In regards to 10,12, 16 people families, there is an interesting link regarding Darwinian theory on the Cal Tech website and survival of the quickest reproducing species vs. the quickest to adapt. The global problems are big, that is for sure. They say 50yrs (or less) for the crude oil with yearly consumption around 24billion barrels and annual increases of 3% (every year there are less water buffalos out there plowing rice fields) population doubling in less than 50 years and predicted max of 12 to 16 billion, no more. I seem to remember current population at 6 billion or so. Sustainable populations have many variables such as natural resources. Those episodes of Star Trek with all diseases cured turned out to be rubbish, just like the mathemitician who was pushing the chaos theory in the book Jurassic Park would have said. All of these variables are extremely complicated to talk about in 1 paragraph anyways. There will most definitely be a shift in life styles at the very least...but there is nothing new about that as lifestyles have been dramatically shifting in less than a lifetime for some time now. It really gets down to responsible living. There will always be responsible people interlaced with people who have lived or are living irresponsibly and making irresponsible/ignorant decisions. The true unsung heroes are the ones behind the 80% decrease in the cost of wind generated electricity in the last decade, fuel cells, advanced recycling processes, etc. The one really good thing Jimmy Carter did with his push for incentives on alternative energy. Check out a website www.homepower.com the periodical is free viewing with adobe acrobat and they have archived articles. Then there is the religious aspect. It's all planned out anyways isn't it? but that is no excuse for not taking care of your children and their future children. No-one knows for sure how much longer we will be having to habitate the planet, so it's wise to not forget that. They found that most people are willing to pay extra money for a mix of green and traditional electricity. I'm quite shocked that as a voter, I cannot really go out to a poll and make the a difference by voting for more tax dollars to be spent on energy issues. If government was to spend more time educating people on these issues, the result would most likely be some responsible political action in the polls. Almost like they are counting on it being solved in the future and they think it's better to not get too many people riled up about it. As for all the problems in the middle east, they would have not even begun if we hadn't given them so much of our money in the first place for precious oil so they can spend it on weapons to get back at their enemies and oil consuming countries selling weapons to them to maintain "stability". Regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell McMahon" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [OT]: global problems > > "Global warming is the flip side. " > > > > A gross assumption NOT supported by all science > > OR scientists, including some Greens this last year > > who have come to their better senses ... > > > Global warming (GW) is indeed an unproven hypothesis (as all scientific > hypotheses must be). > Available data indicates that past relatively short term variations in > global temperature have occurred which are substantially greater than what > we may be seeing now. Available data suggests that available data on the > current trends may be inconclusive :-). > > There are however strong indications that our actions MAY be a major factor > in significant GW trends. > Those who claim that the idea that "GW is a totally man made phenomena" is > an established fact which we can certainly redress are deluded and in SOME > cases self serving. > > HOWEVER > > Those who would reject the hypothesis outright and act as if we can proceed > unchecked until we know more are equally or more deluded and in MANY cases > self serving. Those who would err on the side of protecting the world > unnecessarily are, I feel, to be preferred to those who would err on the > side of destroying the world unnecessarily. Some seem to disagree. > > The history of the world to date (with or without elsewhere mentioned > communists being involved :-) ) suggests that the self interested destroyers > are all too often successful in their aims. The main difference is that the > damage we can do by being wrong is much larger now than in ages past. (Be it > with nuclear weapons, nuclear power, global warming, genetic engineering or > whatever).(Of these I feel that GE is the currently most certain to cause > major catastrophe in the medium term, but that's another story). > > > > regards > > Russell McMahon > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads