We Are All Spaniards

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article pDV8c.98339$Cb.1264816@attbi_s51, Jay Honeck wrote:
I doubt things have improved much -- although, if your reproduction
rates
keep dropping, your welfare states will soon evaporate.

There are *far* too many people on this planet - a drop in reproduction
rates is a *good* thing. The oil isn't going to last forever,

Throughout history, such shortages were always a factor in humanit's
existance. Going al the way back to the ancient empires, copper, wood, coal,
whale oil, etc. always had a crisis. (Economics is the study creating plenty
out of scarcity).

and our
highly productive intensive agricultural systems

Highly _what_ intensive?

are absolutely
dependent on oil.

A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
Industry was coal fired/steam powered.

Who'd thunk just a few generations later...

Humans need to downsize, or the Earth will downsize
us.

Thomas Malthus said that over 200 years ago (IOW: I'm okay, you're okay,
everyone else is excess) when the earth population was, what, a fifth what
it is today? At the time, maybe 5% of people lived beyond a subsistence
existence. Well, fast forward 200 years and TADA!! more people, more
prosperity, higher living standards, longer life expectancy...

Paul Erlich has been a media darling for over twenty-five years making
predictions that not only didn't come true, but were 180 degrees wrong.

Maybe what we're running out of is creative genius...that wonderfully human
characteristic.

Tom
--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
are absolutely
dependent on oil.

A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
Industry was coal fired/steam powered.

There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
resource.

Oil, however, isn't. I don't know when it's going to become more scarce,
but some day it will. Hopefully, it won't in my lifetime, but I somehow
doubt it - the early signs are showing, oil companies are no longer oil
companies but energy companies, Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought. Large nations like
China will have a greater demand for oil as their prosperity increases,
same goes for places like India.

But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
are absolutely
dependent on oil.

A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
Industry was coal fired/steam powered.

There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
resource.

You just inverted your argument.



Oil, however, isn't.

Isn't what?

I don't know when it's going to become more scarce,
but some day it will. Hopefully, it won't in my lifetime, but I somehow
doubt it - the early signs are showing, oil companies are no longer oil
companies but energy companies,

Good, that's called diversification. Only an idiot puts all their eggs in
one basket.

Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought.

You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
we're running out. And somehow...

Large nations like
China will have a greater demand for oil as their prosperity increases,
same goes for places like India.

And what happens when demand goes up? Think how much demand has gone up over
the past several generations.

But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
resource.

You just inverted your argument.

No I didn't.

[labour is a renewable resource...]
Oil, however, isn't.

Isn't what?

A renewable resource - sorry, I thought that was obvious from the
context.

But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.

In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a better
place had the population levelled at 800M.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote:

In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a
better place had the population levelled at 800M.

I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
will grow with it. Enlightenment and brotherly cooperation are not
becoming more evident as the planet becomes more crowded.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Dylan Smith" wrote:

In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a
better place had the population levelled at 800M.

I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
will grow with it.

Like the Middle Ages?

Enlightenment and brotherly cooperation are not
becoming more evident as the planet becomes more crowded.

Boy, what an dismal outlook you have!!

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
resource.

You just inverted your argument.

No I didn't.

[labour is a renewable resource...]

That's the dumbest thing I've read this year (well, it's only March).

But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.

In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a better
place had the population levelled at 800M.

Well, why don't you volunteer to go first?

Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought.

You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
we're running out. And somehow...

Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
will grow with it.

Like the Middle Ages?

And here are you actually proposing that the negative aspects of the
Middle Ages were a result of the size of the world population?

Alex wrote:
Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote

Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought.

You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
we're running out. And somehow...


Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?

In the early 1900's either the federal government or maybe it was an
executive from an oil company came out and said we had something like 9
years and 6 months of oil left in the ground. And that was when we
didn't hardly use any oil at all. Now we know of more oil in the ground
than the world has used to date. So yes it is not a renewable resource
but it also is not even remotley scarce. Having said that we already
are developing other means of propelling ourselves around. None make
economic sense yet, but eventually they will.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:Mpsac.41867$K91.110288@attbi_s02...


Alex wrote:
Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote

Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought.

You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years,
that
we're running out. And somehow...


Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?

In the early 1900's either the federal government or maybe it was an
executive from an oil company came out and said we had something like 9
years and 6 months of oil left in the ground. And that was when we
didn't hardly use any oil at all.

Try the 1880's or so when the conversion to petroleum was in full swing.
America's first "Oil Crisis" was WHALE oil, not petroleum.

During the Civil War (shortly after the transition from whale oil to
petroleum, oil was selling for $2.50 a barrel, or about $100 a bbl in todays
$$.

Before that, it was the timber crisis...which made coal mining economically
feasible....which led in part to the whale oil crisis, which lead to the
petro-oil crisis, whcihc led to OPEC, which from the start kept collapsing
after a lot of fist waving.

I'd recommend (for simiplicities sake) "The Doomsday Myth": 10,000 Year of
Economic Crisis" by Maurice & Smithson, and then some of the works of Julian
Simon. I could offer long quotes, but I've NEVER found anyone embroiled in
crisis-mongering that it could sink into (Alex, in this case possibly).


Now we know of more oil in the ground
than the world has used to date. So yes it is not a renewable resource
but it also is not even remotley scarce. Having said that we already
are developing other means of propelling ourselves around. None make
economic sense yet, but eventually they will.

Indeed!! (See above)