Saving the World with $100 billion.

[Xist]

Wow. Page seven is entirely between my esteemed colleagues, Arragonis and Frank Lee. I was catching up on sleep after pulling an all-nighter, trying to cram for two tests, at the VA, and then trying to make another deadline.

Ah. Right. I interrupted it with this. Hmm...

I do not know how much I could have contributed, though. I think that once again, the problem is distribution. When I found and read about water.org, they said they had twenty times as much success digging wells when communities requested aid than when they initiated contact. Also, I think that helping people works better when the time, money, and resources (money) are freely given, instead of taxed.

Again, P-hack said that the world does not want to be saved.

Does the problem come down to the oversimplified social equation of:

Sex = kids

?

Frank Lee, do you have a problem with a millionaire having three or more children?

Do you have a problem with me spawning three or more, as long I support them myself, without asking or accepting help from the government or elsewhere?

Honestly, I am glad that we have differences of opinions, as long as we try to hold civilized discussions, and I accept responsibility for bringing up something that, as was pointed out, is political. Whether or not I am actually trying to figure out how to save the world, or whether I could ever do anything about it, we are discussing huge issues, and they are hugely complicated.

Solutions usually have downsides. Medications have side effects. If the side effects outweigh the benefits, they are not treatments.

So, $100 billion funding vasectomies in third-world countries?

I will add that I read an article the other day stating that reducing populations leave fewer people to support the elderly, and it explained how much of the overall expense of medical costs go to senior citizens.

My dad dropped by yesterday to do me a favor. He has run his own business for several years and has all but run out of clients. He believes in what he is doing more than almost anything. I mentioned this discussion to him and he talked about the specific population that he has been trying to help and their lack of education, training, and jobs. Almost any work done there requires bringing outside people and there are not any small businesses so that money stayed in the community.

They are going to rely on social security. My brother is autistic and my parents would not be able to take care of him without social security. I have posted here before about different efforts to help out my parents. Part of my motivation to do well in school is that I want to figure out how to help my parents retire. Maybe that is as feasible as saving the world for $100 billion, but I am going to do what I can, and I am going to start by getting back to my schoolwork.

[Arragonis]

Nope mine first. So have you ?

EDIT @Frank.

[Frank Lee]

Frank Lee, do you have a problem with a millionaire having three or more children?

Doesn't matter- are they part of the solution or part of the problem?

When I was out in Cali I met a guy who went on a rant about all the Mexicans. I said they take up the same space as any other color and each one is another unit.

So back to your project, say you feed or dig some wells or something for $100B. Is the problem solved, or is it back again in 20 years, half-again bigger that time?

[gone-ot]

My humble offering for "Quote-of-the-Day":

"...if you can't FEED them, don't BREED them..."

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

One kid and that's quite enough.

Now do try to stay focused.

Like answering some of my questions.

Quote:
When do you think this levelling off or possible reversal might be, and what will the TOTAL be by that time?
Does a drop in the birth rate cause expansion, sprawl, population growth, and the like to stop?

Jeez, ...hyperventilate much? Take deep slow breaths. Nothing sadder, as a "breeder" than limiting yourself to one offspring and seeing them fail to reproduce. All these estimates and predictive curves are based on a non-catastrophic future. ...and past. Take a look at a picture of the planet—Saharasia is a blight. (I blame it on a nuclear exchange in antiquity, else cattle overgrazing) If desertification is rolled back (and eating red meat) the planet's ability to sustain an increasing percentage (half empty) or mass (half full) of humanity only increases.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Line losses. Figure roughly 1% per 100 miles for HV, which makes anything over about 4000 miles impractical.

From your Wikipedia link:

As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this.[7]
In any alternating current transmission line, the inductance and capacitance of the conductors can be significant. Currents that flow solely in 'reaction' to these properties of the circuit, (which together with the resistance define the impedance) constitute reactive power flow, which transmits no 'real' power to the load.

Here's a look at Bucky's proposal:

Global Energy Grid - The Details - GENI Overview - International - Issues - Global Energy Network Institute - GENI is the highest priority objective of the World Game, by R. Buckminster Fuller

If you still aren't convinced that it is feasible with Ultra High Voltage DC, there's always Eric P. Dollard

Eric Dollard | Gestalt Reality

I'm going to hit Submit now before another page of comments goes by.
_____

Edit: Xist --

Also, I think that helping people works better when the time, money, and resources (money) are freely given, instead of taxed.

That would be Agorism, or Social Anarchism

Again, P-hack said that the world does not want to be saved.

I reluctantly have come to the same conclusion, but Ghandi had a relevant quote. Something about "...but it's still important that you do it."

[Frank Lee]

Jeez, ...hyperventilate much? Take deep slow breaths. Nothing sadder, as a "breeder" than limiting yourself to one offspring and seeing them fail to reproduce. All these estimates and predictive curves are based on a non-catastrophic future. ...and past. Take a look at a picture of the planet—Saharasia is a blight. (I blame it on a nuclear exchange in antiquity, else cattle overgrazing) If desertification is rolled back (and eating red meat) the planet's ability to sustain an increasing percentage (half empty) or mass (half full) of humanity only increases.

I'm not hyperventilating.

Yes, there are many things sadder than not producing a litter. Have you seen the obese, stupid-looking creatures that are? Now THAT is sad.

What is this about "capacity". Have you not read anything I wrote? Quietude, congestion... ring a bell? QUALITY of life is as important or even moreso than QUANTITY. How far out in the sticks must I be forced to relocate to get away from the hoards of idiots? Even when you are out in the sticks, that is no guarantee that you won't have to listen to some idiot with an engine or a gun or whatever it may be.

Tell me about what purpose it serves to load 'er right up to full capacity. It must be awesome. This ought to be good.

How do you know when full capacity has been reached? When people are eating dirt and starving to death? (Oh... wait... they do that now.) When there isn't a square inch anywhere without some ding-dong on it? When the only form of mammalian life left is human? When?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'm not hyperventilating.

You seem to be hysterical though.

[Frank Lee]

Hysterical is where you stop making sense. Have I done that?

[Econoguru]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Does a drop in the birth rate cause expansion, sprawl, population growth, and the like to stop?

Pretty sure a drop in the birth rate will cause population growth to stop

[P-hack]

It would need to drop to zero, and as far as I know, everything to the right of 2010 in that "graph" is imaginary (and not indicative of world growth).