[tmazanec1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JRP3', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')
Know what'll really save the world? A good male contraceptive pill that both a) shuts down sperm production entirely for weeks or months at a time and b) enables men to have multiple orgasms just as women can naturally. "Hey honey, now I can keep up with you!" That would also be a fantastic strategy for powerdown. "Mall, schmall! We're staying in bed all weekend!

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('neocone', 'H')ow about we just ditch cars or drive 95% less?

Like duh!!!!

Oh I forgot: It will happen whether we want it or not!!!

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'W')hy is the developed world stable or even dropping in population without such measures?

[nth]

You are right. The world is not about to run out of people due to low birth rates.

Most experts who are warning about this are actually pointing to trends. The birthrate is in decline and unless something changes, it should move into below replacement level. If you want examples of negative growth rates, then look at Italy.

US is one of few developed countries who have high growth rate despite economic prosperity. Most countries see growth rates drop when economy grows.

[gampy]

Nuclear fusion is my hope.

Like previous posters said, it'll be a while before we know if it is a good replacement for oil. Remember that we need not only electricity, but something to power vehicles. As well as make pharmaceuticals and other materials from. Perhaps technology will find us a solution, it has in the past, so...all we can do is hope. And continue mucking about with particle physics, I guess.

Perhaps our understanding of the nuclear forces that underpin our universe will reach a point where another possibility arises for energy.

Not holding my breath, or anything, but if salvation comes, it'll most likely come from that.

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')
According to the CIA World Factbook[....]

So, whilst, overall, the population of developed nations is only growing slowly, it is still growing, adding millions of people each year.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'T')he birthrate is in decline

[nth]

I am not an expert in this area, but the data does look finicky.

Here is the trend that I am talking about. You will need to judge yourself if you trust it or not.

Graph/Trend

[nth]

Here is a better link.World pop

[grabby]

Here is an imaginary note found on an eak-pay oil-hay website hard disk in an imaginary universe, shielded by a large metal structure at the time of their event...

"As we get tighter with resources it will become harder to come up with reasons not to start a large event.

The initiator of the event will be the partial winner and will collect all the oil that is left, because of GPS guidance accuracy. GPS guidance changes all the rules and outcomes, it nullifies MAD. MAD assumed probabilty survival and with GPS there is 0 survival so first move wins, just like checkers.

Matter of time only.

Wether or not we will have an "event" is dependant only on wether or not observably our resources start to contract, i.e. post peak with certainty."

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', 'H')ere is an imaginary note found on an eak-pay oil-hay website hard disk in an imaginary universe, shielded by a large metal structure at the time of their event...

"As we get tighter with resources it will become harder to come up with reasons not to start a large event.

The initiator of the event will be the partial winner and will collect all the oil that is left, because of GPS guidance accuracy. GPS guidance changes all the rules and outcomes, it nullifies MAD. MAD assumed probabilty survival and with GPS there is 0 survival so first move wins, just like checkers.

Matter of time only.

Wether or not we will have an "event" is dependant only on wether or not observably our resources start to contract, i.e. post peak with certainty."

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'I')f I was China I would shoot first once I had 100-200 ICBM missiles and take the USA out, it is their best strategy to not be defeated. They could even align with Russia to wipe USA off the map. The amount of material you can pull up on nuclear buildup recently between Russia and China kind of gives the impression they are thinking of something fusion related.... fingers crossed that the USA sends a few back to China, nothing like a bit of population control.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'I') totally disagree. Several things:

* 30-100 Nuke strikes against the US is the end of the US BUT the US will still have the ability to retaliate by more than wiping Chinese civilization off the map for the next several centuries or more.
* The Chinese are rational, more death-averse than Muslims and think in timeframes greater than we do. This kind of civilization does not go careening into a war that will not have a good outcome for it. Chinese endure and outlast. Why get in the way of a rival when he is going down? Simply by not helping us out, they're driving the nail into this nation's coffin.
* The chinese have their own problems (ecological and economic) right now and attending to them is a far better use of resources than military expeditures and operations.

Bottom line, China is a rational actor on the political stage. M.A.D. works sufficiently well in this circumstance. I dont expect to see this one come to literal blows and if it does, you can be assured that china didnt start it.

[pea-jay]

1)I think there is a pretty good chance someone, somewhere is going to get nuked in the next 10-30 years.
2)I think the odds are less that it will be a major exchange.
3)I don't think there will be global thermonuclear war style of exchange though.

In re to China and the US: China is not going to start a direct exchange with the US. Suicide. The US is not going to nuke China. Same outcome.

The only way it could go bad is if China allies w/Iran. (makes sense). The US and Iran go to war, disrupting Chinese oil supplies and potentially killing some of its expat civilians working in that country. The war goes badly for the US, but also harms the chinese economy. China retaliates economically, dumping it financial assets crippling this country further and raising hostility to China. Furthermore china supplies Iran with the weapons it is using against the US, inflaming irritation with that country even more. At this point the US is backed into a corner in every conceivable way-militarily, economically and diplomatically. China is hobbled but much stronger.

Could go out on a limb here now---China take this point of weakness and "reunifies itself with Taiwan". US, which is in no position to fight a ground battle in the heart of this planet's oldest civilization decides to retaliate (assuming the idiot-in-chief is still in power) by resorting to the airforce. Again. Bombs are dropped "strategically" but only serve to rile the chinese. They react, take out US overseas installation or naval group. US responds with civilian aerial bombing runs. China sneak attacks one or more US west coast locations. US retaliates w/tactical nukes. Chinese lauch ICBMS. US returns fire. Half a billion dead.

Alright that was pure speculation...cant say it will make sense in the future. But what doesnt make sense is a Chinese first strike. Like I said, not likely.

[PolestaR]

Well if you think Russia/China/USA can fight DIRECTLY with each other then you must realize the nukes won't take long to fly after that. There has to be a loser, whoever starts to lose first will be the one launching a first strike. It gives them the greatest chance of winning.

[Speed]

Oil may some day be replaced. But whatever happens, energy costs will end up far more expensive then they are today. The financial community has already studied the impact of $100 oil and it is not significant. The hidden costs of our cheap oil - military, environmental and subsidies already bring the real cost of oil close to that number. But even $100 oil is cheap by some well known financial analysts estimates. Certainly $300 oil would have a significant impact upon our lives - no more SUVs, plasma TVs, long range vacations and frozen dinners. But even more significant would be the rapid and destructive redistribution of wealth and political power that the oil-rich nations would soon have in their hands. You already see it today in the eyes of the Russians, Iraqis and Venezuelans. You see it in the global financial markets by the enormous amound of free cashflow sloshing around the world destabilizing currencies and economies. You will see it more clearly tomorrow by the wholesale buying of American companies, real estate, and infrastructure. All this, because Americans hold firmly to a faith based energy system - they are owed cheap oil - and they will fight for it.

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'W')ell if you think Russia/China/USA can fight DIRECTLY with each other then you must realize the nukes won't take long to fly after that. There has to be a loser, whoever starts to lose first will be the one launching a first strike. It gives them the greatest chance of winning.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'T')here are no "winners" in nuclear war. Only losers. It isnt a victory when you've lost 70% of your population and a functioning government and economy and your opponent has lost 90% of theirs. Nor are there innocent bystanders either. Radioactive fallout does not affect national boundaries.

Cold War era Soviet and the American leaders understood this well.

Sting penned it well in his 1980s song "Russians."

"Theres no such thing as a winnable war
Its a lie that we dont believe anymore"

Nuclear war is a losing proposition for everyone.

[seven]

Pill to eliminate sperm and increase orgasm? Too complicated - why not just a pill (or a water additive, etc) that vastly reduces the male sex drive? After all, since the high male sex drive is the engine of reproduction, needed in human scarcity times but quite superfluous (and often very destructive, let's face it) otherwise, turning off the engine entirely makes more sense than tinkering with it.

Then, when we have almost zero birth rate because men don't want sex, we can wait for the high number of older folks to pop off, then gradually turn up male sex drive with a reverse-treatment - of course, for only the 'best' male specimens- just enough to repopulate to a healthy number, also improving human stock.


Seriously, though, there is a male pill coming to market very soon that lowers the sperm count to almost nil, with the count returning to normal after a few months cessation - but alas, no multi-benefits, sorry. How many men will be willing to take it is an interesting question...but it certainly won't solve any of our population problems...too few men will have access. Also, many women may be hesitant to take a guy's word that he's on bc - incredibly enough.

I don't suppose men would be willing to forego sex entirely, even to save the planet...

nah, I though not.

It is probable that eventually chemicals from this bc will get in the water and soil, just like all the other chemicals have, and affect male sperm count across the board- and it is quite conceivable that governments may covertly add it to the water supplies in a desperate attempt to reduce overpopulation. Hmmm, maybe the sex drive pill won't be needed after all. Gads...

*Men should give thought to getting a vasectomy while it's still fairly cheap and available- because your sex life will probably be drastically reduced when there's a crash/huge recession/oil shortage for non-essential pharmaceuticals/whatnot and bc products become scarce or very expensive. Also, there's no sense in adding (or risking adding) another human to the planet's burden; especially in these times, and the worse ones to come.

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')You seem to be under the impression that the person who doesn't shoot first (let's say China launched against the USA) will always retaliate, which is kind of foolish. There are numerous documented cases of USA and the USSR both _not_ launching retaliatory strikes when there have been "malfunctions" in their systems.

I think most of the detection of these "threats" comes from "on the ground" sources (spies, images, etc). If a launch happened because someone accidentally hit the "red button" the chances of their being a strike back are less than 50% in my opinion.