Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-06-12 06:44:13
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7066|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:


No, the average family has 2
Which is a problem how?

Do you realise the massive implications of a low birth rate in most societies?
No, he doesn't. His continent would rather complain about their immigrants rather than worry about the fact that every nation in the Euro zone is well below the population replacement birthrate level.
Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-12 07:16:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5749|London, England

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Which is a problem how?

Do you realise the massive implications of a low birth rate in most societies?
No, he doesn't. His continent would rather complain about their immigrants rather than worry about the fact that every nation in the Euro zone is well below the population replacement birthrate level.
Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The socialist societies they have built are going to collapse catastrophically once the baby boomer generation retires. There will be more people retired than working. We're going to feel it here in America too and we don't have near the amount of support programs. I think Australia is below replacement too.

Yeah, everything below green is sub-replacement level:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg/800px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png
Green is 2-3
Cyan is 1-2

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-12 07:18:04)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 08:00:34
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6677|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, he doesn't. His continent would rather complain about their immigrants rather than worry about the fact that every nation in the Euro zone is well below the population replacement birthrate level.
Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The socialist societies they have built are going to collapse catastrophically once the baby boomer generation retires. There will be more people retired than working. We're going to feel it here in America too and we don't have near the amount of support programs. I think Australia is below replacement too.

Yeah, everything below green is sub-replacement level:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … te.svg.png
Green is 2-3
Cyan is 1-2
Ok then, why do we have the problem? An equal amount of africans die every day from hunger and brutality no?

Are our grandparents to blame for their huge families?
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-06-12 08:08:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5749|London, England

FloppY_ wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The socialist societies they have built are going to collapse catastrophically once the baby boomer generation retires. There will be more people retired than working. We're going to feel it here in America too and we don't have near the amount of support programs. I think Australia is below replacement too.

Yeah, everything below green is sub-replacement level:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … te.svg.png
Green is 2-3
Cyan is 1-2
Ok then, why do we have the problem? An equal amount of africans die every day from hunger and brutality no?

Are our grandparents to blame for their huge families?
Problem? I don't know why Euros don't have kids. I think it's part of the culture of wanting to enjoy ones life without having any responsibility. Maybe they don't feel secure enough to have kids. Maybe they spend too much time fucking around and not getting into serious relationships. I know marriage is viewed much differently, and that the marriage rate in Europe is much lower. I don't have the answers for you.

Africa is irrelevant to the conversation.

Kind of, but not really. The culture changed, and if it hadn't, and if your parents and your own generation had their 2.1 kids it wouldn't be an issue. The birth rate in places like Denmark is only 1.8 per person though which means you have a negative growth rate and that you yourself will be forced to pay higher and higher taxes throughout your life to support the retirement of previous generations because there will be more of them than there are of you.

Edit - You're hardly alone though, all of these countries are below replacement:

131      New Zealand     1.96     1.99
132      Ireland     1.97     1.96
133      Chile     2.00     1.94
134      Tunisia     2.04     1.93
135      Martinique (France)     1.98     1.91
136      Brazil     2.25     1.90
137      France     1.88     1.89
138      Sri Lanka     2.02     1.88
139      Mongolia     2.07     1.87
140      Mauritius     1.91     1.86
141      Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands)     2.06     1.85
142      North Korea     1.92     1.85
143      Thailand     1.83     1.85
144      Norway     1.80     1.85
145      Montenegro     1.83     1.83
146      Puerto Rico (US)     1.84     1.83
147      Finland     1.75     1.83
148      United Kingdom     1.70     1.82
149      Azerbaijan     1.67     1.82
150      Denmark     1.76     1.80
151      Sweden     1.67     1.80
152      Serbia     1.75     1.79
153      Australia     1.76     1.79
154      People's Republic of China (mainland only)     1.70     1.73
155      Netherlands     1.73     1.72
156      Luxembourg     1.67     1.66
157      Belgium     1.64     1.65
158      Trinidad and Tobago     1.61     1.64
159      Cyprus     1.63     1.61
160      Canada     1.52     1.53
161      Barbados     1.50     1.50
162      Cuba     1.63     1.49
163      Estonia     1.39     1.49
164      Portugal     1.45     1.46
165      Macedonia     1.56     1.43
166      Switzerland     1.42     1.42
167     Channel Islands ( Jersey and  Guernsey) (UK)     1.41     1.42
168      Austria     1.38     1.42
169      Spain     1.29     1.41
170      Georgia     1.48     1.41
171      Moldova     1.50     1.40
172      Armenia     1.35     1.39
173      Italy     1.29     1.38
174      Malta     1.46     1.37
175      Germany     1.35     1.36
176      Croatia     1.35     1.35
177      Russia     1.30     1.34
178      Greece     1.28     1.33
179      Bulgaria     1.26     1.31
180      Romania     1.29     1.30
181      Latvia     1.25     1.29
182      Hungary     1.30     1.28
183      Slovenia     1.23     1.28
184      Japan     1.29     1.27
185      Lithuania     1.28     1.26
186      Singapore     1.35     1.26
187      Slovakia     1.22     1.25
188      Czech Republic     1.18     1.24
189      Bosnia and Herzegovina     1.28     1.23
190      Poland     1.25     1.23
191      Ukraine     1.15     1.22
192      South Korea     1.24     1.21
193      Belarus     1.24     1.20
194      Hong Kong (PRC)     0.94     0.97
195      Macau (PRC)     0.84     0.91

Number on the right is the 2005-2010 rate, number on the left was 2000-2005.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-12 08:13:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 09:18:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7066|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, he doesn't. His continent would rather complain about their immigrants rather than worry about the fact that every nation in the Euro zone is well below the population replacement birthrate level.
Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The socialist societies they have built are going to collapse catastrophically once the baby boomer generation retires. There will be more people retired than working. We're going to feel it here in America too and we don't have near the amount of support programs. I think Australia is below replacement too.

Yeah, everything below green is sub-replacement level:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … te.svg.png
Green is 2-3
Cyan is 1-2
Ours is pretty bad and people have been starting to get edgy. Not nearly loud enough  though, the bullshit introversion we have is still ridiculous. Having said that we are going to have a massive influx of immigration over the next 20 years. Housing is more of a problem than dependant pop, though both are issues.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-12 13:35:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

Stubbee wrote:

Spark wrote:

I wouldn't say no to tax breaks for nuclear power. Modern fast breeders are becoming very good.
cleaning up an oil spill vs ultra long term storage of spent but still radio-active uranium fuel rods.... ummm

we need non polluting solutions like

stirling solar generators

aneutronic fusion power
You're from Canada, right?  Your country has shown that a focus on nuclear power over that of coal has allowed Canadian air quality to be much better than that of most urban areas of America.  It's worked quite well for your country.

France has seen similar benefits, although their main advantage is that they aren't the bitch of Russia's oil interests like most of the rest of Europe.
2010-06-12 13:37:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

Spark wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Spark wrote:


For one thing, it's not Japan that has that policy...

I'll start blaming the government when someone tells me what they could've done, aside from yell at BP.
That was corrected above, I believe it was china and not japan...

And I guess monkiefart is part of a 3 child family no?

I don't see the problem, the planet is dying from overpopulation and a 2kid+2parents limit would stop population from increasing and the 1kid+2parent families would help the population decline without "killing" anyone...
1-child policy is causing all kinda social issues in China. I'd rather not.
The one child policy is a good thing for China.  It would also do wonders for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
2010-06-12 13:48:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, he doesn't. His continent would rather complain about their immigrants rather than worry about the fact that every nation in the Euro zone is well below the population replacement birthrate level.
Europe is pretty bad. Japan is worse. Massive dependent population is not good at all.
The socialist societies they have built are going to collapse catastrophically once the baby boomer generation retires. There will be more people retired than working. We're going to feel it here in America too and we don't have near the amount of support programs. I think Australia is below replacement too.

Yeah, everything below green is sub-replacement level:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … te.svg.png
Green is 2-3
Cyan is 1-2
Not really.

The future is fairly easy to predict for Europe, Australia, and Canada.

Europe will become Muslim-majority in most countries in about 30 years.  Australia will probably become East Asian majority in the same time period.  Canada will probably fare similarly to Europe, since their immigration mostly comes from the Middle East and South Asia, but they also have a significant amount of Chinese immigrants.  Canada will probably just be very diverse (even more than America on a per capita basis).

I think the most legitimate reason for Europeans to complain about immigration is cultural, not population based.  Europe needs young immigrants to pay for the entitlements of its old, just like Canada, Australia, and even America needs.  However, the main concerns are that these immigrants often value different things from what we value.

In places like Denmark, the rapidly growing Muslims seem to often be against criticism of Islam.  They react violently over cartoons rather than accepting the freedom of speech.  Some of them promote radical Islamic customs and see women as second class citizens.

Those are legitimate worries, because as these people become the majority, they have the potential to threaten women's rights and things like freedom of speech.

