Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2015, 10:54 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
Population growth is strongly correlated to poverty. Once people are rich enough to spoil their kids they quickly learn to control their breeding prowess.

Or maybe it is because once rich they start polluting with a vengeance and have less time on their hands to breed?
Basically, when you've been elevated to middle class, you either become that one-in-a-million who chances upon the opportunity to start a business and become stinking rich, or you become one of the other 999,999 stuck on the financial treadmill, trying to maintain a middle class lifestyle on thinner and thinner marginal income, with no time or extra income to dedicate to having children.

For many, having children is a sure way to become poorer again (at least for the twenty or so years before you can kick them out of the house so they can find collegiate level employment).

-

When you're poor, having more children so you can crowd out the rich isn't some long-term survival strategy. You have more children because: 1.) you've got more time on your hands and less hobbies, 2.) because you don't know better, and 3.) because children, within four or five short years, become useful economic units (whereas children in middle class families take decades to give you a return on investment).

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-14-2015, 06:09 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
basically that is a load of B.S. and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and the current situation. Because you are looking to assign fault for the environment, hoping for a blank check to "fix it", and you would have the middle class pay for it all, like the rich do, and like the poor do. Constant pummeling of the middle class is exactly why we have such an uneven distribution of wealth. (Yay, we sucked the middle class dry, lets blame it on one extreme or the other!!!)

Last edited by P-hack; 07-14-2015 at 06:16 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 06:35 AM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
how fast? well according to gore the sky should be in flames already.
Didn't ask about gore .. Don't care how fast would satisfy gore .. Data shows sky is not in flames.

I asked about you.

Obviously the progress (in the right direction) over the last 60 years on human population has not been fast enough for you ... soo .. how fast of a correction would satisfy you ??

For example:
If we had made this same progress of the last 60 years in just 30 years would that have been fast enough to satisfy you ? .. If not how fast would be fast enough rate of progress to satisfy you ?
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 06:40 AM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
I never passed judgement on how fast or slow it should have been, nor claimed to be anything more than an observer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 08:08 AM   #25 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 10,688

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 33.43 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 33.15 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,010
Thanked 1,997 Times in 1,522 Posts
So, ecomodding is cool, right?
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Xist For This Useful Post:
Arragonis (07-14-2015), niky (07-15-2015)
Old 07-14-2015, 05:00 PM   #26 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist View Post
So, ecomodding is cool, right?
Yes, for whatever reason you prefer.

Go in peace kids.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Arragonis For This Useful Post:
Xist (07-15-2015)
Old 07-14-2015, 06:14 PM   #27 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 1,852

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 51.65 mpg (US)

Tycho the Truck - '91 Toyota Pickup DLX 4WD
90 day: 23.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 197
Thanked 1,655 Times in 872 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
Didn't ask about gore .. Don't care how fast would satisfy gore .. Data shows sky is not in flames.

I asked about you.

Obviously the progress (in the right direction) over the last 60 years on human population has not been fast enough for you ... soo .. how fast of a correction would satisfy you ??

For example:
If we had made this same progress of the last 60 years in just 30 years would that have been fast enough to satisfy you ? .. If not how fast would be fast enough rate of progress to satisfy you ?
Wait, what "progress" on population? In the time since my parents married 45 years ago, we've added more humans to our population than there were on earth on their wedding day. Global emissions have increased every decade since we started measuring them. And, the US is one of the worst offenders, with an emission rate per person of nearly 18 tons/year, almost 3x higher than China and in the top 10 highest in the world.
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 06:46 PM   #28 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Look at the trend on the trend. Experts have.

Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | TED Talk | TED.com
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Arragonis For This Useful Post:
IamIan (07-14-2015)
Old 07-14-2015, 07:24 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Thanks: 371
Thanked 227 Times in 140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
Wait, what "progress" on population?
Net global population growth rate has reduced (slowed) to ~1/2 of the rate of growth it was .. including a ~30% increase in life expectancy over the same time period .. If not for the increased life expectancy .. the rate of growth would have been about ~1/4 of the rate is was previously .. this well documented slowing is progress in the correct direction.

Weather it is a 'fast enough' rate of progress .. or weather this type of progress will continue 'long enough' ... only time will tell.

- - - - - - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-Hack
I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
I never passed judgement on how fast or slow it should have been, nor claimed to be anything more than an observer.

I'm confused!

If you didn't judge conflict to achieved any faster progress than the rate we have already seen in the last ~60 years ... why would you prefer conflict????

For example:
In the last ~40 years .. reduced growth rate as resulted in about ~2 Billion less people today ... if instead the growth rate had not reduced .. and conflict was used instead to remove / kill the same ~2 Billion people .. we would still either way have the same total number of people today .. I don't see how the conflict method (if not being judged preferentially faster) .. is any better .. if anything it seems vastly inferior to the reducing growth rate we have been doing instead.

It seemed to me (my interpretation of your posts);
You had passed judgement on the rate of progress .. you decided the rate of progress in the last ~60 years was too slow .. and you wanted a 'faster' rate of progress .. your chosen method was conflict .... Thus why I ask ... How fast does the non-conflict progress have to be , to satisfy you ?

FYI ... This interpretation of mine (of your posts) was also based on your previous comments when we last discussed human population growth rate last year.

For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-Hack
well the population is still growing, and aside from hockey stick type theories, there isn't much reason to think that it will stop in time
"stop in time" ... really strongly read to me that a major part of your objection is you judging that the progress of the last ~60 years has not been fast enough .. thus my question now ... How fast is fast enough to satisfy you ?

If the rates are the same .. I don't see how conflict is a better answer ??
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - LiFePO4 PHEV - Solar
2020 Inmotion V11 PEV ~30miles/kwh

Last edited by IamIan; 07-14-2015 at 07:39 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 09:56 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
I like ecomodding too, good way to save money and gain some skills.

People pulling the fire alarm and expecting the middle class to write blank checks for invisible flames, not so much.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com