Caffeinated Thoughts |
- What if the Population Replacement Rate Drops to 2.0. Then What?
- The Tyrant in Us All: Bloomberg Takes on Big Syrup
- “Hating Breitbart” Exclusive Premiere to Be Held at RightOnline
- King to Vote to Ban Gender-Based Abortions; Calls on Vilsack to Take a Position
| What if the Population Replacement Rate Drops to 2.0. Then What? Posted: 31 May 2012 03:57 AM PDT Twice in the last couple of months I have been faced with the claim that large population growth can continue to occur even though the birth rate remains at 2.0 or below. The claim is on its face not possible (with some notable caveats I mention below) First, let me explain what the chart below cannot do. It cannot predict what will happen in the real world, but neither can my friends. It is a closed chart, meaning it requires no fudging of the numbers. The reason for this is simple. I am dealing with hypothetical numbers and rates, not real people. This is a math problem, not a people problem. The specifics of the chart. First, in order to make things simple, I will do this based upon the idea that the number of children needed to replace two parents is TWO(!). The reason that 2.1 or 2.2 is often used is because the figure is trying to represent the number of children needed, who survive into adulthood. This itself is an unnecessary and arbitrary fudge because the average I give already takes into consideration children who have no children, regardless of the reason (they die in childhood, they are infertile or they remain virgins, etc.). In other words, to present the information in an understandable format, it is necessary that each family have two and only two children. In the real world, one family could have 8 children, and three other couples could have none and the results would be the same, but using this in the chart would be unfollowable(!) and as big a distraction as this long introduction. Second, even though the chart mentions father and mother, I recognize we are really only dealing with the number of children particular mothers have. This is necessary for the chart to have any meaning whatsoever. In the real world, mothers may have children by more than one man for various reasons, but mathematically it only confuses things. Third, the chart only deals with population growth in a closed setting. That is, one world, one nation, or one town. Immigration does not exist. Of course, a nation with a low birth rate could still grow, if you allow for immigration. Fourth, it is necessary to stretch out the chart to at least as long as the length of life of the first generation. The chart assumes no change in death rate, for this reason: Even if people lived to be an average of 120 years old, after six generations, the population growth would cease, if each couple only had two children. To make it simple, each couple has a pair of twins at age 20, each of their children have twins at age 20, and so on, until the death of the original progenitors, all which die at age 81. We start the chart with 8 newlywed couples, all aged 19 in the year 2999.
From the fourth generation on, the population will be only 80 and no higher. From this chart it is easy to see that with a birthrate of 2 children per household, the population can only grow if the death rate decreases. Even then, it won't be by much. If people lived to be a 100, in 3100 A.D. the population would top out at 112 people. Suppose each person lived to be 200. It would only reach 160 TOTAL and then it would stop. Suppose everybody lived to be 1000 years old. Let's revisit our original chart with nobody dying for a 1000 years. Wouldn't the world population explode? No.
In other words, only 80 people are added every 100 years. After 1000 years—and nobody has ever lived that long—there would be only 800 people added, making a grand total of 832! That is the same population as that booming metropolis, Alma, Kansas, where hunger appears to be running rampant. Link to this post!        |
| The Tyrant in Us All: Bloomberg Takes on Big Syrup Posted: 31 May 2012 03:37 AM PDT Boss Bloomberg and the city mothers of New York City have decided to crack down on lethal weapons. No, they are not AK-47s and sawed-off shotguns: They're large cups. Yes, you heard that right. In typical overreach, a decision was made to fight Big Apple, public enemy number one, HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup, aka "Sugar"), with the country's first Size of Container Law. Soon, in NYC it will be illegal for fast food restaurants to serve soft drinks (or soda or pop or sweet tea) in cups larger than 16 ounces. It would be easy to go after the good mayor for his do-gooder, nanny-like inclination to control the people of his kingdom, but it is the citizens themselves—and others like them all over the country—that I want to talk to today. Most people will comply and not make such a fuss over this new law. That is find and dandy. I don't think it does much good to hoot and holler when you are inconvenienced, when there are so many more important things in this world to fight for. I am often surprised at the indignity cigarette smokers are willing to put up with, however. Smokers who are 50 years old, but look 39 (like myself) often have to present ID to prove they are not 17. (Mind you, I don't smoke, I only mean that I am 50-plus years old, but look 39-ish). Many people think the Bloomberg ban iss ridiculous, but here is a smattering of the responses from Bloomberg supporters at the New York Times: "The problem is a nationwide and, now, a worldwide crisis. This Bloomberg effort is a baby step, but should be applauded wholeheartedly." "I think the ban should include diet sodas as well." "Something does need to be done." "This is a great idea and should be imitated by other localities." "And distasteful as it may be, if it saves lives, and much needed dollars in our medical system, it will have been a good thing." The last reason given above was the most common justification for regulating cup sizes: the burden on society for shelling out for the insulin costs of fat people. Of course, this begs the question as to why everybody is paying everybody else's medical bills in the first place. The Scriptures suggest the big-government impulse is at work in people since the fall.
C. S. Lewis warned us about the likes of Mayor Bloomberg and the masses who are from the government and just want to help us in his book God in the Dock (see also Luke 22:25f):
________________________________________ (1) David J Shedlock has written a book, With Christ in the Voting Booth, dealing with the causes of and the relationship between tyranny and anarchy. One chapter is entitled, "Anarchy: The Rule of a Thousand Tyrants." Link to this post!      |
| “Hating Breitbart” Exclusive Premiere to Be Held at RightOnline Posted: 30 May 2012 08:30 PM PDT
Full disclosure, yours truly is an official blogger for the event and I look forward to attending. The conference will also have numerous speakers such as: Scott Rasmussen, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, Dana Loesch, S.E. Cupp and Hugh Hewitt. You can register online here. If you use the promo code, "fightbackonline" you will receive a $10 discount on your registration. Here's the trailer of Hating Breitbart (warning some explicit language): Link to this post!      |
| King to Vote to Ban Gender-Based Abortions; Calls on Vilsack to Take a Position Posted: 30 May 2012 06:30 PM PDT
Congressman King in a statement released today said, "I am grateful to have the opportunity to support and protect innocent unborn girls who are aborted based solely on their gender." He also called on his opponent in the Iowa 4th Congressional District Race, Christie Vilsack, to take a position on this issue and to stand with the 77% of Americans who support legislation "banning abortion in cases where the fact that the developing baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion." King also stated, "There are more than two hundred million missing little girls who were aborted for the sole reason that they were girls. The three most dangerous words are 'it’s a girl,' but decision time does not happen when you find out the sex of your baby. PRENDA will protect unborn babies from being aborted because it’s about a child, not a choice. I will continue to defend the unborn. There should be no question where to stand because the choice is clear- every child deserves the right to a fulfilling life." Link to this post!      |
RightOnline
| You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
If you are interested in making money from your visitors by running popup advertisments, you should try one of the most established networks - PopCash.
RăspundețiȘtergere