So basically, the question becomes....  If a country needs immigrants to sustain itself economically, who should it allow in?  Many people have come to the conclusion that it might be best to instead accept more Chinese into their country rather than so many Muslims, because so far, Chinese immigrants don't seem to have as many conflicts culturally with freedom of speech or with women's rights.

Islamic cultures, by their very nature, often have many conflicts with Western values.
2010-06-12 13:50:10
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808

Turquoise wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Spark wrote:

I wouldn't say no to tax breaks for nuclear power. Modern fast breeders are becoming very good.
cleaning up an oil spill vs ultra long term storage of spent but still radio-active uranium fuel rods.... ummm

we need non polluting solutions like

stirling solar generators

aneutronic fusion power
You're from Canada, right?  Your country has shown that a focus on nuclear power over that of coal has allowed Canadian air quality to be much better than that of most urban areas of America.  It's worked quite well for your country.

France has seen similar benefits, although their main advantage is that they aren't the bitch of Russia's oil interests like most of the rest of Europe.
His point stands. If oil can fuck up this bad, imagine when Nukes fuck up. That scares the shit outta me. At least with oil it can be cleaned up.
2010-06-12 13:52:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stubbee wrote:


cleaning up an oil spill vs ultra long term storage of spent but still radio-active uranium fuel rods.... ummm

we need non polluting solutions like

stirling solar generators

aneutronic fusion power
You're from Canada, right?  Your country has shown that a focus on nuclear power over that of coal has allowed Canadian air quality to be much better than that of most urban areas of America.  It's worked quite well for your country.

France has seen similar benefits, although their main advantage is that they aren't the bitch of Russia's oil interests like most of the rest of Europe.
His point stands. If oil can fuck up this bad, imagine when Nukes fuck up. That scares the shit outta me. At least with oil it can be cleaned up.
But the point is...  it hasn't.  Neither Canada nor France have had a Chernobyl.  Clearly, their technology has stood the test of time.
2010-06-12 14:18:07
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
So, because two countries programs have yet to run into problems, that makes it safe. Sorry, accidents happen. BP had operated DEEP rigs for a while before APR. 20th. All I am saying is, I would rather get enerygy from something that 0% chance to never have a chatastrophe. I don't care if the chance of nuke's failing are .00000000000000000000000000001%. Eventually, something can and will fuck up. Murphies Law and all.
2010-06-12 14:37:58
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6913|...

original question op asks: kill ourselves
2010-06-12 14:47:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

So, because two countries programs have yet to run into problems, that makes it safe. Sorry, accidents happen. BP had operated DEEP rigs for a while before APR. 20th. All I am saying is, I would rather get enerygy from something that 0% chance to never have a chatastrophe. I don't care if the chance of nuke's failing are .00000000000000000000000000001%. Eventually, something can and will fuck up. Murphies Law and all.
Two countries doing something without problems for a few years doesn't prove anything.  Two countries doing something for 30 years without a major problem is safe.

BP may not have experienced a major problem with deep sea drilling in the past, but periodically, oil has had major problems as an industry.  The Valdez was not the first major oil spill.  These things happen every decade or so.  The same cannot be said for nuclear power in highly developed countries.

Chernobyl was an isolated incident in a country that did not properly handle its nuclear infrastructure.  It did serve as a reminder of how bad things could be if nuclear power goes wrong, but then again, it also served as the main reason behind the extreme caution practiced by France and Canada.  There has never been the same level of caution practiced by the oil industry, and because of that, we have periodic disasters.

This is why I prefer nuclear power, because the people involved are sufficiently careful, and they are much more regulated as an industry than the oil one is.  Governments actually take nuclear regulation seriously because of the other dangers involved (like uranium getting into the hands of a terror group).  Because this level of scrutiny exists and has a strong incentive behind it, nuclear power is consequently safer to use.

While it would be nice to have a power infrastructure based only on wind, solar, and hydroelectric systems, our current demands do not allow for it.  Nuclear power is the only alternative with enough potential to supplant oil/coal as a primary energy source.

This is why I advocate nuclear power over the other alternatives, because the technology has already proven itself, and it can provide much more power than the other forms.

Now, we should still implement more wind farms and advance solar technology with time, but we shouldn't act under the assumption that either of these are feasible to run a country off of just yet.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-12 14:50:48)

2010-06-12 15:06:13
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
Riddle me this. Would you say this ".00000000000000000000000000001%" as too high a chance of nucear causing a catastrophe? Like I said, I would rather have an absolute 0%. Nuclear will NEVER provide that. Yes, nuclear is safer then oil. Yes, there are higher standards handed to nulear. Technology will alwas be susceptable to failure. Always.

