a_plutonium wrote:

(2) Archimedes Plutonium, http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/, proposes
that we do two things in
tandem of decreasing Human population to that of around 2 billion
humans all living on renewable
energy sources coupled with the program of where all airplanes in the
apogee of their flightpath
have to emit thistle seed or some cotton fibers which have the effect
of reflecting sunlight. There
is no downside to this proposal but it is a difficult political and
economic sell to the world public.
For most countries do not want to limit population. But the dispersion
of Thistle seed in the
apogee of flight path is a simple procedure.

Now I am getting far ahead of myself in this book by posing a question
out of sequence
to the chapters. But it was on my mind much of the day.

The question I am asking is why has no scientist figured out what
human population size is
self sustaining here on planet Earth that the entire human population
can live off of renewable
sources of energy and all other needs? At what size of human
population can we theoretically
live forever on renewable energy? I do not mean coal or petrol or
fissile fuels since they eventually
are depleted and used up. So at what human population size can we
sustain ourselves, theoretically,
forever? Is it the size of 1 billion people?

And a related question is at what population size will all animals
except those of the size of about a dog
is extinct in the wild? Is it a human population of 15 billion where
all animals in the wild are extinct that
are larger than a dog?

And I am out of sequence with the chapter on Multi-Variables or Multi-
Factor Problems. That Global Warming
problem is not a linear problem but multivariable in that it does
little good to build a Earth Air Conditioner
while we never address the problem of human overpopulation. So that as
people cut their consumption in
half, is a futile program if the human population doubles during that
time span.

In fact, we could solve global warming if we simply reduced human
population to the 2 billion mark that
existed early in the 20th century where there was no alarm of Global
Warming.

So Global Warming is tied and connected to Human Overpopulation and
both have to be solved in tandem.

Another variable or factor is Biological Diversity and species
extinction. So that if we build a Earth Air
Conditioner and do nothing about Human Overpopulation then the planet
still heats up and we extinct
many plants and animals, not only from rising temperature but from
loss of habitat.

So when scientists talk and rail about Global Warming without mixing
in Human Overpopulation, seems to
me as a slipshod presentation of the problems.

So it seems to me that Global Warming debate must be tied with Human
Overpopulation debate all as one
huge problem that needs urgent action. For this can extinct many
plants and animals, but if we are not
careful, can lead to our extinction.

The reason I write this out of sequence is tonight was report in the
news of a Conference on Global Warming,
but it was lacking the dual problem of Human Overpopulation.

So we need scientists to give us the most reliable data as to what
Human Population size can sustain itself
on renewables. Is it 1 billion? Is it 2 billion? Have the scientists
find out what that size is. For it impacts on
solving Global Warming and saving Bio-Diversity.

I do not like the news media lavishing all this attention on Global
Warming and no attention on its twin-evil
of Human Overpopulation, which maybe the worst evil of the two.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies