Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by 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?).

Seems to me like it's just n^x over the rationals. You're only looking at a few points, but that doesn't change what it is.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

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.

Why? Even if you disregard my opinions about egalitarianism, energy per person isn't the fundamental problem, living space is. Even if there was some magical source that'd provide unlimited cheap & emissions-free energy, you'd still need so much land per person for houses & infrastructure, so much more for the farmlands & factories. So taking for instance Haiti, there are about 850 people for every square mile. That doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for anything else, and is far too crowded for anyone to live a decent life.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Seems to me like it's just n^x over the rationals. You're only looking at a few points, but that doesn't change what it is.

It is just n^X, but how does that describe or whether or not a curve could be considered exponential?

I still don't see that exponential should be defined as constantly growing at an increasing rate, which is what I feel you've suggested in previous posts.

If one really wanted to push it, one could say that something which is increasing exponentially is actually decreasing, if said exponent is in a negative range.

IOW - If something were increasing by an exponent of -10, it's decreasing. In physics, there is no "take-away", so everything which "decreases" actually advances in a negative direction. (As far as I'm aware, anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong.)

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Why? Even if you disregard my opinions about egalitarianism, energy per person isn't the fundamental problem, living space is. Even if there was some magical source that'd provide unlimited cheap & emissions-free energy, you'd still need so much land per person for houses & infrastructure, so much more for the farmlands & factories. So taking for instance Haiti, there are about 850 people for every square mile. That doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for anything else, and is far too crowded for anyone to live a decent life.

Resource consumption and it's externalized impacts are the big issue IMO because we're exceeding what the planet can deal with. I just use energy consumption per capita because it's a good metric for environmental impact and is readily available. As it stand each person has ~4-5 acres of land if we broke all the world's land up evenly, which may not be enough living space for you but is plenty for most. In Haiti they have a little under an acre per person, which seems to be fine for them, and a bunch of other countries (the Netherlands and Japan for instance) have similar population density so it isn't exactly something new. Like I said before, Haiti's problems are mostly because they are one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

It is just n^X, but how does that describe or whether or not a curve could be considered exponential?

I still don't see that exponential should be defined as constantly growing at an increasing rate, which is what I feel you've suggested in previous posts.

Partition up your points according to each integer and pick a number, for n, say 2. Find me a value of x where (2^(x)-2^(x-1)) is not greater than (2^(x-1)-2^(x-2)). For instance, if x is 4, then 2^4-2^3=8 is greater than 2^3-2^2=4, so that ain't one. Find one.

Originally Posted by Christ

If one really wanted to push it, one could say that something which is increasing exponentially is actually decreasing, if said exponent is in a negative range.

IOW - If something were increasing by an exponent of -10, it's decreasing. In physics, there is no "take-away", so everything which "decreases" actually advances in a negative direction. (As far as I'm aware, anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong.)

That's true, but then the function is exponential decline, not exponential growth.

[cfg83]

Wonderboy -

Thanks for the URL. Sounds like he beat the system. I am entirely sympathetic, but will stay one of the drones.

If I had time I would analyze this :

Worldmapper: The world as you've never seen it before

I like this one the most :

Worldmapper: Human Development

Uff da!

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

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.

That ain't the metric. It's the fact that their quality of life sucks and they just keep piling it on. I see you neglected to respond to that part of my earlier post.

[blueflame]

Religion is for crazy people and education is so dire everywhere, we call dummies drongoes in NZ. We the nerdy boffins should no that better than anyone

[gone-ot]

"blueflame" = perfect combustion, a Chevrolet 6-cylinder Corvette engine, a sad verbal trirade...which?

[Bicycle Bob]

Regarding growth in the boonies: I live 80 miles from the nearest traffic light, in a town of about 1,000 people. This one does not even show up on the old maps, but it was the first one around here to put in sewers, which led to a concentration of businesses. New houses are still going up here, even though the hospital is loosing services and other, nearby towns are shrinking. Originally, there was a town every seven miles along the railway, to provide water for steam locomotives, and because farms were small and labour-intensive. One of the ghost towns was bought up by people from Vancouver, avoiding the Olympic debt, etc.

Re: overpopulation in poor countries. There is a clear pattern of people having large families if there is no other form of old-age security. Also, in poor areas, children are a major source of entertainment, and often an asset to a family business.