Christian Pipe Smokers
  Login or Register
Links
Site
· Home
· RSS Feed
· Contact Mods
· Contact Admins
Community
· Forums
Members List
Private Messages
· Donate
Account
· Your Account
· Edit Profile

Search CPS


 
Christian Pipe Smokers :: View topic - It's Mathematics

View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
wosbald
What's the funny part?
What's the funny part?


Joined: Feb 26, 2008
Posts: 13139
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 5:59 am Reply with quote Back to top

+JMJ+
Onyx wrote:
However, I wouldn't want limitations imposed upon having children (as has been done in China). It is observed that when a society provides education for girls, then those young women (as they mature) tend to manage their own birth control.

So, you prefer the Corrupt-Them-Young approach. That school is gaining ground, especially in America.

_________________
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima
View user's profile Send private message
Del
Crosby's squeeze toy
Crosby's squeeze toy


Joined: Mar 04, 2008
Posts: 26186
Location: Madison, WI

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 7:32 am Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
Del wrote:
The world has endured a lot of population growth recently.

Humans have also endured a tremendous increase in our standard of living during this time. In fact, many nations have become entirely too wealthy, and yet we are the ones who like to talk about the "problem" of "too many people."

Yeah, so any suggestions?


Sure. Stop worrying about the malthusian gloom-and-doom.

Rejoice that modern technology allows the earth to support many billions of people.

Live frugally, and do not abuse and waste the wealth, like the rich modern pagan world.

Be happy, stay married, and have more children.

_________________
This is a chastisement from God.
It is no longer Democrats v. Republicans; it's the Ruling Class v. the Rest of Us.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rusty
Minister of the Gideons
Minister of the Gideons


Joined: May 02, 2008
Posts: 17421
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:05 am Reply with quote Back to top

Del wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Del wrote:
The world has endured a lot of population growth recently.

Humans have also endured a tremendous increase in our standard of living during this time. In fact, many nations have become entirely too wealthy, and yet we are the ones who like to talk about the "problem" of "too many people."

Yeah, so any suggestions?


Sure. Stop worrying about the malthusian gloom-and-doom.

Rejoice that modern technology allows the earth to support many billions of people.

Live frugally, and do not abuse and waste the wealth, like the rich modern pagan world.

Be happy, stay married, and have more children.


He asked you for suggestions and you didn't proselytize for the RCC?
Who are you and how did you get into Del's CPS account??

_________________
Adam was a sloth and a moron. ~ Del
Adam was a Hermaphrodite. ~ ElgarAlienPooh
We are insane. ~ Del
View user's profile Send private message
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak


Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Posts: 14017
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:06 am Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
Hovannes wrote:
Onyx,
Uhhh, who was taking the census back in 2000BC on the graph you cited?


I guess you're saying that we don't know exactly how many people were alive at that time. That is true. The same is true today. We have estimates.

Are you suggesting that since we cannot know exactly, therefore we should not attempt to form any projections based on estimates and not do any planning for the future?

Have another look at the graph at the 2000 BC point... it's not exactly claiming an accuracy to the person. However, if there were in fact - say - more than 100 million people at that time, then the estimates would be wrong by several factors, and yet the graph would still trace a very similar shape and my question would still be valid. So what is your point exactly?


If you expect your projections to have any validity, you need valid data. The data you cite is fictional, unless there actually was a 2000 BC census in every corner of the planet to draw from.
What you've got is an academic guess. Nothing more.
Thats what China operated on. Soon they'll have a population absurdly skewed towards males.

_________________
What the sun does to dash boards,
the sun does to Glocks
View user's profile Send private message
Steverino
Gentleman of the Briar
Gentleman of the Briar


Joined: Apr 01, 2007
Posts: 6983
Location: Lexington, NC, near the Walmart

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:23 am Reply with quote Back to top

It is my conviction that God owns the world and all that is in it. If it gets too far out of kilter, He'll straighten it out.
View user's profile Send private message
TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards


Joined: Sep 15, 2008
Posts: 12912

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:31 am Reply with quote Back to top

Hovannes wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Hovannes wrote:
Onyx,
Uhhh, who was taking the census back in 2000BC on the graph you cited?


I guess you're saying that we don't know exactly how many people were alive at that time. That is true. The same is true today. We have estimates.

Are you suggesting that since we cannot know exactly, therefore we should not attempt to form any projections based on estimates and not do any planning for the future?

Have another look at the graph at the 2000 BC point... it's not exactly claiming an accuracy to the person. However, if there were in fact - say - more than 100 million people at that time, then the estimates would be wrong by several factors, and yet the graph would still trace a very similar shape and my question would still be valid. So what is your point exactly?


If you expect your projections to have any validity, you need valid data. The data you cite is fictional, unless there actually was a 2000 BC census in every corner of the planet to draw from.
What you've got is an academic guess. Nothing more.
Thats what China operated on. Soon they'll have a population absurdly skewed towards males.


I think you're arguing an inconsequential point here.

We know that the population of Earth, for the most part, increases and has increased exponentially for as long as humans have populated Earth. Any numbers showing otherwise would not detract from Onyx's point in his original post, and we have learned from recent statistics regarding major instances of tens of millions of deaths (totaling much more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone) that the exponential increase now occurring is no where close to being slowed or stopped.

For the sake of posterity, though, Wikipedia puts the estimate at 50 million people around 1000 BC. China, Israel, Egypt, and others were conducting censuses before that time.

_________________
The preference of the Sun was to the South side of the farm, but I planted North in terracotta pots. Blind as I'd become, I used to wonder where You are. These days, I can't find where You're not.
View user's profile Send private message
jruegg
Mr. Eggs
Mr. Eggs


Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Posts: 23017
Location: Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15)

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:51 am Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
jruegg wrote:
If you want mind blowing mathematics, check out my last sermon.

Ok.

EDIT: Ok, I'm gonna ask you for a little something. If you go back and edit your sermon post... please just space out the paragraphs. Just hit <enter> a couple of times wherever you think a paragraph break might go. I'm finding it hard to keep my place. After that, I'll go back and read the whole thing. Thanks!


Done.
View user's profile Send private message
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole


Joined: Aug 02, 2009
Posts: 7554

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:57 am Reply with quote Back to top

The thing is, population growth is not a matter of mathematics. Children do not arise from the sacred uni0n of Mathematics and Statistics. They are each the result of the free actions of human beings.

Population growth does not drive itself, but is influenced by many factors, just like immigration does not happen as the result of people accidentally drifting over the border in greater and greater numbers. Each comes here as the result of a specifically chosen and purposeful action, or series of actions.

Tracking statistical trends will always result in absurdity if not checked by common sense. It's a bit like me worrying that, since I'm painting twenty hours a week now, where last year I only managed ten, in a few years I'll be painting 320 hours a week... almost twice the number of hours there are in a week. Or worrying that in another decade my daughter will have to cope with the challenges of being 11 feet tall.

Where are all these starving people supposed to come from? How will the Earth manage to produce such an abundance of organisms it cannot support? This seems illogical, to me. Widespread, catastrophic famine could only be caused by a sudden dramatic decrease in the available food supply.

We are aware that the population of the entire planet could fit into the state of Texas with 1000 square feet for each individual?

_________________
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
View user's profile Send private message
jruegg
Mr. Eggs
Mr. Eggs


Joined: Dec 18, 2009
Posts: 23017
Location: Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15)

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 2:00 pm Reply with quote Back to top

OldWorldSwine wrote:
The thing is, population growth is not a matter of mathematics.


Can better math make for better sex? If so, then your argument is void.
View user's profile Send private message
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak


Joined: Oct 05, 2009
Posts: 14017
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 2:01 pm Reply with quote Back to top

TNLawPiper wrote:
Hovannes wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Hovannes wrote:
Onyx,
Uhhh, who was taking the census back in 2000BC on the graph you cited?


I guess you're saying that we don't know exactly how many people were alive at that time. That is true. The same is true today. We have estimates.

Are you suggesting that since we cannot know exactly, therefore we should not attempt to form any projections based on estimates and not do any planning for the future?

Have another look at the graph at the 2000 BC point... it's not exactly claiming an accuracy to the person. However, if there were in fact - say - more than 100 million people at that time, then the estimates would be wrong by several factors, and yet the graph would still trace a very similar shape and my question would still be valid. So what is your point exactly?


If you expect your projections to have any validity, you need valid data. The data you cite is fictional, unless there actually was a 2000 BC census in every corner of the planet to draw from.
What you've got is an academic guess. Nothing more.
Thats what China operated on. Soon they'll have a population absurdly skewed towards males.


I think you're arguing an inconsequential point here.

We know that the population of Earth, for the most part, increases and has increased exponentially for as long as humans have populated Earth. Any numbers showing otherwise would not detract from Onyx's point in his original post, and we have learned from recent statistics regarding major instances of tens of millions of deaths (totaling much more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone) that the exponential increase now occurring is no where close to being slowed or stopped.

For the sake of posterity, though, Wikipedia puts the estimate at 50 million people around 1000 BC. China, Israel, Egypt, and others were conducting censuses before that time.


To paraphrase the movie Grumpier Old Men, put Wikipedia in one hand and $hi+ in the other and see which one smells like it should. Wink The US Government, with all it's resources in the 21st century can't conduct a 100% accurate census, but only an approximation (and that of responding legal respondents who are literate.) I think the inaccuracy would exponentially increase as you go back in time. Razz

_________________
What the sun does to dash boards,
the sun does to Glocks
View user's profile Send private message
Cleon
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar


Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Posts: 9973
Location: Indiana - South of 40

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 2:27 pm Reply with quote Back to top

The population increases would pretty much stop and even reverse if everyone just turned gay.

I say this in jest, but I can see homosexuals touting that as a virtuous biproduct of their lifestyle choices.

_________________
"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven" - Jesus
View user's profile Send private message
Murf
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar


Joined: Apr 20, 2011
Posts: 1137
Location: Inland Empire, CA

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 3:41 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Onyx wrote:
People have been wrong about population growth a lot. We had the big population scares in recent decades - they were overblown. Nevertheless, there are factors that increase human population by improving infant survival and life expectancy. These have made human population numbers look something like this:

Image

A glance at the graph and you'll know that this can't possibly be the whole picture. Something has to change. Since we now can (and want to) enjoy conditions that keep us healthy more reliably, something has to balance that equation. The human population cannot indefinitely grow as it has in recent years.

The balance is coming in part because people are having fewer children. We are doing something new - birth control. There is the evil (IMO) enforced one-child policy in China, there is a rise in infertility in the western world, and there is voluntary birth control.

Some of you are opposed to artificial birth control on religious grounds. I respect the wholesome intent of this doctrine, but I do not accept its basis and therefore disagree with the doctrine. But my question to you is not about the morality or theology of the doctrine, it's about the mathematics. If humans were to continue having children at the pre-pill rate which resulted in the peak 2.2% per annum population growth in 1962 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate )... while at the same time improving health outcomes for childbirth and for disease... then what would balance the human population growth?


Hard to say. This is why people like Zubrin and Hawking say that our expansion to other planets MUST happen. That infrastructure will be decades or more likely centuries in the making, so I see that as being WAY ahead of the game. I think that we will be terraforming parts of our planet before others.

Is this a problem that can mathematically affect us this century? What was the growth from 1900-2000?

What about this chart from your same article?

Image

_________________
It's easier to force feed people than it is to give 'em what they want. It makes more money.      -Merle Haggard
View user's profile Send private message
OldWorldSwine
rootle round the ear 'ole
rootle round the ear 'ole


Joined: Aug 02, 2009
Posts: 7554

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 3:49 pm Reply with quote Back to top

jruegg wrote:
OldWorldSwine wrote:
The thing is, population growth is not a matter of mathematics.


Can better math make for better sex? If so, then your argument is void.



S'cuse me. I have to void.

_________________
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
View user's profile Send private message
Onyx
Small nuts
Small nuts


Joined: Dec 02, 2008
Posts: 6300
Location: Skeptopolis

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 4:17 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Murf wrote:
Onyx wrote:
People have been wrong about population growth a lot. We had the big population scares in recent decades - they were overblown. Nevertheless, there are factors that increase human population by improving infant survival and life expectancy. These have made human population numbers look something like this:

Image

A glance at the graph and you'll know that this can't possibly be the whole picture. Something has to change. Since we now can (and want to) enjoy conditions that keep us healthy more reliably, something has to balance that equation. The human population cannot indefinitely grow as it has in recent years.

The balance is coming in part because people are having fewer children. We are doing something new - birth control. There is the evil (IMO) enforced one-child policy in China, there is a rise in infertility in the western world, and there is voluntary birth control.

Some of you are opposed to artificial birth control on religious grounds. I respect the wholesome intent of this doctrine, but I do not accept its basis and therefore disagree with the doctrine. But my question to you is not about the morality or theology of the doctrine, it's about the mathematics. If humans were to continue having children at the pre-pill rate which resulted in the peak 2.2% per annum population growth in 1962 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate )... while at the same time improving health outcomes for childbirth and for disease... then what would balance the human population growth?


Hard to say. This is why people like Zubrin and Hawking say that our expansion to other planets MUST happen. That infrastructure will be decades or more likely centuries in the making, so I see that as being WAY ahead of the game. I think that we will be terraforming parts of our planet before others.

Is this a problem that can mathematically affect us this century? What was the growth from 1900-2000?

What about this chart from your same article?

Image

Yes. For those who have said they don't get along with maths so well, I'll just point out that the sloping down graph is the growth "rate", not the growth. In other words, the population is still growing by a percentage. I mentioned in my opening post that the "rate" peaked in 1962 - 1963. That also coincides with the time when the contraceptive pill became commonly used.

To answer TNLP, I don't think we should enforce anything! People make their own decisions. It's already happening, as the sloping down graph shows. The question relates to those who object to the use of contraceptives.

Hovannes, you seem not to understand mathematical precision. Here's an article on it written by someone who does understand the concept well. No offense, but it's in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

OWS, I appreciate your point that the Catholic Church does not forbid regulating births in a family by natural means - I guess that means the timing methods. I wonder about the relative effectiveness of this method.

_________________
Bringing back the old CPS. One non sequitur at a time.
View user's profile Send private message
Murf
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar


Joined: Apr 20, 2011
Posts: 1137
Location: Inland Empire, CA

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 4:33 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Has there ever been a time when the growth rate went negative?

_________________
It's easier to force feed people than it is to give 'em what they want. It makes more money.      -Merle Haggard
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic   Reply to topic

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


 
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters,
all the rest © 2002-2037 by Christian Pipe Smokers



Page Generation: 0.43 Seconds