Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

Doesn't exponential just mean that X is happening at the rate of some exponent?

That would mean that ANYTHING could be qualified as exponential, because exponents don't need to be integers, nor do they need to be logical numbers.

I.E. an exponent can be a fraction, percent, etc.

The math version is anything w/ the form e^x, and in some disciplines it can be a(b^x), but either way if we're looking at a non-trivial function then in order for it to be exponential the increase from n-1 to n has to be greater than the increase from n-2 to n-1. If we're looking at a linear function then all the increases will be the same.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

If your pile of poo is 30 times bigger (Or whatever other large difference) than the pile of the people you're complaining about, then that's where the hypocrisy is. If not, then it's valid criticism IMO.

Taking this literally, it doesn't work at all. People with different diets will have different fecal density and mass, regardless of having eaten the same caloric content in food.

There are also physiological differences in people which prevent the "poo scale" from being implemented in determining how well off someone is.

I digress.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

That's a little more clear, now.

I guess my version of the boonies is boonier than yours.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

The math version is anything w/ the form e^x, and in some disciplines it can be a(b^x), but either way if we're looking at a non-trivial function then in order for it to be exponential the increase from n-1 to n has to be greater than the increase from n-2 to n-1. If we're looking at a linear function then all the increases will be the same.

Wait - I'm confused.

To be linear, it has to be capable of parallel, regardless of directionality and angle. I get that.

To be exponential, it has to be a curve. I get that.

Does the curve have to be constant? That part I don't get. If the curve isn't constant, each plot on the curve could still be developed by n^X to create the curve as a whole, so why can't it still be called exponential?

(I'm being serious. I didn't bother going through Al 2 before switching to other subjects of study.)

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

Taking this literally, it doesn't work at all. People with different diets will have different fecal density and mass, regardless of having eaten the same caloric content in food.

There are also physiological differences in people which prevent the "poo scale" from being implemented in determining how well off someone is.

I digress.

Shouldn't that be "I digest"? But yeah, complaining about Haitians having a more kids per person when they suck down more than an order of magnitude less energy per person is Bullsheet IMO.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Shouldn't that be "I digest"? But yeah, complaining about Haitians having a more kids per person when they suck down more than an order of magnitude less energy per person is Bullsheet IMO.

I believe the question is whether they would continue to limit themselves to what they're already experiencing if another option were as easily available as their current lifestyle?


IOW - Would they keep having 3.8 KpW, or as food supply/energy availability increases, would they continue to resolve their lifestyles back to their previous levels?

Looking at typical US consumption, I'd have to suggest the latter.

People tend to get more of something, and instead of conserving it, or making it stable and sustainable, spend it that much quicker until they're back in the same spot, only probably worse off in the event of a disaster.

Pay raises are a big one... People get pay raises, and instead of packing away some of that money, they take on another bill. Even though they were barely making it before, the pay raise enables them to keep their head above water, which isn't what they're used to, so the revert to the previous lifestyle by squandering the new income.

I suppose I'm saying that the most likely conclusion is that they've been doing this for so long that they'll likely continue it given another choice, even if that choice is just as simple to adapt as their current lifestyle.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

Wait - I'm confused.

To be linear, it has to be capable of parallel, regardless of directionality and angle. I get that.

To be exponential, it has to be a curve. I get that.

Does the curve have to be constant? That part I don't get. If the curve isn't constant, each plot on the curve could still be developed by n^X to create the curve as a whole, so why can't it still be called exponential?

(I'm being serious. I didn't bother going through Al 2 before switching to other subjects of study.)

IIRC the only things w/ curvature that's a constant are lines/planes (no curvature), circles/spheres (positive curvature), and whatever things w/ negative curvature are called. I'm not sure what you mean by creating the curve though...

[Christ]

If I gave you plot points n^1, n^1.3, n^2.6, n^5.2, n^10.4, you'd be plotting an ascending curve. The exponents aren't constant, though the curve will continue (exponentially?).

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

I believe the question is whether they would continue to limit themselves to what they're already experiencing if another option were as easily available as their current lifestyle?


IOW - Would they keep having 3.8 KpW, or as food supply/energy availability increases, would they continue to resolve their lifestyles back to their previous levels?

Looking at typical US consumption, I'd have to suggest the latter.

People tend to get more of something, and instead of conserving it, or making it stable and sustainable, spend it that much quicker until they're back in the same spot, only probably worse off in the event of a disaster.

Pay raises are a big one... People get pay raises, and instead of packing away some of that money, they take on another bill. Even though they were barely making it before, the pay raise enables them to keep their head above water, which isn't what they're used to, so the revert to the previous lifestyle by squandering the new income.

I suppose I'm saying that the most likely conclusion is that they've been doing this for so long that they'll likely continue it given another choice, even if that choice is just as simple to adapt as their current lifestyle.

What if you tweak/reverse your question? What impact does wealth have on resource consumption? Energy/resource consumption tends to correlate with wealth (although this can vary by a factor of ~3-4), so if people in Haiti were wealthier they would tend to hoover up more in the way of resources like the wealthier countries in the world do. Since they're very poor on average, they don't consume many resources.

It may be that people behave more based on the situation they're in than based on what sort of person they are, for instance it could be that anyone would be a Hitler given the right circumstances, but that doesn't mean it's O.K. for the people doing most of the damage to criticize people doing less damage.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

What if you tweak/reverse your question? What impact does wealth have on resource consumption? Energy/resource consumption tends to correlate with wealth (although this can vary by a factor of ~3-4), so if people in Haiti were wealthier they would tend to hoover up more in the way of resources like the wealthier countries in the world do. Since they're very poor on average, they don't consume many resources.

It may be that people behave more based on the situation they're in than based on what sort of person they are, for instance it could be that anyone would be a Hitler given the right circumstances, but that doesn't mean it's O.K. for the people doing most of the damage to criticize people doing less damage.

The amount of damage they're doing (vs what we are) per capita/per unit of energy is actually subject to intense debate, because of the methods they use to produce their energy.

Sure, they're living proof that we probably don't "need" all the energy we use, but we're accustomed to the amount of consumption we currently support (without regard to the eventual limitations of our current consumption).

Per unit of energy, there is a possibility that we're doing less damage.

On a scaled basis, we're probably "dirty" compared to them.