EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

the beginning of the end, I hope

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - the beginning of the end, I hope

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:52 am   



On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Tom Gardner
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:07 am   



On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.


Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:39 am   



On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 5:29:02 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
Quote:
In article <aa27dadb-d4a2-4414-887e-242ccfeefc8e_at_googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org says...

Long hot showers are a major contributor to electronic design
productivity.

How would John Larkin know? He confuses persistent tinkering with electronic design, and congratulates himself on his imagined electronic design skills wherever he gets something to work.

that must explain your failure then, you stink!


Jamie can't construct plausible chains of logical consequences.

John Larkin advances a hypothesis about electronic design, which he couldn't have tested because he doesn't do electronic design, and Jamie makes what seem to be a number of irrational assumptions - including that I've failed at electronic design, which doesn't happen to be true - and comes to the conclusion that I stink (which doesn't happen to be true either).

Jamie really can't do joined up logic, and doesn't seem to have clue how it might be done.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Quote:


Jamie


John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:54 am   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:56 am   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:07:43 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.

Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.


But we should try to lift the poorest people on the planet out of
their misery, before we clamp down on resource use. In the long run,
providing for them will reduce birth rates and resource waste.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Tom Gardner
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:25 am   



On 09/01/17 18:56, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:07:43 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.

Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.

But we should try to lift the poorest people on the planet out of
their misery, before we clamp down on resource use. In the long run,
providing for them will reduce birth rates and resource waste.


Ideally yes.

In practice it is a hell of a dilemma.

Tom Gardner
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:28 am   



On 09/01/17 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.


Birth rates are half of the story; death rates are just
as important. Both are indirect measures.

I contend a simple and more direct measure is simply
the number of people alive. We haven't seen that fall
in the long term, although there have been a few blips.

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:57 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:25:06 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 09/01/17 18:56, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:07:43 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.

Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.

But we should try to lift the poorest people on the planet out of
their misery, before we clamp down on resource use. In the long run,
providing for them will reduce birth rates and resource waste.

Ideally yes.

In practice it is a hell of a dilemma.


Yes. Peaceful co-existance and progress are not normal states for
mankind. The most moral approach would be benign colonialism, as in
the UN or someone taking over a poor country and enforcing progress
until it becomes the accepted state. In many cases, even that might
not work.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:01 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:28:00 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 09/01/17 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.

Birth rates are half of the story; death rates are just
as important. Both are indirect measures.

I contend a simple and more direct measure is simply
the number of people alive. We haven't seen that fall
in the long term, although there have been a few blips.


Nature wired people to want sex, not necessarily to want babies. Sex
used to reliably make babies, but it doesn't any more in developed
countries.

Developed countries are mostly making babies at below the replacement
rate.

In some countries, young people don't even want sex.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:12 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 5:56:58 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:07:43 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.

Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.

But we should try to lift the poorest people on the planet out of
their misery, before we clamp down on resource use. In the long run,
providing for them will reduce birth rates and resource waste.


Nobody wants to clamp down on the use of renewable resources. Solar power is very popular in really poor communities - you don't need to get connected to a non-existent national grid to enjoy the benefits, nor truck in diesel fuel from your non-existent refineries to power a diesel generator.

John Larkin seems to think that because the west made it to a high-energy-use economy by burning fossil carbon, everybody else has to go through the same phase. If we drill down a bit we may find that he thinks that you can't get to electric lighting without going through whale-oil burning lamps and gas lamps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:16 am   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 6:57:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:25:06 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 18:56, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:07:43 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/17 18:52, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always failed--human
intelligence adapts.

Yes and no.

Frequently Malthusian arguments have proven correct
within individual civilisations, especially where
such civilisations have depleted the *local* resources,
beyond the locals' knowledge and ability to adapt.

Now we have a single civilisation exploiting *global*
resources. What happens when those global resources
are depleted beyond mankind's knowledge and ability
to adapt is *unproven*.

If you are an Pickwickian optimist you choose one
answer; if an Malthusian pessimist, the other.
Realists should choose a precautionary principle.

But we should try to lift the poorest people on the planet out of
their misery, before we clamp down on resource use. In the long run,
providing for them will reduce birth rates and resource waste.

Ideally yes.

In practice it is a hell of a dilemma.

Yes. Peaceful co-existance and progress are not normal states for
mankind. The most moral approach would be benign colonialism, as in
the UN or someone taking over a poor country and enforcing progress
until it becomes the accepted state. In many cases, even that might
not work.


It mostly doesn't. Colonialism doesn't seem to breed a class of local administrators and politicians who understand how to run a country for the benefit of the population as a whole. They simply switch from sending the money to the remote colonial power to Swiss bank accoutns in their own names.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Tom Gardner
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:20 am   



On 09/01/17 20:01, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:28:00 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.

Birth rates are half of the story; death rates are just
as important. Both are indirect measures.

I contend a simple and more direct measure is simply
the number of people alive. We haven't seen that fall
in the long term, although there have been a few blips.

Nature wired people to want sex, not necessarily to want babies. Sex
used to reliably make babies, but it doesn't any more in developed
countries.

Developed countries are mostly making babies at below the replacement
rate.

In some countries, young people don't even want sex.


True, but orthogonal to the points I made.

For energy (or GDP), the key is number of people times
energy per person; no surprises there.

In the long term there may (or may not) be a steady
state of fewer people.
In the short/medium term it takes a one or two generations
for the populace to believe they can "safely" have fewer
children. Hence there is usually a short/medium term peak
before some form of steady state is reached.

That peak could bring unpleasant consequences.

And, of course, societal influences may encourage
societies to out-breed their competition. Religions
are notorious for encouraging that, and the Chinese
look like they are abandoning their "one child"
policy.

John Larkin
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:30 am   



On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 21:20:37 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 09/01/17 20:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:28:00 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.

Birth rates are half of the story; death rates are just
as important. Both are indirect measures.

I contend a simple and more direct measure is simply
the number of people alive. We haven't seen that fall
in the long term, although there have been a few blips.

Nature wired people to want sex, not necessarily to want babies. Sex
used to reliably make babies, but it doesn't any more in developed
countries.

Developed countries are mostly making babies at below the replacement
rate.

In some countries, young people don't even want sex.

True, but orthogonal to the points I made.

For energy (or GDP), the key is number of people times
energy per person; no surprises there.

In the long term there may (or may not) be a steady
state of fewer people.
In the short/medium term it takes a one or two generations
for the populace to believe they can "safely" have fewer
children. Hence there is usually a short/medium term peak
before some form of steady state is reached.

That peak could bring unpleasant consequences.

And, of course, societal influences may encourage
societies to out-breed their competition. Religions
are notorious for encouraging that, and the Chinese
look like they are abandoning their "one child"
policy.


Good book, with some related observations:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmz9lz


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Tom Gardner
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:36 pm   



On 10/01/17 03:08, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 21:20:37 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 20:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:28:00 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/17 18:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:52:35 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/07/2017 09:50 AM, dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 1:49:22 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:33:20 PM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin
wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 01:01:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/01/17 20:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 21:01:36 +0100 (CET),
albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
wrote:

In article <1c8rz.411269$sC.39701_at_fx42.am4>, Tom Gardner
spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/08/16 15:26, John Larkin wrote:

England is beautiful, but some of your stuff looks
awfully old.

100 miles vs 100 years.

Old is >500 years. There's such a pub/courtroom/lockup
next to the church in my village.

Anything last century is "modern". The shape of some
of our modern housing estates can be directly traced
back to 1086.

Ancient is >2000 years; there are many ancient roads
around here, some as fast as motorways for some
journeys.

Same here, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Lots of churches
older than 500 years, built on even older ruins. The
Nieuwe Gracht (new canal) is from 1300 or about. The
Oudegracht (old canal) is much older, of course.

The Romans were here too, but not much is left, except
underground.

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately
falters.

But it doesn't.

It always has in the past, so your claim is "remarkable".
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof, of course.


http://tinyurl.com/hqglwrs

This hasn't faltered yet. That graph *is* remarkable.

It's a hockey stick! (Guess why?)

One of the ways the economy has happened to grow rapidly over the
past couple centuries has been an exponential growth in fossil
carbon extraction and combustion.

We have a winner!

Cheers, James Arthur


Except that the goal posts keep moving. What counts as economic output
keeps changing, because what's available and what people want to buy
changes. BITD your wealth depended on how much land you owned and how
many servants you could afford.

In particular, the number of BTUs required to generate a dollar's worth
of economic output has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. The
Malthusian arguments fail for the same reason they've always
failed--human intelligence adapts.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

So do birth rates, which the alarmists always miss.

Birth rates are half of the story; death rates are just
as important. Both are indirect measures.

I contend a simple and more direct measure is simply
the number of people alive. We haven't seen that fall
in the long term, although there have been a few blips.

Nature wired people to want sex, not necessarily to want babies. Sex
used to reliably make babies, but it doesn't any more in developed
countries.

Developed countries are mostly making babies at below the replacement
rate.

In some countries, young people don't even want sex.

True, but orthogonal to the points I made.

For energy (or GDP), the key is number of people times
energy per person; no surprises there.

In the long term there may (or may not) be a steady
state of fewer people.
In the short/medium term it takes a one or two generations
for the populace to believe they can "safely" have fewer
children. Hence there is usually a short/medium term peak
before some form of steady state is reached.

That peak could bring unpleasant consequences.

And, of course, societal influences may encourage
societies to out-breed their competition. Religions
are notorious for encouraging that, and the Chinese
look like they are abandoning their "one child"
policy.

Good book, with some related observations:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmz9lz


I've no intention of spending my little remaining
life reading it, of course, but from the blurb it
looks like I would agree with much of it.

Engineers, particularly safety engineers, have to
deal with "unintended consequences" and "perverse
behaviour". I wish politicians did.

George Herold
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:19 pm   



On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:36:24 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quote:
On 10/01/17 03:08, John Larkin wrote:
big snip


Quote:

Good book, with some related observations:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmz9lz

I've no intention of spending my little remaining
life reading it, of course, but from the blurb it
looks like I would agree with much of it.


Tom, You often speak like you expect to drop dead next week.
If I'm not being too personal, do you have some form of
aggressive cancer or something? (And ignore this
if you don't want to talk about it.)

George H.
Quote:

Engineers, particularly safety engineers, have to
deal with "unintended consequences" and "perverse
behaviour". I wish politicians did.


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - the beginning of the end, I hope

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map