Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.



2 Pages<12
#22 Posted : Monday, July 20, 2015 8:38:39 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators, Approved
Joined: 7/14/2011(UTC)
Posts: 75

Dingo;11043 wrote:
I have already suggested that the Europeans came into a Native American world that appeared to be comprehensively sustainable.

I know, and I have agreed that they were sustainable if we use the definition of sustainability that is commonly accepted and indifferent to deaths caused by averaging too many babies. This type of sustainability is trivial to achieve. Just wait. The resources will run out, leaving only renewable resources. I am trying to get across a different definition of sustainability that makes more sense.

Dingo;11043 wrote:
You still keep separating out children from the rest of the population as far as excess death which strikes me as clueless.

I understand it seems clueless. To understand why averaging too many babies kills children and only children please think through the following and ask questions if it does not make sense. I need to get this writing to the point where it is not confusing.

Consider the situation where the sustenance production is stable (e.g. the bulk of human history, and not the past 500 years). Children must die at a rate of (x-2)/x where x is the number of babies adults average. If the adult life expectancy rate is dropping (killing adults), then the child mortality rate can be less than that formula. I hope it is obvious the adult life expectancy cannot be dropping for long, thus killing adults can only provide a temporary respite from the required child mortality. Our ignorance of this causes us to sacrifice adult life expectancy which shifts the age distribution lower which means that more absolute numbers of children are being killed to satisfy (x-2)/x rate. See this explanation if this is not clear.

Dingo;11043 wrote:
You also offer no scenario for achieving sustainability in the real world.

My scenario is to find others that are capable of comprehending the concepts that I am trying to convey. They in turn will help show others these concepts. At some point we will be able to convince a few prominent population scientists. Eventually get to the point where these concepts are taught in schools, so that everyone grows up knowing these facts of nature. When the bulk of the population knows these concepts, I am confident that they will vote in a way that makes sense.

However, note that I am stating that sustainability is achieved by ensuring the population averages less than 2 babies as long as resources are being used faster than they renew. This is the definition of sustainability that should be known and used.

Dingo;11043 wrote:
Your world of number accountants who appear indifferent to ecological feed backs, just playing a numbers game, is a bureaucratic nightmare populated by population control bean counters.

I have no opinion, and have not expressed anything of the sort, as to how a government would implement the necessary laws to ensure the population does not average too many babies. I am concerned with making sure that everyone on this planet knows that averaging too many babies kills children, and that we have always averaged too many babies. Please show me where my writing deviates from that. I want to make sure I do not make that mistake again.

JohnTaves wrote:
They must implement a system where someone is allowed to get pregnant when another dies. Alternatively, they could do a system where everyone stops at two, but is allowed to create another upon death of a child or if someone gives them their unused birth. With either of these systems births replace deaths, instead of births causing deaths.

This is probably what you are referring to, but this is not describing a "world of number accountants". This is explaining a fundamental concept that must be known. We must know the difference between births replacing deaths, vs births causing deaths.

Dingo;11043 wrote:

My model of community involvement in sustainability does address the matter of population with numbers as a guide, not an obsession. Presumably they would operate in cooperation with other sustainable communities in policing the communities of aggression ie of population proliferators.

This sounds great, except that you consistently argue against the fundamental concepts that must be known in order to know whether a community is averaging too many babies. If you don't know that averaging too many babies kills children and only children, you cannot judge who and who is not a population proliferater. Your writing keeps failing to distinguish between a population that is stable vs a population that is not averaging too many babies.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.075 seconds.