Stephen Joseph

Then we're in hell.

Then explain to me why. Because by any stretch of any sort of analysis, your claim falls on its face. If supply tightens, prices will rise. Higher prices increase incentives to develop alternatives (which we are seeing already). In the history of man, every time a doomsday said we'd run out of something, we haven't, because alternatives develop. Don't give in to the scare tactics. And yes, resources are finite. But constraints guide us along.

The mess that Iraq is in is because of Saddam Hussein. The US attempted to clean it up, but we haven't done the best of jobs with it. We didn't think it through enough. NO MATTER who or what coalition tried to help Iraq, this WOULD have happened.

Stop Commiting Malthusian Vices you crazy Oil Crashers! Each and every one of these doomsday run out of resources predictions runs right into this logic trap. Mathusian Vice At the time Malthus wrote, most societies had populations at or near their agricultural limits. But by the late 20th century, the new agricultural technologies of the green revolution had greatly expanded agricultural production throughout the world, and what famines still occurred were largely caused by war or political unrest rather than crop failure. In addition, most technologically developed countries had by this time passed through the demographic transition, a complex social development in which total fertility rates drop drastically in response to lower infant mortality, more education of women, increased urbanization, and a wider availability of contraception. By the end of the 20th century, these countries could avoid population declines only by permitting large-scale immigration. On the assumption that the demographic transition would spread to less developed countries, the United Nations Population Division estimated that human population would peak in the late 21st century rather than continue to grow until it exhausted available resources. Another problem is that there is no strong evidence that the human population—nor any real population—actually follows exponential growth. In plant or animal populations that are claimed to show exponential growth, closer examination invariably shows that the supposedly exponential curve is actually the lower limb of a logistic curve, or a section of a Lotka-Volterra cycle. Also, examination of records of estimated total world human population ([1] [2]) shows at best very weak evidence of exponential growth: Clearly this is close to linear. In fact, the correlation coefficient is practically the same for linear growth, or very slow exponential growth (with a characteristic time of about 60 years). The annual increase graph is worse; for exponential growth, it should itself be an upward trending exponential curve whereas it has actually been trending downward since 1986. Also the rate of increase should increase, whereas, of the increase between the early 1950s and today, five-sixths occurred in the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s (presumably attributable to the Green revolution); it then rose to a peak in 1989 and has since declined to levels approaching those of 1970. Though short-term trends, even on the scale of decades or centuries, do not necessarily disprove the underlying mechanisms promoting a Malthusian catastrophe over longer periods, the relative prosperity of the human population at the beginning of the 21st century, and the apparent failure of spectacular predictions of mass starvation or ecological collapse made by activists such as Paul R. Ehrlich in the 1960s and 1970s, has led many people, such as economist Julian Simon, to question its inevitability. His book The Ultimate Resource, later reissued as The Ultimate Resource 2, is a criticism of the conventional wisdom of population growth and resource consumption. In it, Simon challenged the notion of a pending Malthusian catastrophe — that an increase in population has negative economic consequences; that population is a drain on natural resources; and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. His critique was praised by Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, but also attracted many critics, such as Paul R. Ehrlich. A wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich was made in 1980 over the price of metals. Simon had been challenging environmental scientists to the bet for some time. Although Ehrlich noted that the five metals in the wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time, he and two other scientists agreed to the bet after consulting with colleagues. Simon won the bet. In 1995 he issued a challenge for another bet. Ehrlich refused, and proposed instead that they bet on a metric for human welfare. Ehrlich offered Simon a set of 15 metrics over 10 years, victor to be determined by scientists chosen by the president of the NAS in 2005. There was no meeting of the minds, because Simon felt that too many of the metrics measured attributes of the world not directly related to human welfare, e.g. the amount of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. [1] (http://dieoff.org/page27.htm) [2] (http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html) Julian Simon has been quoted as saying, "We have in our hands now - actually in our libraries - the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_between...nd_Paul_Ehrlich Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up. Julian Simon won handily and, per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). Simon offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred, but the two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager. But understanding that Simon wanted to bet again, Ehrlich and climatologist Stephen Schneider counter-offered, challenging Simon to bet on 15 current trends, betting $1000 that each will get worse (as in the previous wager) over a ten year future period. The trends they bet would continue to worsen were: The three years 2002-2004 will on average be warmer than 1992-1994. There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994. There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994. The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994. Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994. There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004 than in 1994. There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004 than 1994. There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per person in 2002-2004 than in 1992-1994. In developing nations there will be less firewood available per person in 2004 than in 1994. The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994. The oceanic fisheries harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994. There will be fewer plant and animal species still extant in 2004 than in 1994. More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than in 1994. Between 1994 and 2004, sperm counts of human males will continue to decline and reproductive disorders will continue to increase. The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994. Simon declined the bet, and used the following analogy to explain why he did so: "Let me characterize their [Ehrlich and Schneider's] offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure." Now, can we move on from such nonsensical talk about running out of shit?

And you people say that I've lost my mind?! Umm. No.

Actually, we are both incorrect. 50 Number of people who survive the initial crash 49 Turbine Man sucked into engine and dies 48 Pilot Killed by monster (this is the initial count that Jack makes, which doesn't include the Pilot or the Tubine Man) 47 Marshal euthanized by Jack 46 Joanna Drowns (confirmed in Ep. 5 when Jack tells Charlie "there's 46 of us now") 45 Scott is killed 45* Ethan killed by Charlie (see note above as to why Ethan's death doesn't affect the count) 46 Claire's son born 45 Boone dies 44 Arzt is blown to kingdom come

Gert There were 42 initial survivors. Minus Scott (or Steve), Joanna (who drowned) and Artz, there are now 39 survivors. And I thought Locke had stated that he was paralyzed publicly, and that's a reason for his faith

Thank God we have those Liberal Justices to protect our freedoms from those nasty conservatives!!!! ohh...wait...

i heard its going to go more continouos. as per locke, its most likely he sat there entranced, wondering, or arguing with it... itll be very interesting when they find the other survivors

No sir. You missed the point. The current US representation to the UN was appointed by BUSH JR. The US delegation OPPOSES the Saudia Aims. Therefore, Bush is also OPPOSING this. You're very ignorant.

But if it's something super awesome down in the hatch, are you going to complain that we took all this time to get to this super awesome thing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From what they've said, whatever is in it has more of an impact on the Locke character then the impact of shock of what's in it. I'm guessing either an answer to the Locke being paralyzed, or it's going to be something to makes Locke give up faith on the island because he doesn't get answers, or "hope." I just don't want to build it up even more than they have, and then they drop the ball on dissapointment. I think the way to get the most viewers in for the season debut is to maybe even tell what's in the hatch that episode. Or advertise it that way too in order to start the season on a good note. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought the impact on Locke's character was that they opened the hatch and it was a huge shaft with nothing in it... But, I'd be leaning toward whatever is down there making Locke more committed to his goals...whether or not theyre actually his goals is another matter entirely. Oh, just to mention, at a press conference in LA the writers brought up "string" theory. They said they're headed in a similar direction (making the triangle talk more likely). And that next season it will be getting X-Files weird. ::Drools::

He won't because the only reason he is a Democrat is to sell books. If he was a Republican, he would just be another right-wing Dem-basher. The fact that he remains D (INO) gives him a little pizzaz to help sell his crap and get him a spot with his good friend Sean Hannity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know what? (EDITED). Okay, how many people know Zell here? Hmm, that's right, no one. Okay, who lived in Georgia during Zell's tenure? hmm, well I did. Zell was a great governor. And he was a Democrat. A Southern Democrat and he's very pissed off that his party seems to have forgotten about its once powerful southern wing. He's not in it to sell books or be more famous. Don't speak shit about someone who you don't even know enough about them to garner a halfway educated opinion. <--BPP. Atlanta resident 1979-2003

holy...its matt?

No, and perhaps you should research Greenspan some. He was at a point in Ayn Rand's inner circle, and remember he's been Fed chief since reagan. He just says exactly what he feels needs to be said. Even if its not fully true (irrational exuberance) Very smart man, and very libertarian. There are a sufficient # of economic theories which point to the need for a substantial middle class for democracy to thrive.

love you guys too ::group hug::

We'd do wrestling on a trampoline. Most of em ended with submissions. I'd slap a Liontamer on, but cross his head with my leg...

That depends on what's re-infected Locke...

BUMP! Did anyone catch HHH's remark, "I am the King of Kings" On Raw last night. Made me think of this thread. RRR, we need more!

Haarrummpphhh About these pesky...numbers. They're a combination...

Cot Damn did Hudson get rocked

Team Glovier has Carlito Benoit Christian FIFI!!!! Cena Hassan RVD (for his eventual return) Benjamin Stacy

Got invited, saw it was resolved. thanks mods

You do realize that people have prediceted we'd run out of food, water, oil, etc.. for a long time now, yet technology keeps marching us along just fine We're not running out of shit, we just develop new technology that uses shit more efficiently. Necessity is the mother of all invention.

except, out of second baseman , the best one in the league (that isn't currently dl'ed) is ,.... Soriano.

Chipper's now DL'ed