Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 243

No, if your population had 1000 births but 1000 deaths in a given period of time, you are not experiencing population growth.

If you have positive population growth, it isn't because your population is experiencing a negative rate of deaths.

The ugly fact is that in low food conditions, more people die faster. This is not good for population growth.

And yet population growth still happens. As I noted, birth rate goes up too and there are plenty of examples of places over the past century that had low food supply yet still had high population growth rates. It's only when a society transitions to not enough food per person to keep everyone alive (which incidentally happens frequently during a war or famine so that it's not just a slight change in food per person), that we transition into higher death rates than birth rates.

My point here is that the dynamic between population growth and decline doesn't gradually nose over as food supply and wealth dwindles.

The original response was to your notion that developed world affluence keeps population growth in check. I'm pointing out that wealth actually helps populations grow. I generalize wealth creation as the result of capitalism, and opposition to it as socialism.

And I'm pointing out that you are merely wrong here. We have lots of evidence that wealth at all levels of modern human development correlates with lower population growth. Your generalization is wrong as well. Capitalism is not defined as things good for society, such as creation of wealth, and socialism as things bad for society, such as taking wealth away. They are merely somewhat different approaches to similar problems.

Chinese and Venezueleans may call themselves socialist, but if their action is to support an activity that ultimately helps grow wealth (which in turn grows the population), they are actually supporting capitalism. Socialism is to reject that activity out of some twisted sense of obligation to some "greater good".

So call them "socialists" because of their actions then. It's a silly argument to make and again depends on a white hat/black hat view of capitalism and socialism which isn't true.

I personally heavily favor capitalism in a society, but I don't make the mistake of discounting socialism policies just because because they don't work at the huge doses that have been tried over the past couple hundred years.

Comment: Re:Why not distribute this as a basic income to al (Score 1) 80

by ColdWetDog (#48941925) Attached to: US Wireless Spectrum Auction Raises $44.9 Billion

Because the Alaska Permanent Fund takes a small amount of revenue from the oil recovery fees and puts it in a managed fund whose interest is dispersed to the couple of hundred thousand humans left in this mosquito infested swamp. It has a total capitalization of about 45 billion dollars, roughly the same as the spectrum sales.

However, Alaska's population is roughly 735,000, the US 316,000,000. Assuming the same long term returns, the average US citizen would get about $1.80 per year. On a good year.

Disbursement of government money to the masses doesn't really do much. It is arguably different in Alaska since outside the 'big' cities, a significant fraction of the population is at a subsistence level and the close to $1000 we get each year makes a big difference. But many people have argued that the fund would do better if it were more intelligently managed. Of course, that term is defined differently by different people,

Comment: Re:in an unrelated news event (Score 0) 58

by ColdWetDog (#48941715) Attached to: Wi-Fi Issues Continue For OS X Users Despite Updates

Now, this is completely off topic but reminds me of a funny paragraph in a recent Atlantic article about writer Jeff VanderMeer.

Sometimes, you have to change your coffee shop, too. At the end of one increasingly jittery week of writing, the barista asks me, “Feel any different?” “In what way?” I ask. “I dunno,” she replies, “I’ve been adding more espresso shots to your coffee, gradual, to see what would happen.”

With a shameless plug for his recent Southern Reach trilogy (as is the whole article).

But you have to wonder about coffee shop regulars. This might explain some of their behavior.

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 243

I don't know that you could call anyone in Chinese government truely socialist anymore. The only socialist programs I can think about is the big projects they do, and their central planning (power, infrastructure....).

Bingo. Environmentalism is not socialism. It is a third independent attribute. Another example of this is the antics of the former USSR which among other things nearly destroyed the Aral Sea.

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 243

Remember we're talking about population growth. It's not just about reproduction, but whether you can sustain a growing population.

No, population growth is about reproduction not sustainability. It's an ugly fact that poorer people have more children even in low food conditions.

They're forces that push against each other.

Ok, I see your use here. I'll just point out that "opposite forces" quickly lose their meaning when there are more than two forces in play.

But that's what socialists want. If they had their way (and some will say they do in some places), they would implement policies which restrict oil production and consumption. I say they scream bloody murder because currently, the socialists aren't winning that battle.

I disagree. Chinese socialists aren't on board with this and they're a huge part of the group. Socialists from oil-producing countries aren't on board either (eg, Venezuela).

But having said that , I do believe the shrillness of the arguments for global warming has a lot to do with losing the overall war for that.

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 243

Except for the fact that 1 affluent human uses more resources than 10 not so affluent.

Think about it. If we were somehow to hold affluence constant, the affluent population will have shrunk slightly, while the not so affluent population will grow exponentially. Even a small population of not so affluent will eventually consume more than a vast affluent population, unless you check their population growth somehow.

Comment: Re:Shows the immaturity of the political system (Score 1) 124

You sir, are an idiot. The Aleutian Islands encompass some of the most productive fisheries in the world. You want you King Crab to glow in the dark? Your salmon to grow flippers?

Sea water causes things to corrode. Unless you vitrify the waste (and the vitrification works), it will leak into the ecosystem. There is a reason water is called the 'Universal Solvent'.

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 243

That hedonist couple that the other AC joked about may not reproduce, but in all their consumption, they have directly or indirectly employed and fed hundreds if not thousands of people, and those people will reproduce. From the farmers who grow their food to the 3rd world workers who assembled their computers, all those people get to work and feed themselves and have more kids.

The developing world people would have reproduced anyway, and if they were less affluent, they would have reproduced more than they actually did!

What keeps human population in check is socialism. It is the equal and opposite reaction to capitalism.

It's not an opposite to capitalism. After all, we have plenty of societies that have combinations of both capitalism and socialism. And socialism can curb population growth in the same way as capitalism by making most people a bit more affluent.

Socialism screams bloody murder about global warming telling us we need to stop using oil.

This is a non sequitur. Screaming about global warming doesn't make people go away or reproduce less.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk