freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 7:15pm:



Why do you think that over-population is the biggest problem and what would you suggest be done?

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 3:35pm:


I don't know where you get your figures from, but it's more like 500 years for coal, and that's a conservative estimate. We have enormous reserves of coal worldwide. For example, some coal producing basins in Australia have not even been touched yet.

Quote:


By deliberate confusion, do you mean like when people keep insisting that our economy depends on exponential growth but are unable to explain how? Or when they insist coal is about to run out, but can't provide any evidence except a few dodgy internet videos?

Yes, every country in the World seems to be suffering from the same problem....
Aging populations, and low birth rates...

When we reach a point where more than half of our citizens are over the retirement age, then we have a serious problem...
It equals less people to do the work, and more people 'retired' and on either living on superannuation or old age benefits.....both of which are detrimental to society...

Less people to pay taxes and actually produce food/goods and more people living off the food/goods....

THAT is a negative production status...

Quote:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#Population%20vs...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

Quote:


There are plenty that have the opposite problem.

Quote:


In what situations are people forced to retire? I know plenty of people working past the official retirement age.

Quote:


Yes. I did not intend to make you read the whole thing to find the answers you wanted. I directed you to the two most relevant parts.

Quote:


I can quote the relevant bits for you if you like. The sections I linked to are very short. I did not try to make you watch half an hour of dodgy internet video to get a simple answer. I directed you to two short paragraphs to give you an answer to a complicated question.

The reason I did not personally explain is because I think I have already done so in this thread. But if you still want me to I will.

Quote:


I refer you to my post of 12.44pm yesterday on this thread and I ask again, seeing as you have again referred dodgy internet video's -
"What parts of professors arithmetic were dodgy?"

The Professor, being Dr Albert Bartlett, is one of the video's that you refer to and apparent haven't watched.
===========
Albert Allen Bartlett (born 1923 in Shanghai)[1] is an emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. Professor Bartlett has lectured over 1,600 times since September, 1969 on Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.[2]

Bartlett joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder in September 1950. His B.A. degree in physics is from Colgate University (1944) and his M.A. (1948) and Ph.D. (1951) degrees in physics are from Harvard University. In 1978 he was national president of the American Association of Physics Teachers. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1969 and 1970 he served two terms as the elected Chair of the four-campus Faculty Council of the University of Colorado.

Bartlett is a modern-day Malthusian.

Professor Bartlett often explains how sustainable growth is a contradiction. His view is based on the fact that a modest percentage growth can equate to huge escalations over short periods of time.

He regards overpopulation as "The Greatest Challenge" facing humanity, and promotes sustainable living. Bartlett opposes the cornucopian school of thought (as advocated by people such as Julian Lincoln Simon), and refers to it as The New Flat Earth Society.

J. B. Calvert (1999) has proposed that Bartlett's Law will result in the exhaustion of petrochemical resources due to the exponential growth of the world population (as per the Malthusian Growth Model).

Bartlett has made two notable statements relating to sustainability:

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

and his Great Challenge:

"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bartlett
===========
Btw, the fact that Dr Bartlett is well qualified to comment on these issues does not particularly impress me and nor do the qualifications of many other Economists or so called experts.
=========

Let me make an observation here, every decision that you, I or anyone else, ever comes to, is first influenced by others.

I should also point out that I read many of your comments on the thread attached to your "Population & Sustainability" article at -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164956379

which is where my following comment came from, in my post at 10.29pm yesterday.

I would venture that there are many areas, where we agree, but some clearly, where we do not agree!

As far as the retirement age goes, I do not think that it is generally compulsory to retire at a certain age, except in some professions.
Years ago train drivers had to retire at 65, but now there are some drivers over 70. I would definitely prefer a bus or train driver who is not overe 65, because there is more risk of becoming incapacitated, but then there are car drivers on the road who are over 90, so it is hard to say what the retirement age should be.
As far as the Australian population and the global population is concerned, only some people would benefit from an increase in the population, and they usually live in a less populated area of the cities, and at times on country estates.