The insidious "Roe" effect

[piqaboo]

I figured Haggis's quip was a funny. And I thought RC's conclusion was also a funny.

And now I'm curious about the birth/death/pop growth rate in Thailand, whcih I have never previously thought about. So Ive had a horizon expanded!

[dai bread]

[quote]Originally posted by Shapley:
Dai,

RE:[b]From what I read, the limiting factor in population growth is going to be water rather than food.

Actually, once the global warming kicks in and starts melting the ice caps, there will be fresh water aplenty.

Then I finished the thread! Others have picked this up and my comment was superfluous.

BTW, I'm surprised at the negative comments Nicole Marie mentioned. I hadn't found anything offensive here. Maybe I've been around here too long and I've got used to the posters.

<small>[ 11-29-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: dai bread ]</small>

[hal 9000]

[quote]Originally posted by dai bread:
Sorry, Shapley, but the serious icecaps, in Greenland and Antarctica, will melt into the ocean and all their water will be salt.

<small>[ 11-29-2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: hal9000 ]</small>

[dai bread]

Hi Hal.
Being "capable" doesn't mean "economically viable". I know there have been several desalination plants built; in Japan & Saudi Arabia for instance. I don't know what the water costs per litre.

I think if desalination was economically viable, it would be more widely used. The Australians, for instance, are getting quite worried about the Murray/Darling river system, but I haven't heard of any desalination plants on their drawing boards.

The process appears to require a lot of energy. There is talk of nuclear-powered plants in Australia, but it's only talk at present. The Saudis use oil; I suspect the Japanese use nuclear power.

It seems clear that desalination is the way of the future for those places which lack NZ's ample rainfall, but it's not a simple option by any means.

[RC]

Well if it's OK to continue as long as I keep it above the belt...

Shap & BigJon,

re: comments about starvation, what about the Hawkings quote? He made that prediction in 2000.
Whatever you think about starvation there is only so much surface to cover.

He did specifically say IF we continue at the present rate.

You may call all these people doomsayers but what if it is the doomsayer predictions that actually change reality?

Also, water is an issue in the US right now. I'll expand that later.

[Shapley]

RC,

I haven't given much thought to the Hawkings quote. I'm an optimist. Where others see problems, I see opportunities.

Desalinization is unpopular now because of the cost, yet people will pay $2 a bottle for spring water even though water is available free from their tap. As we become more populous, and the need for more water becomes evident, the costs will likely be worth it. New technologies will lower that cost significantly if the future.

Aircraft carriers generate their own fresh water through desalinization of sea water. They provide sufficient water for a crew of 7,000, plus the launching of aircraft and the operation of a variety of steam-powered equipment. Submarines do likewise, on a smaller scale.

The global warming/ice melt was tongue in cheek, which is why I used the little smiley thingy. As has been pointed out before, no one knows what the effects of global warming will be. If it gets too warm, the dinosaurs will probably want their land back, and we'll have to move anyway. After all, they were here first!

V/R
Shapley

[shostakovich]

Wayback quote: "After all, part of the fundamentalist/"Christian Right" doctrine is to take that whole "be fruitful and multiply" business as a mission statement. You know, damn the consequences, more is better!"

As a proponent of population control, I prefer "Be fruits and don't multiply".



Actually, I have no bigotry regarding gay or straight. But I actually DO feel that gay couples provide society a service by not increasing population. Adoption is a good alternative for them, as it moves an unwanted child to wanted staus.
Shos