On 2022-05-25, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2022 14:48:39 GMT
>> maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Does nobody knew that world populations are falling, specially in places
>>> like Russland, China, Iran?. Nigeria and India are exceptions.
>>
>> Yes, that's how we know we're coming to the peak of the sigmoid and
>> not on an exponential. The best estimates seem to agree on it stabilising at
>> about ten billion around 2050.
>>
>> There's been a UN working group attacking the problem of feeding
>> that many people for some years now - many of the 'superfoods' that appear
>> and vanish ultimately derive from their market testing. It's actually quite
>> hard to get better protein yield per acre than pigs or chickens (including
>> the feed and the transport fuel for it), but the best of the unpalatable
>> superfoods do a lot better.
>
> Developing elegant solutions to the wrong problem. We already produce enough
> food to feed everyone. We have a distribution problem not a production
> problem.
>
>
Hard Russian type wheat (Girka) has always been in short supply. Farms
suitable for growing it, in Russia-Ukraine or the high plains area of
the US need a season of rest between crops, because of water shortage.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!

On Wed, 25 May 2022 18:42:00 +0100
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid> wrote:

> Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>
> > An Essay on the Principle of Population (Malthus - 1798) was doing just
> > that. He would quite possibly be right if the industrial, agricultural
> > and social revolutions had not happened.
>
> My point being they did happen, and made a huge difference, what
> revolutions are in the future?

Nanotech, industrialisation of near space, cultured meat - these
are just the ones we can see coming, my guess is they'll all be
overshadowed by things we haven't noticed yet.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2022-05-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 14:45:24 +0100
> Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> > The best estimates seem to agree on it stabilising at
>> > about ten billion around 2050.
>>
>> I don't suppose there were many people guestimating future world
>> population before the agricultural and industrial revolutions, but they'd
>> have got a bit of a shock ...
>
> Meke Room, Make Room! was published in 1966 and set with a pretty
> accurately predicted seven billion in 1999. The level of poverty and
> universal near starvation depicted was a reasonable prediction for the time,
> food riots well before now were a common prediction then too based on
> pretty accurate population growth estimates.
>
> In reality the world as a whole is better fed today than it was in
> 1966.
>
> Most predictions until the very recent ones were based on Malthus
> and the idea that population growth would be exponential and production
> growth linear until disaster, whereas in fact more subtle pressures (not
> really understood AFAICT) make population growth a sigmoid that curves off
> long before disaster at the maximum sustainable level.
>
> We've got a lot better at feeding ourselves than anyone thought we
> would be, production growth has been far better than linear.
>
> As a result of these we live in a far better world than that one and
> we've got a good chance of hitting the plateau in reasonable comfort and
> seeing things get better from there on. That would be a shock to Malthus and
> followers.
>

Nobody wants to know of problems that are not acute. Latest thing is
monkey pox.

Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
shipping.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!

In article <tIidnS1dTdX09xP_nZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid.?> on Wed, 25 May 2022 at
18:42:00 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>
>> An Essay on the Principle of Population (Malthus - 1798) was doing just
>> that. He would quite possibly be right if the industrial, agricultural
>> and social revolutions had not happened.
>
>My point being they did happen, and made a huge difference, what revolutions are
>in the future?
>
I took that point.

However, Malthus did not have a crystal ball to forecast the future, nor
do we.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:21:25 +0100
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:

> In article <tIidnS1dTdX09xP_nZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid.?> on Wed, 25 May 2022 at
> 18:42:00 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
> >Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> >
> >> An Essay on the Principle of Population (Malthus - 1798) was doing just
> >> that. He would quite possibly be right if the industrial, agricultural
> >> and social revolutions had not happened.
> >
> >My point being they did happen, and made a huge difference, what
> >revolutions are in the future?
> >
> I took that point.
>
> However, Malthus did not have a crystal ball to forecast the future, nor
> do we.

No we don't, but we do have a better understanding of how
population growth behaves and even some insight into the underlying
factors. Without those revolutions he would still have been wrong about it
ending in catastrophe, it's just that the sigmoid curve would have tipped
over much earlier and we might have maxed out at one or two billion
instead of ten. He was dead right that there are limits to growth it's just
the behaviour as they get close isn't what he thought it would be.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2022-05-26, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
> In article <tIidnS1dTdX09xP_nZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid.?> on Wed, 25 May 2022 at
> 18:42:00 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>
>>> An Essay on the Principle of Population (Malthus - 1798) was doing just
>>> that. He would quite possibly be right if the industrial, agricultural
>>> and social revolutions had not happened.
>>
>>My point being they did happen, and made a huge difference, what revolutions are
>>in the future?
>>
> I took that point.
>
> However, Malthus did not have a crystal ball to forecast the future, nor
> do we.

There was a video recently about that time, say the regency. The
population of the Pictish isles rose faster than any period since.
Probably the Jane Austen books!

Famine is the main cause of revolutions. In France there had been a
long famine ("Let them eat Cake"). In Ireland famine in the 1790's
helped the rising of 1798 gain momentum. The present `New Order" ideas
are playing with high explosive.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!

On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
> On 2022-05-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 14:45:24 +0100
>> Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> The best estimates seem to agree on it stabilising at
>>>> about ten billion around 2050.
>>>
>>> I don't suppose there were many people guestimating future world
>>> population before the agricultural and industrial revolutions, but they'd
>>> have got a bit of a shock ...
>>
>> Meke Room, Make Room! was published in 1966 and set with a pretty
>> accurately predicted seven billion in 1999. The level of poverty and
>> universal near starvation depicted was a reasonable prediction for the time,
>> food riots well before now were a common prediction then too based on
>> pretty accurate population growth estimates.
>>
>> In reality the world as a whole is better fed today than it was in
>> 1966.
>>
>> Most predictions until the very recent ones were based on Malthus
>> and the idea that population growth would be exponential and production
>> growth linear until disaster, whereas in fact more subtle pressures (not
>> really understood AFAICT) make population growth a sigmoid that curves off
>> long before disaster at the maximum sustainable level.
>>
>> We've got a lot better at feeding ourselves than anyone thought we
>> would be, production growth has been far better than linear.
>>
>> As a result of these we live in a far better world than that one and
>> we've got a good chance of hitting the plateau in reasonable comfort and
>> seeing things get better from there on. That would be a shock to Malthus and
>> followers.
>>
>
> Nobody wants to know of problems that are not acute. Latest thing is
> monkey pox.
>
> Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
> food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
> process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
> shipping.
>
Indeed.
Famine was regarded as an Act of God (which happened quite frequently),
and the idea that large scale efforts should be expended on trying to
alleviate it was simply not part of the mindset of the day.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-05-25, Tone <tone@email.com> wrote:

>
> My point being us humans are liable to reach a certain maximum number
> whereby something culls us. Virus? Predatores? Lack of food? Lack of
> oxygen? Polution? Self destruction? Who knows?

Possibly but it's far more likely that a catastrophe would take out a large
number of people but leave enough to continue the species.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

Sam Plusnet said:
> On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
>>
>> Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
>> food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
>> process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
>> shipping.
>>
> Indeed.
> Famine was regarded as an Act of God (which happened quite frequently),
> and the idea that large scale efforts should be expended on trying to
> alleviate it was simply not part of the mindset of the day.

Whereas, it was obviously necessary to expend the effort to suppress the
resulting bread riots, which must have been the Act of a different God.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Bernard Peek said:
> On 2022-05-25, Tone <tone@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> My point being us humans are liable to reach a certain maximum number
>> whereby something culls us. Virus? Predatores? Lack of food? Lack of
>> oxygen? Polution? Self destruction? Who knows?
>
> Possibly but it's far more likely that a catastrophe would take out a large
> number of people but leave enough to continue the species.

Catastrophes are already "taking out" large numbers of people, from
famines to care-home culls.

I unforget a New Scientist piece from the early '80s; said that the
incidence of "natural disasters" hadn't changed much over the previous
few decades[1], but the number of people dying as a result had been
multiplying tenfold, decade on decade. Why ? Money squeezing people
without it off increasing amounts of viable land.

[1] Those were the days, eh ? We ever knew 'ow 'appy we wos.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <J6qdnXG7X_S6MQ3_nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 27 May 2022 at 05:47:03 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Bernard Peek said:
>> On 2022-05-25, Tone <tone@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My point being us humans are liable to reach a certain maximum number
>>> whereby something culls us. Virus? Predatores? Lack of food? Lack of
>>> oxygen? Polution? Self destruction? Who knows?
>>
>> Possibly but it's far more likely that a catastrophe would take out a large
>> number of people but leave enough to continue the species.
>
>Catastrophes are already "taking out" large numbers of people, from
>famines to care-home culls.
>
>
>I unforget a New Scientist piece from the early '80s; said that the
>incidence of "natural disasters" hadn't changed much over the previous
>few decades[1], but the number of people dying as a result had been
>multiplying tenfold, decade on decade. Why ? Money squeezing people
>without it off increasing amounts of viable land.
>
>
>[1] Those were the days, eh ? We ever knew 'ow 'appy we wos.
>
There are also more people in almost every part of the world that you
can name, not just on 'unviable' land. Without mitigation a major
disaster would therefore kill more people, whether it was in Lower
Slaughter or London. However with mitigation that same earthquake will
have a very different effect. London (we are not expecting a major
earthquake there) would loose far more people than say Tokyo, where
major earthquakes are to be expected.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 27/05/2022 14:38, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <J6qdnXG7X_S6MQ3_nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Richard
> Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> on Fri, 27 May 2022 at 05:47:03 awoke
> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>> Bernard Peek said:
>>> On 2022-05-25, Tone <tone@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point being us humans are liable to reach a certain maximum number
>>>> whereby something culls us. Virus? Predatores? Lack of food? Lack of
>>>> oxygen? Polution? Self destruction? Who knows?
>>>
>>> Possibly but it's far more likely that a catastrophe would take out a large
>>> number of people but leave enough to continue the species.
>>
>> Catastrophes are already "taking out" large numbers of people, from
>> famines to care-home culls.
>>
>>
>> I unforget a New Scientist piece from the early '80s; said that the
>> incidence of "natural disasters" hadn't changed much over the previous
>> few decades[1], but the number of people dying as a result had been
>> multiplying tenfold, decade on decade. Why ? Money squeezing people
>> without it off increasing amounts of viable land.
>>
>>
>> [1] Those were the days, eh ? We ever knew 'ow 'appy we wos.
>>
> There are also more people in almost every part of the world that you
> can name, not just on 'unviable' land. Without mitigation a major
> disaster would therefore kill more people, whether it was in Lower
> Slaughter or London. However with mitigation that same earthquake will
> have a very different effect. London (we are not expecting a major
> earthquake there) would loose far more people than say Tokyo, where
> major earthquakes are to be expected.

From gaols, would that be?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 27-May-22 11:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>> On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
>>>
>>> Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
>>> food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
>>> process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
>>> shipping.
>>>
>> Indeed.
>> Famine was regarded as an Act of God (which happened quite frequently),
>> and the idea that large scale efforts should be expended on trying to
>> alleviate it was simply not part of the mindset of the day.
>
> Whereas, it was obviously necessary to expend the effort to suppress the
> resulting bread riots, which must have been the Act of a different God.

Simply a Law n' Order issue - which obviously _was_ the concern of
government, since the preservation of property and the pursuit of profit
were the primary concerns of those who had a say in government.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-May-22 14:38, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:

> There are also more people in almost every part of the world that you
> can name, not just on 'unviable' land. Without mitigation a major
> disaster would therefore kill more people, whether it was in Lower
> Slaughter or London. However with mitigation that same earthquake will
> have a very different effect. London (we are not expecting a major
> earthquake there) would loose far more people than say Tokyo, where
> major earthquakes are to be expected.

There was the Great Colchester Earthquake of 1884.
I suppose we could be due for another one in roughly the same neck of
the woods.

(No. I have no idea why a wood needs a neck.)

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27/05/2022 21:37, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 27-May-22 11:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet said:
>>> On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
>>>> food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
>>>> process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
>>>> shipping.
>>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> Famine was regarded as an Act of God (which happened quite frequently),
>>> and the idea that large scale efforts should be expended on trying to
>>> alleviate it was simply not part of the mindset of the day.
>>
>> Whereas, it was obviously necessary to expend the effort to suppress the
>> resulting bread riots, which must have been the Act of a different God.
>
> Simply a Law n' Order issue - which obviously _was_ the concern of
> government, since the preservation of property and the pursuit of profit
> were the primary concerns of those who had a say in government.

And, indeed, still are.

Isn't it nice to see that the prim monster has changed the monster code
to say that if you lie, cheat, steal or whatever and you're a monster of
the crown, that's OK and you don't have to resign? And removed all
references to honesty, morality, and integrity from the monsterial code?

Mike Fleming said:
> On 27/05/2022 21:37, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-May-22 11:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet said:
>>>> On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Back in the 1700s, it was not rare for famines to occur locally, while
>>>>> food would rot for lack of storage a few miles away. Canals started the
>>>>> process of solving that, then railways, and cheap international
>>>>> shipping.
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> Famine was regarded as an Act of God (which happened quite frequently),
>>>> and the idea that large scale efforts should be expended on trying to
>>>> alleviate it was simply not part of the mindset of the day.
>>>
>>> Whereas, it was obviously necessary to expend the effort to suppress the
>>> resulting bread riots, which must have been the Act of a different God.
>>
>> Simply a Law n' Order issue - which obviously _was_ the concern of
>> government, since the preservation of property and the pursuit of profit
>> were the primary concerns of those who had a say in government.
>
> And, indeed, still are.
>
> Isn't it nice to see that the prim monster has changed the monster code
> to say that if you lie, cheat, steal or whatever and you're a monster of
> the crown, that's OK and you don't have to resign? And removed all
> references to honesty, morality, and integrity from the monsterial code?

No.

But, he's going to give us all handfuls of cash in about 6 months time,
if he's fgvyy va cbjre ...

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 2022-05-28, Richard Robinson <richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 27/05/2022 21:37, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 27-May-22 11:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>> Sam Plusnet said:
>>>>> On 25-May-22 20:03, maus wrote:
>>>>>>
>
> No.
>
> But, he's going to give us all handfuls of cash in about 6 months time,
> if he's fgvyy va cbjre ...
>
>

He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!

On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.

He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
to matter much to him.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 28-May-22 0:14, Mike Fleming wrote:

> Isn't it nice to see that the prim monster has changed the monster code
> to say that if you lie, cheat, steal or whatever and you're a monster of
> the crown, that's OK and you don't have to resign? And removed all
> references to honesty, morality, and integrity from the monsterial code?
>

No $%^&*ing point!
He ignores the bliddy rules all the time[1], so why change anything now?

[1] And indeed he seems to have done so throughout his whole %^&*ing
life - and gotten away with it.

Rule are for the little people.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 28-May-22 19:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
> maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
>> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.
>
> He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
> to matter much to him.
>
"I've fired a few underlings - and now I must get on with the wbo of
doing what the ^&*^&ing hell I like!"

--
Sam Plusnet

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:09:04 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 28-May-22 19:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
> > maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:
> >
> >> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
> >> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.
> >
> > He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
> > to matter much to him.
> >
> "I've fired a few underlings - and now I must get on with the wbo of
> doing what the ^&*^&ing hell I like!"
>
> --
> Sam Plusnet

Huh. Y'all have trouble with politicians too, eh?

On 2022-05-28, Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:09:04 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 28-May-22 19:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> > On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
>> > maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
>> >> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.
>> >
>> > He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
>> > to matter much to him.
>> >
>> "I've fired a few underlings - and now I must get on with the wbo of
>> doing what the ^&*^&ing hell I like!"
>>
>> --
>> Sam Plusnet
>
> Huh. Y'all have trouble with politicians too, eh?

Hope rises eternally in the human heart that there exists an honest one.

The hard fact is that the old saying,

"Politics is the last resort of the scoundrel"

Remains true.

Even truer is the fact that apparently honest ones, Hitler, Robespierre, are the biggest danger.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!

On 28/05/2022 19:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
> maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
>> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.
>
> He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
> to matter much to him.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that he isn't an idiot, but a
power-hungry one with low cunning.

On 29/05/2022 09:15, maus wrote:
> On 2022-05-28, Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:09:04 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 28-May-22 19:18, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 28 May 2022 17:17:11 GMT
>>>> maus <ma...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He amazes me. Day after day, passes by, headlines like "Boris must go
>>>>> now", and he survives.. Kinda admirable.
>>>>
>>>> He is far from an idiot, and he likes his power. Nothing else seems
>>>> to matter much to him.
>>>>
>>> "I've fired a few underlings - and now I must get on with the wbo of
>>> doing what the ^&*^&ing hell I like!"
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sam Plusnet
>>
>> Huh. Y'all have trouble with politicians too, eh?
>
> Hope rises eternally in the human heart that there exists an honest one.
>
> The hard fact is that the old saying,
>
> "Politics is the last resort of the scoundrel"
>
> Remains true.
>
> Even truer is the fact that apparently honest ones, Hitler, Robespierre, are the biggest danger.

The trouble is that the really despicable ones, like the current PM and
the vast majority of scum on the Tory side of the house, make people
think that all politicians should be tarred with the same brush.

On 2022-05-29, Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 09:15, maus wrote:
>> On 2022-05-28, Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:09:04 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> The trouble is that the really despicable ones, like the current PM and
> the vast majority of scum on the Tory side of the house, make people
> think that all politicians should be tarred with the same brush.
>

Perhaps, reading news from the GOP in Texas, that should be, tarred with
the next generation Bush.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Cad a deanamid fasta gan aimwead?
Replace it with Sitka weed!