Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

Food prices continue to be extremely low because population doesn't expand to drive prices up.

[...]

My argument is that population expands to fit abundance.

How do you have both of those happening at the same time? Keep in mind that population growth in the US has remained at the 1% for three or four decades while coexisting with cheap food prices. There has been no population expanding to fit abundance going on.

Do you see population rapidly expanding to consume all of our employment opportunities?

No.

What if I told you that the labor force would slow its expansion during high unemployment?

And that's relevant how?

What if that actually happened from 2008 to 2012? What if the population somewhat dipped during that time?

I'll note that you refer to a four year period with a lot of other stuff going on. Meanwhile I referred to your own example which was a far longer period of time (at least a century) which doesn't show that effect. And we also can compare countries world-wide and not see that effect. You just cherry picked a brief span of time.

You haven't provided any argument that says that expanding beyond our means would not cause population to slow its growth, while I have shown good reasoning that it does and demonstrated the effect actually occurring during times when poverty (and thus individual access to means) has increased.

And I don't have to. We aren't expanding beyond our means. This is not a relevant scenario.

The developed world, which are the countries with by far the most abundant food production, have the lowest fertility. One doesn't have to go far to explain why. There are two well known effects that cause this situation: first, women in the workplace mean lower fertility; and second, higher survival rates of children to adulthood mean lower fertility.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

Food happens to be a relatable tangible good. I've had trouble with people claiming things like Netflix or cellular communication aren't "making things" and that the US doesn't "make things" because anything that's not concrete isn't real. If people are going to point at an increase in medical care, high-speed internet availability, and personal entertainment services and call that "not really making anything" to argue that the economy is failing and the US has collapsed, I'm going to have to start pointing at things that people can actually relate to.

So what does that have to do with your Malthusian stuff? I'm not those people with the above argument so this post seems quite irrelevant to me.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

That's only because there is massive government interference in the markets to keep them low.

Not in the US at least. Most such subsidies increase the cost of food.

The suppression of food prices leads to other things being more expensive, including and especially what it costs to start new businesses and jobs. Less job prospects means people feel less secure to have more kids.

It's just not that big an effect. There's a lot of other stuff that has way more effect on employment such as social safety net costs, adversarial relationship with regulators, etc.

Labor participation is down, remember? You can't have it both ways saying how the economy is doing worse because participation is down but then claim we should be having more population growth because things are doing great.

"Doing great" is not a bit you set for your whole economy. For example, the US economy is quite good at producing food (which is a bluefoxlucid obsession). It's not so good at producing jobs in a job-hostile environment. There is no contradiction here.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

The obvious rebuttal here is that food prices continue to be extremely low for the developed world. There's not going to be an enormous change in fertility from minor changes in a minor cost.

Look, your whole argument is a combination of circular reasoning and ignoring reality. It's just not happening. You need a new model.

Comment Re:worst ones (Score 1) 356

1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.

If it's paid for with tax money, it's not independent. Everything else you mentioned is window dressing and easily worked around. Let us also note here that if 3845 accredited news agencies say Trump is a liar and Fox News doesn't, then a lot of people are going to believe Fox News.

Sorry, but there's a great deal of magic thinking here. Government, like any large, unaccountable bureaucracy would readily subvert such a massive program. As I see it, the biggest difference between today and such an alternative is that far less of my money is being squandered on bad media today.

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 300

Yes, of course, they must be idiots.

Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.

A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.

Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) . That's possible too especially given the complete lack of evidence for your claims.

But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research

You do recall I already found one example in your linksv where they did just that?

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

A high labor participation rate means you have a society where salries are not high enough for one parent to stay at home and instead both need to work and children need to go to day care.

Asserting that both "need" to work, assumes that in most such households one parent would want to stay at home. I don't see why that would be the case. Sure, it often is the case that some families want to do that and a number do, even in these alleged "not a rich societies".

But there are a variety of advantages to two income families that go well beyond the alleged "not a rich society" story. First, they're considerably wealthier (I don't think it's a coincidence that the wealthiest (your so-called "not a rich") societies have a lot of two income families and such). Having a job is empowering (you don't have to rely on a potentially unreliable spouse for the income). And it gets everyone out of the house for part of the week.

Comment Re:You really do not know who the beds are for? (Score 1) 104

As for the gas angle, natural gas is OK but has nothing on Hydrogen, which will be the mass replacement for the gasoline engine.

Methane has two things going for it: 1) higher hydrogen density than hydrogen in the same phase (liquid versus liquid or gas versus gas), 2) better handling properties. It leaks far less than hydrogen does - hydrogen leaks through anything. Methane also become liquid under far milder conditions than hydrogen does.

And the big drawback is that methane is a significant greenhouse gas. Hydrogen can react with oxygen to form water vapor, which is also a significant greenhouse gas, but I believe most hydrogen gas leaked in the open manages to escape Earth altogether.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

Abundance is not the rate of decline in food and other resources. We have the lowest costs of these resources now, we should have the highest growth now according to your theory. Nor do we see that when we look globally at countries by wealth. The wealthiest countries (which of course, have the best access to food and other resources) are also the lowest fertility countries.

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 300

Let us note further, that the claim of "no safe doses" comes from the group, Physicians for Social Responsiblity, not from the Australian National Academy of Sciences. They are incorrectly interpreting the research, completely disregarding the actual levels of risk and harm supposedly approximated by the study, and of course, misrepresenting their interpretation of the research as having come from the original research itself.

That's typical dishonesty from anti-nuclear groups.

Comment Re:If I Was An Insurance Investigator... (Score 1) 135

Insurance only spreads out the cost.

Among other launches as I noted. The problem with the original assertion that Russia was doing it for the insurance money, is that even a small number of such tricks would greatly harm the rest of their business. One doesn't pull stuff like that unless one is short term thinking and cashing out their business. I don't believe that is happening in this case. They simply have too much to lose in future business to attempt it.

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 1) 411

If Kennedy was leaving a session of Congress at the time, then it would have been a direct violation of the Constitution too.

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Your links undermine your argument. There is growing abundance in the US from 1950 on to the present, yet fertility collapsed to barely 1% growth (driven solely by immigration of high fertility population, I might add). If there was evidence for your claim, we would see it now. You wouldn't need to strongly and repeatedly assert it without evidence.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

In abundance, a society's population will grow faster.

Which is false in practice. The high abundance societies all and I do mean all have negative population growth once you exclude first and second generation immigrants (who have higher fertility). The key seems to be women in the workplace. When that happens, you have a substantial decline in female fertility.

I first expressed this as a corollary to my theory of scarcity; someone eventually pointed me to Malthus, who had correctly described in the 1800s that population grows rapidly in abundance.

Incorrectly described. If his theory had been correct, we would have seen massive die-offs in the 19th and 20th Century.

Slashdot Top Deals

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...