Now why can't other resources be tapped to supply our energy demands? I get a check from Central Hudson every 3 months. Fed-Ex runs one of their largest terminals off of solar. Other companies are embracing it too. Why can't American's get off their lazy ass here?
2010-06-12 15:26:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

Riddle me this. Would you say this ".00000000000000000000000000001%" as too high a chance of nucear causing a catastrophe? Like I said, I would rather have an absolute 0%. Nuclear will NEVER provide that. Yes, nuclear is safer then oil. Yes, there are higher standards handed to nulear. Technology will alwas be susceptable to failure. Always.

Now why can't other resources be tapped to supply our energy demands? I get a check from Central Hudson every 3 months. Fed-Ex runs one of their largest terminals off of solar. Other companies are embracing it too. Why can't American's get off their lazy ass here?
I wouldn't say that's too much of a risk, actually.  In fact, it's probably considerably higher than that.

I say this because we take risks everyday.  There's actually a relatively high risk of dying in a car crash, for example.  The vast majority of us don't die in car crashes, but it's actually one of the more common causes of death.  This particular risk may not have catastrophic consequences to society in the event of a failure, but if you're dead....  well, that doesn't matter much, does it?  Yet, I don't refrain from driving.

With nuclear power, it's kind of the same thing.  Yes, if something does go wrong, the results can be catastrophic; however, unlike drilling, they really are careful about nuclear power and don't cut corners (at least not in Canada and France).  Now, you could make the argument that America would cut corners, but that's another discussion altogether.

But again, I'm totally in support of more solar and wind technology used for power, but nuclear is the only short term alternative that can be used as a primary replacement for oil/coal.

Until that changes, I don't see any other primary option.
2010-06-12 15:35:45
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?

As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
2010-06-12 15:40:23
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,745|7128|Cinncinatti

nlsme1 wrote:

As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
extreme circumstances exist my friend.
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2010-06-12 15:43:25
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
A tour group wanting to see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ?

Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-12 15:44:29)

2010-06-12 15:56:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?

As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
It's the only one currently.  I'm not saying it will be indefinitely.

At this moment in time, fossil fuels and nuclear technology are the only energy sources that are capable of handling the current power demands we have.
2010-06-12 16:01:09
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
So you are saying that the amount of indivudual units needed doesn't exist?
2010-06-12 16:05:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

So you are saying that the amount of indivudual units needed doesn't exist?
Well, it's more than just that.  It's about efficiency.  Despite having existed for quite a while now, solar panels haven't advanced much in the last 20 years.  This isn't due to a lack of viability in solar technology -- it's because so little research is put towards it compared to the money spent on maintaining current technologies.

As a transitional period away from oil, it seems that the most feasible move would involve building more nuclear plants, while using some of the money earned to invest in more research for solar and wind technology.  Solar probably does have the greatest energy potential of any source in the long run, but currently, the hurdle is getting panel technology to the point where the power generated matches our needs.
2010-06-12 17:31:39
nlsme1
Member
+32|5808
They have come a long way in the last 20 years. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … n14874052/
2010-06-12 19:25:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6796|North Carolina

nlsme1 wrote:

They have come a long way in the last 20 years. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … n14874052/
While that is impressive, I would assume it's usually cost prohibitive.  To have enough panels in place for running most large scale business hubs is very expensive.  A company like FedEx can do this because of the capital they already have, but it's not exactly a feasible option for the average family or a mom and pop operation.

That being said, I'm glad they are making this move.  It probably will pay off in the long run.
2010-06-12 20:41:06
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7066|Canberra, AUS

nlsme1 wrote:

Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?

As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
There's also 0% chance of wind turbines providing power to more than 1 billion people in the next 50 years. And even that's a 1% chance.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-12 20:42:33
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7066|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:


That was corrected above, I believe it was china and not japan...

And I guess monkiefart is part of a 3 child family no?

I don't see the problem, the planet is dying from overpopulation and a 2kid+2parents limit would stop population from increasing and the 1kid+2parent families would help the population decline without "killing" anyone...
1-child policy is causing all kinda social issues in China. I'd rather not.
The one child policy is a good thing for China.  It would also do wonders for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
It won't be in 10 years when they have a massive unemployed underclass of upwards of a hundred million young, unemployed males.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard