Japan reactors pose no risk?

Maybe you can still get in on nuclear futures?

Maniac, you should hook-up with "her"......I think "she" would like that......I'm sure "she" has a surprise something-something for you that you won't mind........ Originally Posted by Marshall

What is your problem? Can`t you believe women this smart exist??

What is your problem? Can`t you believe women this smart exist?? Originally Posted by ninasastri

Why are you putting words in my mouth and using that as a basis to pick on me?

What is your problem? Can`t you believe women this smart exist?? Originally Posted by ninasastri

Two words Nina: ignore, button

Everybody here already knows what this guy is all about. Just let it slide.

The less you feed it the faster it dies.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Two words Nina: ignore, button

Everybody here already knows what this guy is all about. Just let it slide.

The less you feed it the faster it dies.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

ok thanks...

But the tag says he is a "valued poster" - just like you.

Because of the world's expanding population and limited resources you will never be able to supply folks with enough electricity. We can only partially do it now.

This discussion IMHO is a lesson in futility.

Think China 1979.

Two words Nina: ignore, button

Everybody here already knows what this guy is all about. Just let it slide.

The less you feed it the faster it dies.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I hope you got this post stored as a template somewhere....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Methinks ignoring the guy who discredits your opinions is the best way to remain ignorant....some people are happier in that state because they don't have to face reality.....smart is like driving, most think they're above average.........

Because of the world's expanding population Originally Posted by WTF

you need to find a reputable source on world birthrates.....

But the tag says he is a "valued poster" - just like you. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I think we need to to start a pool on how long it'll be before that changes to something starting with "b". I've got money on 36 hours, max.

Besides, you're the one who encouraged him to hang around. We ought to be sending you out with a bag and a pooper scooper to get rid of him.

you need to find a reputable source on world birthrates..... Originally Posted by Marshall

Do you disagree that the world population is expanding?

I did not realize that you still believe the world is flat. For people like you there are no reputable sources.

Do you know what the average consumption factor is for a person in this country?

Do you know what it is for the developing world?

Do you realize that the rest of the world is starting to realize the inbalance?

Do you understand the problem that poses?

Do you disagree that the world population is expanding?

I did not realize that you still believe the world is flat. For people like you there are no reputable sources.

Do you know what the average consumption factor is for a person in this country?

Do you know what it is for the developing world?

Do you realize that the rest of the world is starting to realize the inbalance?

Do you understand the problem that poses? Originally Posted by WTF

In the short term it will expand, but then something different will happen.....accurate knowledge of world birthrates will tell you what that something different is..........

You seem to be one of those misinformed people who think that humanity is running out of resources to sustain our population....are you one of those misinformed people?....People like that have been around for over 150 years since Sir Francis Galton.....you know these eugenicists who believe "certain types" of people need to be limited in number....other examples of these people include Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Margaret Sanger who don't want to have to many of the "wrong kind of people" living.....you know what these racists mean......and yes, THAT Margaret Sanger!

In the short term it will expand, but then something different will happen.....accurate knowledge of world birthrates will tell you what that something different is..........

! Originally Posted by Marshall

Consumption is what you are having trouble grasping. The world has a limited supply of resources. If you can not understand that concept , just quit the discussion now. Just look at China...read the whole article if you want to expand your knowledge base.

You evidently have never heard of herd mangement. The same principal applies to humans, despite WTF you think your God has told you.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...02diamond.html

Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase per capita consumption rates at home, China stands out. It has the world’s fastest growing economy, and there are 1.3 billion Chinese, four times the United States population. The world is already running out of resources, and it will do so even sooner if China achieves American-level consumption rates. Already, China is competing with us for oil and metals on world markets.
Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below ours, but let’s suppose they rise to our level. Let’s also make things easy by imagining that nothing else happens to increase world consumption — that is, no other country increases its consumption, all national populations (including China’s) remain unchanged and immigration ceases. China’s catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.

If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).



Do you understand this concept Marshall? . It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people

That does not mean that the worlds population has to rise to that level. It means that the consumption would. It is not substainable. Period.

People like that have been around for over 150 years since Sir Francis Galton.....! Originally Posted by Marshall

You ever heard of the Black Swan Theory?

Consumption is what you are having trouble grasping. The world has a limited supply of resources. If you can not understand that concept , just quit the discussion now. Just look at China...read the whole article if you want to expand your knowledge base.

You evidently have never heard of herd mangement. The same principal applies to humans, despite WTF you think your God has told you.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/op...02diamond.html

Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase per capita consumption rates at home, China stands out. It has the world’s fastest growing economy, and there are 1.3 billion Chinese, four times the United States population. The world is already running out of resources, and it will do so even sooner if China achieves American-level consumption rates. Already, China is competing with us for oil and metals on world markets.
Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below ours, but let’s suppose they rise to our level. Let’s also make things easy by imagining that nothing else happens to increase world consumption — that is, no other country increases its consumption, all national populations (including China’s) remain unchanged and immigration ceases. China’s catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates. Oil consumption would increase by 106 percent, for instance, and world metal consumption by 94 percent.

If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).



Do you understand this concept Marshall? . It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people

That does not mean that the worlds population has to rise to that level. It means that the consumption would. It is not substainable. Period. Originally Posted by WTF

You send me to the NY Times Opinion section!?! Isn't there a NY times Fact section?

OK, I will waste my breath on you one more time.

You are assuming that humans beings are running out of resources. I don't see you presenting facts that human beings are running out of resources.

Let me machete some of your thickets and be less obtuse than usual....

Useful information for the debate:
Studies on earth's resource reserves
other non-earth located sources of resources
technology advancement
supply/demand dynamics
recycling impact
future projections of types of resources needed

this crap is just off the top of my head from 2 seconds of thought......how am I suppose to take your opinions seriously? You got to do better than that before I make additional effort to rifle through my library and prove you wrong.....

I think we need to to start a pool on how long it'll be before that changes to something starting with "b". I've got money on 36 hours, max.

Besides, you're the one who encouraged him to hang around. We ought to be sending you out with a bag and a pooper scooper to get rid of him. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I don't think his shit is any more obnoxious than some of the other stuff we have seen around here recently.