil fuel based society is viewed as a scaffolding and not as the pinnacle of human achievement its place in the history of human civilization can be properly appreciated.

Oil, being a fossil fuel, will only have value so long as our civilizations are in the scaffolding stage of development. Water, on the other hand, is used in both the construction and operation of a building. While oil consumption will probably, over the next century, fall almost to zero; water consumption will remain high.

Thus bringing us back to the original question what if fresh water was the new oil? this question implies that water will become a non-renewable resource, it will not. Fresh water will remain abundant on Earth and will probably increase in availability as future societies will probably pollute it less than contemporary ones do. Also the availability of abundant energy in a post fossil fuel world will make it cheap and easy to purify sea water in parts of the world that do not naturally have abundant supplies of fresh water.

Abundant energy will exist in a post fossil fuel world because we are investing a part of our fossil energy in developing the tools and technologies needed to create cheap, abundant, clean sources and distribution systems for energy such as: solar, wind, nuclear fusion, smart grids, superconductors, electrified transportation systems, etc.

Fresh water may temporarily increase in value over the next few decades as existing sources are polluted and aquifers drained but this will largely be confined to the developing world. In the developed world levels of water pollution are already in decline. Fresh water is available for free at restaurants public fountains and barring a few exceptions from every tap in every home. This was not true 100 years ago.

Fresh water become free in the developed world because it became more abundant because we developed better tools for cleaning and transporting it. Those tools will continue to improve and will be deployed in more places, this will, over the long term, continue to make fresh water even more abundant and cheaper than it is today.

In conclusion, I don't see any opportunity in exporting fresh water (Buffalo Pound did not become a thriving metropolis based on the export of water to Regina) or future in exporting oil. These are not the industries of the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2016, 5:17 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
The birth rates are higher than the death rates, because less people are dying. As the populations age the death rates will increase. The problem with feeding more people is not the resources, but the fact that 90% of the farms in the world use very inefficient and labour intensive subsistence farming. You seem to think that the world just produces x amount of food, and cannot feed more people, when in fact it is the fact that the methods of getting food without much capital almost everywhere in the world don't produce the amount of food from one person's labour that you would see as enough to feed one person. Less people doesn't solve the problem, investments in agriculture do.
You didn't say it, it just seems like it.
What is an actual problem in the world right now that would be solved had less people had been born?

You are saying that it would be better if x number of people had not been born. I think that is wrong, as people create wealth, and generally do not destroy it. There is lots of land that isn't farmed, so more people can get more food from the land if they put in the work than they need. To say there are too many people I assume means that there are more people than the earth can provide for. You might look at resources like water and oil as things that are being used too fast, but there are replacements for oil, and the ocean has lots of water that can be used for a price that would still allow people to be quite wealthy, even if it had to be used for irrigation. Where in the world would it be better to have less people? If you take a poor African village as an example, what would have happened if only 1/4 of the people had been born there? Do you think life there would be better?


It happened in Britain, many european nations, and the US and Canada. It is happening in much of Asia, and you are saying that it can't happen for the entire world? Government incompetence (i.e. land transfers in Zimbabwe) is usually why companies don't build factories in areas of extreme poverty, so they prefer places like Bangladesh instead of much of Africa. As more and more governments wake up, industry will flourish in them and create wealth.
^ You are giving hints of your past affecting you...


... ^ and now you are rejecting looking into it... I'm condescending? You are saying a large portion of the people alive shouldn't have been born...

... ^ I think this is it. The rat race? What kind of rat race were you brought up in? ...

^ ... You see the light outside, thinking about how wonderful your life would be if you rejected your ideas, but you can't, so you say I am ignorant, because you are ignorant of the knowledge of how this "rat race" has affected you. Seriously, I know you are not going to have a good reaction to this, but hold that reaction back and think about why you see developments as bad.

Re-quoting below to analyze the points instead of the motive.

But poverty is decreasing despite the population increase. The decrease in poverty is the cause of the population increase. It's not like people started having more kids, it is that less children are dying. And for some reason this world of death to most children is where you want to go to to have a "happy and fulfilling life".

I've seen places much worse a reserve. In Canada if you work hard, you can live without poverty, inadequate housing, and inadequate water supplies; there are lots of jobs, they just require skills people have to acquire -- don't tell me that people on the reserves don't have access to acquire such skills, the government dishes out large quantities of money for this purpose with some success. Are you blaming the poor condition of reserves on overpopulation?

Poverty is just an arbitrary word. Before long anyone who can't afford internet and a cell phone will be considered poor.



Now this is strange, and pretty much confirms my suspicion that you are avoiding your past. Do you think it would be better if we lived like the First Nations did?

It is important to realize that the world's population is increasing not because birth rates are rising, but because infant mortality and life expectancy have improved. Do you want to live in a place where parents have many children, but few survive? You said, "There are problems with poverty, inadequate housing, and water supplies," but were these things better the way the First Nations lived? Was that adequate housing? What is stopping them from going into the forests and doing this now? Maybe some cannot because of land availability but no one does. Why are millions of people around the world moving from their subsistence farming villages to the city to work if they prefer living a, "happy and fulfilling life," instead of a "rat race," in the city?

It is not just increased life expectancy, it is more food for better nutrition, it is better housing(heated, with electricity). People died at 45 (and continue to do so in many places in the world) of nutritional problems and bad sanitation because of a lack of development -- the very development you (and environmentalism) seem to oppose.

What does the migrant problem have to do with overpopulation? Actually, none of the problems you pointed out would be solved had less people been born.

Capitalistic development is the reason you can read this message. Many people breathed the smoke like in Beijing so you could have the life you have. They sacrificed for the next generations -- and now you are telling them they have done a great disservice to the world. Yet you take my, "Go live in the forest" idea as a joke, as you know your life is much better here. Why?
I have said all that needs to be said, in regards to this topic. I have moved on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.