‘INDICATIONS AND WARNINGS’
Putting together what might turn out to be the last article published here this year has been one of two main items on my agenda. (I’m hoping to slip a third, pre-Christmas article into the list but, should this not happen, please accept my premature good wishes for the season).
In back-to-front order, the second ‘agenda item’ is a much-updated guide to the principles of Surplus Energy Economics, and to the latest – SEEDS 20 Pro – version of the model. The Surplus Energy Economics Data System has now evolved into a very powerful analytical tool, and I plan to make even greater use of it to inform discussions here in the future.
You can download at the end of this discussion, or from the Resources, page a summarised statistical guide to selected EM economies, whose prospects are one of the issues discussed here.
The Over Population Hypothethisis Roger Lewis’s Critical Analysis of the “Sytems Paper”, Feedback And Dis-Equilibrium In Human Overpopulation by Steven B. Kurtz.
is a Trailer for the premiere of an Animated ( Cartoon, not heated) debate Between SteveThisn B Kurz, and Roger G Lewis. Steven and Roger have been arguing on the SEEDS Blog of Dr Tim Morgan for several months from the position of two Opposing world Views. The Catastrophist View Point and the Cornucopian Viewpoint. Both claim to be “Systems” Thinkers and Claim scientific rigour in their Analysis of “Reality” and “The Facts”.
Some people claim that humans are somehow exempt from the sorts of systemic constraints, which limit the populations of other life forms. We indeed have managed to extend our range into vastly diverse habitats due to our adaptive fitness. Language, abstract thought, and reflective consciousness are traits, which aided this expansion. However, in a largely closed system, physical expansion cannot be infinite.
We will explore possible scenarios, which might lead to stabilization or equilibrium.
Projections vary somewhat, but the next half-century is conservatively expected to result in a 50% increase to approximately nine billion of us. We will explore the extent to which it is conceivable that human planning could affect the actual outcome.
The first section will provide brief evidence that overpopulation is a problem. The fascination with “virtual realities” and the myth of the “de-materialization” of economies are examples of impediments to the grasping of this issue. The vast majority of humans who are unwired know they cannot live on bits and bytes even if some of us believe otherwise; their needs include food, water, and energy.
The second section will outline some variables affecting human reproductive behavior as positive and negative feedback. These include our genetic make-up (hard wiring), environmental conditions, socio-economic values, institutional pressures, and what is called “free will”.
Next will be the question of what could constitute equilibrium. Carrying capacity connotes a maximum number of a species, which can endure in a habitat. Tolerances in a complex ecosystem are variable to inputs and internal changes, and are most sensitive when near maximum thresholds. Freedom has been described as the key human value, and it is reflected in maximal options for future decisions and actions. (Buchanan, 1997) Equilibrium seems inconsistent with carrying capacity, since the proximity of potential constraints would reduce future options and maximize the destabilizing risks of changing conditions. If attainable, equilibrium at some variable optimum level should maximize freedom and well-being, and minimize destabilizing occurrences.
Finally, I will venture into the realm of speculation to consider the prospects for success in the self-determination of equilibrium. Peace and the minimization of future suffering seem to be related to the ultimate outcome.
“Intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a till greater increase in population.” (Peter Farb, 1978)
Albert Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics at The University of Colorado, has demonstrated that with a 1% annual growth rate, human population would in 17,000 years equal all the atoms in the universe.(Bartlett, 1996) As a reference, the last ice age was about 17,000 years ago. We currently are growing at a rate around 50% faster than that. Bartlett was responding to the claim of the possibility of 1% annual growth of the human population for seven billion (then corrected to seven million!) years by Management professor Julian Simon. If space were the only requirement for a healthy, enduring habitat, the issue would be relatively easy to address. In short, sustainable (non-stop) growth of physical systems is an oxymoron.
Following are some opinions from diverse sources. In a letter to me dated October 3, 1996, U.S. Vice-President Al Gore stated: “I consider the dramatic growth in the world’s population to be the greatest challenge currently facing the environment…The effects of this rapid increase are felt around the globe. Starvation, deforestation, and lack of clean water are just some of the problems…”
Stuart L. Udall, former US Secretary of the Interior, wrote in a recent essay:
“…current consumption of the two cornerstone resources of modern life – water and oil – foreshadow shortages that will cripple the economies of many nations if present [population] trends continue.”(Udall, 2000)
There is a solid scientific consensus evidenced by a 1992 joint statement by The British Royal Society and the (US) National Academy of Sciences urging world leaders to address human overpopulation, as well as by the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” written in 1993 and signed by over 1600 senior scientists from 70 countries which includes the following:
“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.”
“Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.”
“No more than …a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.”
” We must stabilize population.”
” We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.”
Many people besides world leaders and scientists understand the seriousness of our predicament. John H. Adams, Executive Director of The Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization not active in population affairs, began an essay entitled “What Matters Most” in The Amicus Journal:
“There is no single thing more significant for the future of the world than the fact of human population growth.”(Adams, 1997)
Author of Pulitzer Prize winning Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond wrote in The Third Chimpanzee:
“A nuclear holocaust is certain to prove disastrous, but it isn’t happening now. An environmental holocaust is equally certain to prove disastrous, but it differs in that it is already well underway.”(Diamond, 1992)
Diamond may unfortunately underestimate the risk of a quick, violent demise.
The University of Toronto’s Peace and Conflict Studies Program has done extensive research on factors influencing violent conflict. One area of the program is the Project on Environment, Population, and Security. Scarcities, depletion, and degradation of resources such as potable water are part of the feedback loops of human activity-habitat systems which impact violent conflict.(Homer-Dixon, et al. 1993)
“Don’t worry, be happy” is sadly no longer applicable to our predicament. There are some, though, who dismiss these concerns as fiction. They point to past analyses (Ehrlich1968) which contained some incorrect judgments as to the timing of approaching limits. Evidence is strong, though, that the trends are proceeding as he envisioned if we believe the scientific consensus. The nay -sayers include those like the late Julian Simon and Reason Magazine’s Ronald Bailey who conveniently ignores issues like declining stocks of fish which are to be shared by a quarter of a million net additional people daily.(Bailey, 2000)
The UN has been at the forefront in seeking solutions for overpopulation. The poorest nations are struggling to address the issue, but aid promised by wealthy nations has been slow in coming. India recently announced a national population policy and China is still struggling with the issue. Denial that overpopulation exists and is a serious problem led biologist Garrett Hardin to write a new book last year called The Ostrich Factor. Suffice it to say that I view the evidence as overwhelming.
“The more we examine the relationships between population, resources, and the environment the stronger the connections appear.” (Dr. Nafis Sadik in an address to The UN Conference on Environment and Development, Geneva, 1991)
The widely accepted theory called the demographic transition holds that upon reaching a secure and materially comfortable lifestyle, birthrates tend to decline. The case histories of North America and Western Europe are used as evidence for the theory’s validity. In some cases, correlations have occurred, and causal links may seem obvious. However, many physical and social scientists are more rigorous when seeking causal evidence. Virginia Abernethy a professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical School, argues convincingly that the perception of the commencement of better economic times (material well-being) leads to higher fertility rates. She gives several good examples:
“In times of privation in France, prior to the revolution, a sense of limits promoted reproductive caution, and small families were the norm…Prosperity induced high fertility rates in Ireland after the introduction of the potato, and in Turkey, when families received land.” (Abernethy, 1994)
Even when a “demographic transition” is claimed to have occurred, there could be several generations between supposed cause and effect, making the number of variables too numerous and complex to yield analytic certainty. Several generations of high fertility, like those in the US during the first half of the twentieth century, could result in a rapid population increase, after which a slowdown in births occurs. Abernethy claims that the rise of the US as an economic power, with concomitant optimism for well-being by it’s citizens, was key to the high birthrates. She sees uncertainty about real wages and job security, combined with the high costs of education and health care as factors in the slowdown in US fertility in the latter part of the century.
Humans do not easily embrace this sort of evidence, but we must continue to examine the possible causes of our actions if we are to pursue effective solutions. Many animals exhibit reduced fertility and/or lower survival rates of young offspring well in advance of serious food shortages. This is an adaptation for survival. Humans exhibit similar patterns when stressed by overcrowding and environmental scarcities. D.H. Stott discussed this at length, and I continue by quoting:
“…the predicted catastrophe of a world population increasing by geometrical progression to the point of starvation is unlikely to occur. It will be forestalled, if not by conscious human design, by physiological mechanisms, which have evolved to obviate such a calamity. This is not to minimize the fact that these mechanisms themselves are highly unpleasant. Nature prescribes happiness when it has survival value. To man nevertheless is given an answer. We need not wait for the physiological killers and maimers to come upon us…It should not, however, be beyond the capacity of man to develop cultural methods of regulating population-numbers which do not involve distress and unhappiness.” (Stott, 1962)
Bill Rees, well known for developing the ecological footprint concept, noted ten years ago the relevance of work by Prigogine and Stengers, Crutchfield et al., and Palmer regarding thresholds of unpredictability. The systemic feedback that will affect human numbers with or without our intent may be unexpected in timing and intensity. Worth noting here is the principle of the weak link as expressed by Rees:
“It should be understood that while human society depends on many ecological resources and functions for survival, carrying capacity is ultimately determined by the single vital resource or function in least supply.” (Rees, 1990)
There are well-entrenched historically based values, which provide disincentives to reducing fertility. Only children were thought to be deprived by the lack of siblings. This “folk wisdom” is still widely believed despite the lack of conclusive supporting evidence. Large families are accepted by many societies as a joy or a blessing. When farm labor was important for economic viability, this might have reflected rational criteria. In modern industrialized nations, agriculture depends more on energy, chemicals, and technology than on farm hands, and a very small percentage of families is engaged in farming. In many countries the family farm has been subdivided among offspring for generations, resulting in small, unviable plots. Feedback of this nature can be mythical, but nonetheless is still effective.
In societies with high mortality rates for infants and youth, and lack of institutional old age security, poor families need to produce children as their only realistic means of attempting to secure their future. Here the biological constraint of the prospect of inadequate food is challenged by the human need for future security. This seems a most basic example of the human predicament, called by The Club of Rome, the “global problématique.”
What types of actions might prove useful in a humane attempt to influence fertility? The acceptance that we have some sphere of free will seems necessary to continue this exploration; just how much is not easy to say.
“Sociobiology’s premise is that individuals of all species including humans are genetically predisposed to act in ways that maximize their ‘inclusive fitness’…Axiomatically, every living individual had ancestors that succeeded…so most of us carry genes impelling us…” (Abernethy, 1993)
It is not my intention to attempt to classify or divide human behavior into determined movements or free actions – or any percentage combination of the two. Tendencies or predispositions can be accepted as indicators of probabilities or expectations. We plan and make choices about our role in sexual reproduction to greater or lesser degrees. Ansley Cole has delineated three categories for successful intentional implementation of reduced fertility. First is the actualization and realization that both parties indeed have a choice in the matter. Second is that they perceive benefit(s) from the resulting smaller family. Third is the availability and knowledge of various means of implementing their choice.(Coale, 1989)
Dr. John R. Weeks is the Director of the International Population Center at San Diego State University. He develops Coale’s concepts into policies with direct and indirect impacts on reproductive behavior. From a systems perspective, these constitute feedback. Direct policies include full legal rights for women, payments for having fewer children, higher (rather than lower) taxes per child, legalization of contraceptive technologies, abortion and sterilization, and availability of family planning services in local outlets. Examples of indirect policies are improved secular education, increased economic opportunities for women, lower infant and child mortality rates, community birth quotas, and public campaigns promoting knowledge and use of birth control.(Weeks, 1990)
Further discussion of possible planned intervention will be undertaken in the final section of this paper: Prospects.
Most governments, even when well-meaning, have discovered deficit financing and become addicted to revenue growth. The addition of interest results in larger total future payments than the amount of the original loan. This inevitably results in a race to keep up, as new borrowings are added on a regular basis. With the onset of declining fertility and demographically aging populations in many developed nations, immigration increases are sought to keep the economy growing and to expand payments into the pension system. There have been attempts in Germany and France, among others, to stimulate higher fertility by native born women. This may reflect fear of cultural dilution by societies, and is evidenced by recent political victories by advocates of restricted immigration. If there were a national wealth surplus rather than a debt, growth would not only be unnecessary, it might be undesirable. Old age security would be covered, and remaining wealth could be shared by fewer people.
Globalization has been accompanied by the dominance of multi-national corporations. It is the mandate of corporations to deliver maximum profits to shareholders, and managers seek to maximize their own income and security by achieving that goal. It is not rational for corporations (or any business) to seek shrinking markets for goods or services. So the system has a built in growth imperative. At the same time, labor shortages would give bargaining power to workers, and would likely increase costs to business. For decades businesses have been relocating facilities to areas where labor is abundant and therefore cheaper. A lack of necessary skills may be a short term constraint, but a declining population is generally not appealing to businesses.
Now let’s have a look at how a Chinese expert perceives this. Zhang Zhirong is Deputy Director of China Population Welfare Foundation in Beijing. He wrote a report to the Third Conference of the International Consortium for the Study of Environmental Security from which I quote:
“China is caught in a vicious cycle of swelling population and diminishing resources…Economic growth is the goal of China’s industrial policy. However rapid population growth allays the economic growth that occurs.” (Zhirong, 1994)
It appears that it is possible for business leaders to catch on that there is a point of diminishing return to population linked economic growth. I expect this feedback to spread globally, like a viral meme, as systemic instability increases.
There are many religious (and ethnic) beliefs which can influence human reproductive behavior. Some examples include Muslim sects, Orthodox Jewish, and Catholic doctrine. The most extreme example that I’m aware of is the Morman belief that twelve offspring by a man places him closest to God. Groups at war have overtly used competitive breeding as an alternate method of conquest, and rape has been used as part of ethnic cleansing. Other than obscure suicide sects, I know of no religions, which advocate a reduction in the number of their adherents. Some might recognize that overpopulation is a problem. This could present a dilemma to them as they seek to spread their version of the truth and the good. The Dalai Lama gave a speech in New Zealand a few years ago where it was reported that he said the world’s population problem would benefit from more priests, nuns, gays, and lesbians. I interpret this as a touch of humor applied to a serious problem by a wise leader.
“All optima must lie between the minimum viable population size, MVP, and the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet.” (Gretchen C. Daily, A. Ehrlich and P. Ehrlich)
The above range is wide enough to drive all the vehicles in the world through. How might we narrow it? The authors state in the same paper:
“…social preferences are critical because achieving any target size requires establishing social policies to influence fertility rates. Human population sizes have never, and will never, automatically equilibrate at some level. There is no feedback mechanism that will lead to perfectly maintained, identical crude birth and death rates.” (Daily, et al. 1994)
Although I agree with the need for planning, it seems like a conceptual error to place it somehow outside the feedback system. Again ignoring the free will issue, it is not reasonable in my opinion to somehow excise our planning from the ecosystem of which we are a part. Recall Stott’s point about natural governors of fertility. Our planning could be part of our adaptive fitness.
The paper goes on to state criteria for choosing optimum population size. First is a desired minimum quality of life balanced by the impacts to the ecosystem for sustaining it. Second is an acceptance that material wealth will always be unequally divided among humans, and the resulting need for a cushion (or excess) of continuously available per capita resources. They include a consideration of waste reprocessing without toxification of the system.
Next is the value of cultural diversity. They believe geographic dispersion requires a certain minimum amount of population. I think this is a prehistoric era consideration, and not meaningful now. Rather it seems that an excess of people combined with globalization, results in cultural extinctions. I find this categorically different than the prior criteria, believing that adaptation in evolution will result in ongoing cultural changes in any event.
A “critical mass” distributional criteria similarly perplexes me, although I understand the cultural value of urbanization. These two criteria seem more like value judgments based on the cultural biases of the authors, who live in the developed world.
Next is the need to protect biodiversity. Obviously each human displaces (or alters habitat potentially useful for) other life forms, with the partial exception of human parasites. Biodiversity, they explain, is anthropocentrically valuable as part of our habitat and is necessary for our health. It also provides aesthetic pleasure. They then add the ethical responsibility of humans to minimize species loss. Cultural bias seems involved in the latter two elements, but it is arguable that they reflect universal human values.
The authors then add the key value of human freedom that was mentioned in the introduction:
“In general, we would choose a population size that maximizes very broad environmental and social options for individuals.” (Daily, et al., 1994)
For a different perspective, let’s turn again to Zhang Zhirong on China’s population: “According to The China Academy of Sciences, and based on estimated land resources, the optimum population in China is 950 million now, and 1.16 billion by 2000.” (Zhirong, 1994). Zhirong then states that China’s carrying capacity, also based on “land resources” is no more than 1.6 billion. He believes that serious environmental and social problems exist and will worsen as China’s population first exceeds the optimum level, and then the carrying capacity level. Maybe China expected to add some land resources between 1994 and 2000. What other variables could cause it’s optimum population to go up by 7% in six years? No answer is given in the report.
Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel winner in Physics and Harvard professor, said in a presentation to colleagues: “Would a total world population of about one billion as existed two hundred years ago represent a reasonable compromise between quantity and quality of human life? The answer…clearly involves value judgments.” (Bloembergen, 1996)
J. Kenneth Smail, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at Kenyon College in Ohio, has an argument for “…a sustainable optimum of approximately 2 billion by the beginning of the 23rd century.” He presents much evidence that mere stabilization during the 21st century will result in a “future demographic catastrophe.” (Smail, 1995)
I see no clear way, given the current cultural, economic, and geophysical variables of societies on earth, to expect a consensus for approximating an optimum human population. Stabilization, or equilibrium, if it is to be realized anytime soon, would seem to be based on fragmented actions, or unintentional outcomes. What is obvious from my investigations is that most concerned with the issue believe that the desired direction for human population is downward.
“Nobody knows if a steady state population could be reached by the year 2050. Perhaps a period of negative population growth could be envisioned…hopefully not be caused by …war, famine, and pestilence.” (Bloembergen)
We have discussed a variety of influences on human reproduction. Included were inherent predispositions and individual responses to environmental and social conditions. We also explored possible policy options, which many believe have the potential to influence our demographic future. Besides the institutional obstacles mentioned, there are some common misconceptions by many well-meaning people. I will mention only one, which, if sufficiently countered, might abet a more humane resolution.
The environment and social justice are issues, which have growing support among those able to think about more than their immediate material needs. Advocates seem certain that their own issue is the most important one, but many fail to question its sufficiency. A typical response to the introduction of the overpopulation factor is that the rich should reduce their consumption and waste production instead of chiding the poor people of the planet. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge that the poor have been clamoring for our aid in population matters, and that they have banded together to help themselves. Provision of such aid is not a substitute for encouraging conservation and cleaner economies at home. There is no either/or involved. Both are desirable.
In 1989, as verified by The UN Population Fund, the following countries signed a statement urging early stabilization of human population. Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Columbia, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Jordon, Kenya, Rep. of Korea, Liberia, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. Note the absence of most wealthy nations. It is ridiculous to claim that the rich are trying to coerce the poor nations to reduce population. In fact, they are not responding to the affirmed needs of the poor.
The following countries are part of either the South Commission or Partners in Population and Development: Zimbabwe, Kenya, Mexico, Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, China, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Guyana, Ivory Ciast, Jamaica, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia (former), and Western Samoa. The “Partners” share expertise with each other in reproductive health, appropriate technologies, and population policy. The Challenge to the South: Report of the South Commission, included this unequivocal statement:
” In the long run the problem of overpopulation of the countries of the South can be fully resolved only through their development. But action to contain the rise of population cannot be postponed.” (Nyerere, 1990)
Easier said than done. Nature will provide, as they say, but what percentages of any “cure” will be higher mortality versus lower fertility? What percentages of lower fertility could be due to willful constraint versus physiological changes? We may have some choice in the answers to these questions, but acts of omission (purposeful inaction) decrease that possibility. Smail says he is “cautiously optimistic” that humans will take global action based on “an individual and collective concern for posterity.”
Bloembergen summarizes six measures proposed by Joel Cohen, which have been widely supported. “Educate and empower women; educate men; promote the distribution of contraceptives; save the children, improve the economics in developing countries; all of the above.” Abernethy strongly supports the empowerment and education of women. The economic element may need refinement to address the “opportunity model” (Abernethy and Smail) in which population expands in synch with perceived future well-being. This is the most difficult element of feedback to address in my opinion, since the poor naturally and expectedly strive for better material conditions. Perhaps sustainable development combined with other comprehensive measures is the right approach. Traditional development with minimal population policy action is a recipe for continued suffering by humans and the rest of the planet, only greater in scope and severity.
Udall’s essay calls for the establishment of “a direct-to-the-people non-profit organization financed by a consortium of billionaires.” It would be primarily locally staffed, and deliver women to women reproductive health services to the poorest nations of the world. The Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros, Rockefeller, Packard, and many other foundations have recognized the importance of this issue. It may well be that those enmeshed in fierce economic competition are blinkered by their focus to succeed, while those who are very rich have the opportunity to step back and look farther into the future. A trillion dollars in assets passed to progeny can’t by itself guarantee them a peaceful planet, clean air and water, delicious healthy food, and the joys of a diverse natural environment.
A primary need is for human action to accelerate systemic feedback to augment womens’ empowerment, health, and education. The technical means already exist to control fertility. A second, and not previously mentioned challenge is the need for system science methodology to grow worldwide and to ultimately replace irrational, power based approaches to social organization. Overpopulation is but one of the global issues we must address; and the principle of the weak link applies to the whole system.
Thank You, Steven, for your Presentation, as I have said there are several issues on which I would take issue with you philosophically and also with respect to your interpretation of what a systems view is. My Intention, in my Presentation, is not to Debate and seek through rhetoric to persuade our Audience. Rather, it is to look at the Data and to see if your Arguments are supported by the Data we have. Your talk is from your paper in 2000 so almost 20 years have elapsed since then, and Of course, since the first Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome, of which you are a member of the Canadian Branch, some 50 years have passed.
First of all, I would like to define some Scientific terms, outline some concepts and pose some hypothetical questions
Why isn’t pro-sequences a word?
There’s pros and cons and consequences, no pro-sequences (I pronounce it like prosecute). I am aware con means with, and it’s with the sequence – but most of the time it’s always used negatively. Why doesn’t pro-sequence exist then? How did pros/cons arise in relation to consequences, and is it just coincidence that they’re similar?
‘pro et contra’ means ‘for and against’ in Latin. That’s where pros and cons come from.
Consequene: late 14c., “inference, conclusion,” from Old French consequence “result” (13c., Modern French conséquence), from Latin consequentia, from consequentem (nominative consequens), present participle of consequi “to follow after,” from com- “with” (see com-) + sequi “to follow” (see sequel). Sense of “importance” (c. 1600) is from notion of being “pregnant with consequences.”
, the con in consequence does not have the same origin as the con in pro/con.
consequence means ‘important things follow after’ not ‘negative things follow after’.
Experiential, Sensory Perception?
The 5 senses. Are
Smell, Sight, Hearing, Touch, Taste
Additionally, there is
The sense of space
In addition to the traditional big five, there is another sense that deals with how your brain understands where your body is in space. This sense is called proprioception.
Additional senses & variations
There are more-subtle senses that most people never really perceive. For example, there are neuron sensors that sense movement to control balance and the tilt of the head. Specific kinesthetic receptors exist for detecting stretching in muscles and tendons, helping people to keep track of their limbs. Other receptors detect levels of oxygen in certain arteries of the bloodstream.
Sometimes, people don’t even perceive senses the same way. People with synesthesia can see sounds as colors or associate certain sights with smells, for example.
In Science, there are also contradictory or problematical concepts such as Wave-Particle Duality.
There are also energy fields to consider these Fields are Magnetic & Electrical
We also have the question as to:
Is light pure energy?
Light / Energy
Akhil, Materials Engineer
Light is pure energy. Electromagnetic radiation is energy. Depending on the quantity of photons, the building blocks of light, the intensity of the energy will vary. Depending on the frequency of the photons, the energy of the photons will vary. Therefore, individual photons of visible light will have more energy than infrared, microwaves or radio waves. On the other hand, visible light photons have less energy than gamma and x rays, and UV light. All forms of EM radiation are pure energy. There are also other forms that can be considered pure energy as well. Velocity is kinetic energy, heat is thermal energy and so on. Not all type of energy are capable of easily doing work on other one environments, and therefore not all forms of energy are usable.
Peter Goedtkindt, PhD Physical Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (1992)
Q: Is light pure energy?
A: I’m a physicist – and the question is not precise for me as I have no definition of the “purity” of energy in physics.
The SI unit for energy is the Joule. A single photon of light has a certain equivalence in joule, so yes light carries energy, but a light beam also has other properties such as direction, frequency, phase and polarisation. These are typical properties of light, but rarely associated with “energy”. Only the frequency and the amounts of photons define the energy that is carried.
Scientific Models. AND THE PROBABILISTIC TURN IN Physics.
I Like Hans Rosling’s Possibilism, the very first Statistics Lecture I ever Attended was preceded by the lecturer with the old Joke about Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
Even in Statistics Motivation on Context are inherent in the boundary conditions.
Whilst the dismal science, as faith-based humanity, is really metaphysical, a 2nd law-free- zone with no use for evidence, we will remain in what Bruce Charlton calls. “The insanity of pure abstract altruism”.
“Pure disinterested altruism, imposed on all by abstract systems, is, therefore, a logical consequence of the moral primacy of pure altruism…
It is also insane and lacks any test in reality.
PC is good by definition and for no other reason; especially not because PC has been found to be good.”
“PC stands or falls by the fact of a secular intellectual ruling elite, and can be imposed widely by this elite only by the recent technologies of modern mass media, And PC is only possible in a fully materialist and secular society: where this-worldly ‘goods’ and their just (i.e. altruistic) allocation can assume ultimate importance, over-riding all other considerations (such as the saving of souls).
The Scientific academy has succumbed to the Rovian Actors in history Syndrome as described by Ron Susskind.
´´The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush. The New York Times Magazine.
´´every living thing can become healthy, strong and fruitful only within a horizon; if it is incapable of
drawing a horizon around itself or, on the other hand, too selfish to
restrict its vision to the limits of a horizon drawn by another, it will wither
away feebly or overhastily to its early demise. Cheerfulness, clear conscience,
the carefree deed, faith in the future, all this depends in the case of an individual as well as of a people, on there being a line which distinguishes what is clear and in full view from the dark and unilluminable; it depends on one’s being able to forget at the right time as
well as to remember at the right time; on discerning with strong instinctual
feelings when there is need to experience historically and when unhistorically.
Precisely this is the proposition the reader is invited to consider:
the unhistorical and the historical are equally necessary for the health of
an individual, a people and a culture. ”
Friedrich Nietzsche: 1844-1900
ON THE ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF HISTORY FOR LIFE
Yet, in the end, the theory of games is scaffolding. I can restate
my analysis of convention without it. The result is a theory along
the lines of Hume’s, in his discussion of the origin of justice and
property. Convention turns out to be the Strategy, of Conflict
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).4
a general sense of common interest; which sense all the members of the society express to one another, and which induces them to regulate their conduct by certain rules. I observe that it will be to my interest [e.g.] to leave another in the possession of his goods, provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me
FOUCAULT. THE EPISTEME.
´´I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be
acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as
scientific.” Michel Foucault.
“Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” “that’s metaphysics.” is a quote from an interview published in Scientific American with Thomas Kuhn the coiner of the term and proposer of the concept of paradigm shifts.
I Think Rupert Sheldrake sums up the “Science Republic” ( Polyani ) Best though with his Science Delusion Ted Talk.
Big G. Rupert Sheldrake. From 09:48
Anyway, that’s my own hypothesis in a nutshell of morphic resonance. Everything depends on evolving habits, not on fixed laws. But I want to spend a few moments on the constants of nature too. Because these are, again, assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational constant of the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really constant? Well, when I got interested in this question, I tried to find out. They’re given in physics handbooks. Handbooks of physics list the existing fundamental constants, tell you their value. But I wanted to see if they’d changed, so I got the old volumes of physical handbooks. I went to the patent office library here in London – they’re the only place I could find that kept the old volumes. Normally people throw them away when the new values (volumes) come out, they throw away the old ones. When I did this I found that the speed of light dropped between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen forty-five by about twenty kilometres per second. It’s a huge drop because they’re given with errors of any fractions of a second/decimal points of error. And yet, all over the world, it dropped, and they were all getting very similar values to each other with tiny errors. Then in nineteen forty-eight, it went up again. And then people started getting very similar values again. I was very intrigued by this and I couldn’t make sense of it, so I went to see the head of metrology at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington. Metrology is the science in which people measure constants. And I asked him about this, I said: “what do you make of this drop in the speed of light between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen forty-five?” And he said “oh dear”, he said, “you’ve uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science.” So I said “well, could the speed of light have actually dropped? And that would have amazing implications if so.” He said “no, no, of course, it couldn’t have
actually dropped. It’s a constant!” “Oh, well then how do you explain the fact
that everyone was finding it going much slower during that period? Is it because they were fudging their results to get what they thought other people should be getting and the whole thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?” “We don’t like to use the word ‘fudge’.” I said, “Well, so what do you prefer?” He said, “well, we prefer to call it ‘intellectual phase-locking’.” So I said “well if it was going on then, how can you be so sure it’s not going on today? And the present values produced are by intellectual phase-locking?” And he said, “oh we know that’s not the case.” And I said, “how do we know?” He said “well”, he said, “we’ve solved the problem.” And I said “well how?”
And he said, “well we fixed the speed of light by definition in nineteen seventy-two.”
So I said, “but it might still change.” He said “yes, but we’d never know it because
we’ve defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it!” So he looked very pleased about that, they’d fixed that problem.
“Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” “that’s metaphysics.” is a quote from an interview published in Scientific American with Thomas Khun the coiner of the term and proposer of the concept of paradigm shifts.
Stevens PAPER IS SUMMARISED FOR HIM IN A MONUMENT KNOWN AS THE GEORGIA Guidestones THE INSCRIBED SUMMARY IS THIS.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
Regarding THE Data on population and Taking Erlichs Paper which Steven Quotes we find this
At present, world energy use amounts to about 13 terawatts (TW; 1012 watts), about 70 per cent of which is being used to support somewhat over a billion people in rich countries and 30 per cent to support more than four billion people in developing countries. This pattern is clearly unsustainable, not only because of the gross disparity between rich and poor societies but because of the environmental damage that results. The consumption of 13 TW of energy with current technologies is leading not only to the serious environmental impacts indicated above but also to several forms of destabilizing global change, including a continuous deterioration of ecosystems and the essential services they render to civilization (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991; Ehrlich et al., 1993)
Here is a Graph of World energy use in terms of TerraWatt Hours,
An examination of probable future trends leads to dismal conclusions. The world population is projected to increase from 5.5 billion in 1993 to somewhere between 10 and 14 billion within the next century. Suppose population growth halted at 14 billion and everyone was satisfied with per-capita energy use of 7.5 kilowatts (kW), the average in rich nations and about two-thirds of that in the early 1990s. A human enterprise that large would create a total impact of 105 TW, eight times that of today and a clear recipe for ecological collapse.
Against that background, what might be said about the upper limits on optimum population size, considering present attitudes and technologies? In view of the environmental impacts of a civilization using 13 TW today, to say nothing of the threats to the future prospects of humanity, it is difficult to visualize a sustainable population that used more than 9 TW.
“To summarize this brief essay, determination of an “optimum” world population size involves social decisions about the lifestyles to be lived and the distribution of those lifestyles among individuals in the population. To us, it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technologies change radically, the optimum size of the human population lies in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people. That number also is our approximate best guess of the continuous standing crop of people, if achieved reasonably soon, that would permit the maximum number of Homo sapiens to live in the long run. But suppose we have underestimated the optimum and it actually is 4 billion? Since the present population is over 5.5 billion and growing rapidly, the initial policy implications of our conclusions are still clear.”
End Times prophesy is nothing new. It sells newspapers and allows Politicians easy sound bites.
Regarding Self Evident Truths I like this from the anonymous response to the Publication of the US declaration of Independence penned by Jeremy Bentham,
“They are about “to assume,” as they tell us, “among the powers of the earth, that equal and separate ( 120 ) station to which” — they have lately discovered — “the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What difference these acute legislators suppose between the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, is more than I can take upon me to determine, or even guess. If to what they now demand they were entitled by any law of God, they had only to produce that law, and all controversy was at an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call sell-evident truths. “All men,” they tell us, “are created equal.” This rarity is a new discovery; now, for the first time, we learn, that a child, at the moment of his birth, has the same quantity of natural power as the parent, the same quantity of political power as the magistrate”.
Steven quotes many people as appeals to Authority this is unsurprising as no evidence exists to support the wild assertions made and falsified over and again
“Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel winner in Physics and Harvard professor, said in a presentation to colleagues: “Would a total world population of about one billion as existed two hundred years ago represent a reasonable compromise between quantity and quality of human life? The answer…clearly involves value judgments.” (Bloembergen, 1996)
“J. Kenneth Smail, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at Kenyon College in Ohio, has an argument for “…a sustainable optimum of approximately 2 billion by the beginning of the 23rd century.” He presents much evidence that mere stabilization during the 21st century will result in a “future demographic catastrophe.” (Smail, 1995)”
“Udall’s essay calls for the establishment of “a direct-to-the-people non-profit organization financed by a consortium of billionaires.” It would be primarily locally staffed, and deliver women to women reproductive health services to the poorest nations of the world. The Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros, Rockefeller, Packard, and many other foundations have recognized the importance of this issue. It may well be that those enmeshed in fierce economic competition are blinkered by their focus to succeed, while those who are very rich have the opportunity to step back and look farther into the future. A trillion dollars in assets passed to progeny can’t by itself guarantee them a peaceful planet, clean air and water, delicious healthy food, and the joys of a diverse natural environment.”
“A second, and not previously mentioned challenge is the need for system science methodology to grow worldwide and to ultimately replace irrational, power-based approaches to social organization. Overpopulation is but one of the global issues we must address, and the principle of the weak link applies to the whole system”.
A critic of another of stevens reviews on a layman’s book on OverPopulation as an Extant truth, as opposed to a theoretical problem, said this.
“I question the popular assumption that our destruction of the environment and our overpopulation are to be attributed to our religious beliefs. I am not sure we need any more explanation than the small span of perception, narrow sphere of self-interest, and short time-horizon, in other words, a lack of imagination, or deficiency of thinking-span. (An aspect of our hardwiring, perhaps.) I confess to a dissatisfaction with the classical scientific framework, which confines discourse to what can be found within the realm of the five senses, i.e. the “material” realm.
Vaclav Smil, Not the Smail, Steven mistakenly said he had quoted ( as Smil) in the subject paper to which I am making this response, Says this of the Polarities of the Two Schools of thought on “Over Population”
“Extreme carrying capacity estimates go far outside the broad, fourfold range bracketed by the estimates just cited. They have been defined by true believers in the antipodal camps of catastrophist and cornucopian futures. A generation ago Ehrlich (1968) wrote that “the battle to feed all humanity is over” and that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” during the 1970s.2 Ehrlich’s global population maximum would have to be well below the 1970 total of about 3.7 billion people. In contrast, Simon (1981) maintained that food has no long-run, physical limit. These extremes leave us either with the prospect of eliminating about half of humanity in order to return the worldwide count to a sup-portable level or with visions of crop harvests surpassing the mass of the planet itself.3 As Sauvy (1990: 774) noted crisply, “Lack of precision in data and in method of analysis allows shortcuts toward reaching an ob-jective predetermined by prejudice, shaped largely either by faith in progress or by conservative skepticism.” Unfortunately, less extreme estimates have been hardly more impressive. Because the question of the ultimate support capacity cannot have a single correct answer, assessing the value of past estimates must be done by looking at their assumptions. Too many of them are overly simplistic, and even the more elaborate ones are usually difficult to defend. In general, the capacity predictions assume too much-as well as too little. Most notably, they almost completely ignore the demand side of the question.”
The requirement for Growth in Financialised Capitalism is due to Interest (Usury) and the way Money is created and what metrics it is assayed by are very important the work of Kreutz in the money Syndrome and of the late Magrit Kennedy is essential to understanding this point.
My Dialogue with Clive Lord a Founding Member of the Green Party of England and Wales on Money, Usury and Citizens Basic Income. Goes into the subject in some detail Clive is a Believer in the Doctrines of the Tragedy of the Commons.
The application of particular examples by extrapolation to claims of Universal application are a typical feature of the Malthusian, Dystopian,Humanity as a Plague world view.
Much of the writing on the issue is speculative Hypothesis and as such Exegesis is the proper Analytic tool and Falsification in the scientific Popperian sense does not apply as the dogmas and catechisms of Malthusian Dystopian Eschatology lends the subject to the techniques of literary Critisism and comparative Literature and comparative religion. Showalter’s controversial take on illnesses such as dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder), Gulf War syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome in her book Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media (1997) comes to mind it could apply equally well to the consensus based Policy lead evidence making of Overpopulation and the Settled Seance of Anthropogenic/Anthropocentric Global Warming.
All the evidence today shows that what was once a potential problem theoretically has not materialised into a problem and whilst there are areas of bounded difficulties the by pragmatic and applied know-how and technology modern production and farming can solve the problems that really exist. The invented, imagined and exaggerated problems based upon Conjecture and appealing to the authority of consensus are not matters of Settled Science but matters of politics and vested interests and sophistry.
ATTRIBUTES OF SCIENCE
Science is a branch of knowledge.
Science is the objective branch of knowledge.
Science is ultimately shared (public) knowledge.
Scientific models account for all relevant facts in their domain.
Scientific models predict new phenomena or relationships.
Predictions of qualitatively new results must be validated.
Basic science is the branch of Science
in the domain of the natural world.
Technology is the branch of Science
in the domain of manmade objects and processes,
that serves man by extending his senses &
his span of control.
Science is the application of the Scientific Method.
® 2009 JAGlassman
George Perkins Marsh had an altogether more measured both in tone and Metrologic senses.
All Nature is linked together by invisible bonds and every organic creature, however low, however feeble, however dependent, is necessary to the well-being of some other among the myriad forms of life.
SEEDS is a part of the solution to the current problem. I personally think, as you know, that Seeds needs to be coupled with an embodied energy index that will then translate to an empirically falsifiable value scale for the pricing of monetary exchanges.
Usury, as opposed to the practice of Usufruct, is the great problem of overproduction. Overproduction is not a function of Overpopulation but the necessity for growth is driven by Usury and creating an artificial shortage for the unit of account, this truth about the counterpoint between Debt-based money and Real wealth is alluded to in a memorable scene from the Film Good Will Hunting Written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, They were, as young men growing up in Boston part of the Academic Network with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky at its Heart.
Heres the Bar Scene Dialogue.
Will (Matt Damon): “Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first-year grad student. You just got finished readin’ some Marxian historian — Pete Garrison probably. You’re gonna be convinced of that ’til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year — you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization… Wood drastically — Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’ got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f—-n’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”
Vickers was well known to historians throughout the States. His award-winning 1994 book Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex Country, Massachusetts, 1630-1830, had delineated through painstaking analysis of archival records of entire communities the extent to which the development of New England had depended on labor that was largely unfree—with workers held in check not by slavery but by onerous burdens of debt. It had been hailed by reviewers as “one of the best works yet written on the early American economy” and as a book that explained “the deepest inner workings of New England society.”
Truth in the World, Kant and Aristotle.
On the philosophy of the problem of Knowlege, Truth, Belief and Knowledge There is an extensive collection of Notes to my Poem, Reality is Infinity is Love is Infinite Emanuel Kant contrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95.
Apodictic” or “apodeictic” (Ancient Greek: “ἀποδεικτικός”, “capable of demonstration”) is an adjectivalexpression from Aristotelean logic that refers to propositionsthat are demonstrable, that are necessarily or self-evidentlythe case or that, conversely, are impossible.Apodicticityor apodixisis the corresponding abstract noun, referring to logical certainty.
Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which merely assert that something is (or is not) the case, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the possibility of something being true.
Steven opened with a quote from Plato. I will offer one from Aristotle.
Physics (Aristotle) Part 8
“If the art of shipbuilding were in the wood, ships would exist by nature”. Or more particularly
“It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature. The best illustration is a doctor doctoring himself: nature is like that.
It is plain then that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a purpose”.
So on the usury Point and Ancient wisdom.
There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.
”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.
Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ”
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
I have endeavoured to provide something of a Socratic Dialogue. And Finish with two Quotes handed down to us through Plato and Aristotle.
“The secret of happiness, you see, is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less.”
NOT A REBUTTAL OF MY PAPER. Response Kurtz.B Kurtz.
First if you would spell my name correctly on your website text of your rebuttal, I’d appreciate that.
Second, the passwords you have chosen for the robotic animated speech versions are ad hominem to me and salutary to you. Grow up!
I will read your text version soon. Presenting serious academic stuff as a cartoon is childish and appeals to gut reactions, not careful reasoning. I will not participate in such childish nonsense.
I can refer you and your audience to the patrons of Population Institute Canada, Population Matters (UK), and dozens of others for expert *scientific* support of my position. See The Global Footprint Network.
Your *opinion* is that of a non-expert. I will copy your text and submit it to some experts. Of course I have no doubt that you will dismiss them all as biased and incorrect.
R.L.: “My Intention, in my Presentation, is not to Debate”
SK: Of course not! You merely want a platform to present *your views.*
Why isn’t prosequences a word?
SK: Irrelevant; non-sequitur to my paper.
I Like Hans Rosling’s
SK: I would have bet you would! He is world famous for cherry-picking his statistics and data!! 😉 Meanwhile, nothing to do with my paper.
I Think Rupert Sheldrake sums up the “Science Republic” ( Polyani ) Best though with his Science Delusion Ted Talk.
SK: Sheldrake is another loony. 😉 Where’s your hard scientific references to rebut what is a 100% physical, scientific issue”
Stevens PAPER IS SUMMARISED FOR HIM IN A MONUMENT KNOWN AS THE GEORGIA Guidstones THE INSCRIBED SUMMARY IS THIS.
SO FAR NOT ONE QUOTE FROM MY PAPER. JUST YOUR HOT AIR STRAW MAN. YOU CLAIM TO SUMMARIZE *MY PAPER* WITH QUOTES FROM A THIRD PARTY? THAT’S NUTS, ROGER.
Regarding THE Data on population and Taking Erlichs Paper which Steven Quotes we find this
SK: SHOW MY QUOTE AND PAPER REFERENCE (WAS BY DAILY & 2 EHRLICHS), NOT YOUR CHERRY PICKED SEGMENT OF A BOOK.
Daily, G., Ehrlich, A., and Ehrlich, P., 1994, Optimum Human Population Size,
Population and Environment, 15(6)
End Times prophesy is nothing new. It sells newspapers and allows Politicians easy sound bites.
Regarding Self Evident Truths I like this from the anonymous response to the Publication of the US declaration of Independence penned by Jeremy Bentham,
SK: WHERE DID I WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT END TIMES? WHAT A CROCK OF STRAWMAN BS.
***YOUR AUTHORITIES ON POPULATION DYNAMICS AND ECOSYSTEMS ARE SHELDRAKE AND ROSLING! WHAT A JOKE.
SK: “GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY.” CHRISTIAN BIBLE. COMPETITIVE BREEDING BY PATRIARCHAL MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS: ISLAM OPENLY SAYS THEY WILL OUTBREED ALL OTHERS. ORTHODOX JEWS DO SO TO SPREAD THEIR VIEWS AND MEMBERS. BOTH KEEP WOMEN AS UNDERLINGS. OPEN YOUR EYES. OTHER SECTS DO FGM.
Paragraph from my paper:
There are many religious (and ethnic) beliefs which can influence human
reproductive behavior. Some examples include Muslim sects, Orthodox Jewish,
and Catholic doctrine. The most extreme example that I’m aware of is the
Morman belief that twelve offspring by a man places him closest to God. Groups
at war have overtly used competitive breeding as an alternate method of
conquest, and rape has been used as part of ethnic cleansing. Other than
obscure suicide sects, I know of no religions, which advocate a reduction in
the number of their adherents. Some might recognize that overpopulation is a
problem. This could present a dilemma to them as they seek to spread their
version of the truth and the good. The Dalai Lama gave a speech in New Zealand
a few years ago where it was reported that he said the world’s population
problem would benefit from more priests, nuns, gays, and lesbians. I interpret
this as a touch of humor applied to a serious problem by a wise leader.
Vaclav Smil, Not the Smail , Steven mistakenly said he had quoted ( as Smil) i
SK: BOY, ARE YOU SLOPPY. FALSE: IF YOU HAD CHECKED THE REFERENCE, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN:
Smail, J.K., 1995, Confronting the 21st Century’s Hidden Crisis, NPG Forum,
SK: ALL THE BELOW IS NON SEQUITUR
SK: ZILCH ABOUT MY PAPER. YOU SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, ROGER.
Where did I quote Smil? You haven’t answered any of my points in my response you your daft draft.
Steven B Kurtzon September 28, 2019 at 6:01 pm said:
I quoted Smil in my 2000 systems paper on overpopulation. He is indeed an expert on many things. However, the trends I mentioned are factual. To brush them aside is to judge the feedback unimportant. As I’ve written before, I’m ready to wager for charity on measurable outcomes at
A division of the Long Now Foundation. (Stewart Brand & Kevin Kelly founders)
Am only a retired dilettante trained in analytic philosophy, but have researched this for 3 decades or so.
I have more stomach and balls than you’ll ever have, Roger. But your loony tune audience will be composed of those convinced of your omniscience. Get an impartial scientific jury, and I’ll fly in person! That’s how a track record can be supported. You have ZERO on this topic, and you offer supernatural garbage. Go win a Nobel with your “evidence.”
Perhaps you need professional help, Roger. I sincerely hope you get it. You begin your philosophizing by saying you don’t want a debate. And I can see why! You addressed not one point in my paper. But a jury of science is not what you want.
Let your flock cheer your “victory.” That’s what all gurus desire.
Please post the below statement with my other comments.
If a jury of scientists is assembled, I’ll fly to a convenient location for you at my expense, and debate you. I’ll not play cartoon games with you.
Steven B Kurtzon said:
As I responded to Roger, these animations are childish and extremely difficult to analyze. They stimulate gut reactions. My text has been on-line for nearly 20 years in various places, and is still found on two sites, one being Countercurrents. Roger kindly sent me (after I requested it) the text of his “rebuttal” which I am about to read. That is the only sensible way to critique a paper. Cartoons with robot talk don’t cut it.
Steven B Kurtz on said:
Fighting patriarchy and empowering women to control their pregnancies and births is often left out of the discussion. David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, David Suzuki are among the patrons of Population Institute Canada. The first two are also patrons of Population Matters(UK) We’ve doubled in 50 years, tripled in 75, and quadrupled in 100. No wonder we’re destroying the planet!
Steven B Kurtzon said:
Ah, so Your refusal to explain your scheme to the blog members is my problem. And then you cloak your muddled thinking with a religious doctrine. Must be greatly self-satisfying, however the list learns nothing from it.
Steven B Kurtzon said:
The list can decide who is using ad hominem. I simply stated two points needing clarification in your first comment to Tim’s recent post. You attacked me for doing so.
Dave Taylor October 13, 2018 at 11:26 am
he projects his own truthfulness onto whatever anyone other than the immediate dissenter is telling him: uncritically critically accepting lies, not seeing through all those Schopenhauer evasions and perpetuating the damage made by acting as if they rather than his interest-free credit card understanding of money were true. Wishful thinking to avoid seeing himself as wrong? Of course we need to revise economic teaching, but in my view adult teaching ought to start with the old advice, “Know Thyself”, starting from the Jungian personality anaqlysis in e.g. Isobel Briggs Myers’ “Gifts Differing”, and the Freudian transactional analysis of error states in T D Harris’s “I’m OK, You’re OK”. It is not a bad idea to read brain guru Dr Edward de Bono on “Lateral Thinking”, “Parallel Thinking”, on perception in “I am Right, You are Wrong”, and reading the riot act in “New Thinking for the New Millenium”. Perhaps there is hope in the chaos theory story of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings seeding a hurricane?
Your notes will be taken into account and faithfully reported in the summarised live stream on Friday Evening.
On other matters the Notes Blog may also require some addressing,I would not want you claiming to have been blindsided.
your flimsy defence so far seems to suggest you are running scared of discussing your paper, which is actually comprehensively deconstructed and negated in the “Childish Cartoon ” but also the written Text. My Annotated essay will complete the Job.
There are few redemptive qualities in your Paper Steven, it may be excused in that it is twenty years Old, charitably we could allow that it has not aged well.
I am of course only too happy to allow you the platform to defend it, should you wish to.
You really are being rather unpleasant old Chap. There really is no need to concern yourself with my well being, I am as strong as an ox and bright as a new box of buttons.
The thing I have noticed with you Forum Sliding Thought police types especially that side of the Pond is this whole, are you taking your meds, you must be high ad hominem, is standard issue and first resort at the first sign of any wrong Think. Frankly, it’s pretty pathetic, You know what you need to get used to losing, there’s going to be rather a lot of it for you Establishment Banking Types, its real-world guys like me that will have to clear up the mess you all made, but of course you were really only just following orders I suppose.
Anyway, Tune in Friday and I will finish the Job, your paper really is not very good I am not surprised you have forgotten who you did and did not quote, rest assured I will not.
Non sequitur (literary device)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia formal fallacy.
A non sequitur (English: /nɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər/ non SEK-wit-ər, Classical Latin: [noːn ˈsɛkᶣɪtʊr]; “it does not follow”) is a conversational literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.
This use of the term is distinct from the non sequitur in logic, where it is a fallacy.
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.