DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1601--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: Nearings fault Date: November 12, 2021, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. I would call it population decline myself. Just a
slow unravelling of the post world war 2 population
explosion/disaster.
#Post#: 1602--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: Digwe Must Date: November 12, 2021, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's some math for you.
Hazards of living near oil refineries
It's okay - they're brown.
HTML https://pha.berkeley.edu/2021/04/11/refinery-pollutants-and-their-effect-on-public-health/
"The health effects of living near a refinery prove to be
chronic and gradual. These invisible fumes creep into the lives
of thousands, and victimizes many. According to the California
government, some adverse health effects living near a refinery
include: increased risk of asthma, cancers, birth defects,
neurological damage, cardiovascular damage, difficulty
breathing, and blood disorders. Additionally, those who live
closer to oil refineries are statistically more at risk to
develop these health disorders, even if they are 10 miles away.
Minority groups are disproportionately affected by the toxic
harm of refineries, and are often pushed into the frontlines due
to poor city planning and wealth gaps. Latinos are 51 percent
more likely to live in counties with unhealthy levels of ozone.
and nearly two million are living less than half a mile from oil
and gas facilities, a National Hispanic Medical Association
(NHMA) report found. High poverty rates prevent these families
from moving away from these polluted areas. To make matters
worse, minority communities frequently have limited access to
health care and treatment. According to a NAACP report, in many
African American communities the air violates ozone level
standards. Annually, members of the African American community
experience over 101,000 lost schooldays and 138,000 asthma
attacks due to air pollution from refineries..."
HTML https://theconversation.com/living-near-active-oil-and-gas-wells-in-california-tied-to-low-birth-weight-and-smaller-babies-140034
In a California study, we found that pregnant women living
near active high-production oil and gas wells have an elevated
chance of having low birth-weight babies. This finding adds to a
growing body of research on potential public health impacts from
oil and gas operations.
We analyzed the birth records of nearly 3 million babies born to
people living within 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) of at least one
oil or gas well in California’s Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley,
South Central Coast and South Coast regions – the state’s oil
production epicenters – between 2006 and 2015.
Our analysis found that in rural areas, pregnant women who lived
within 0.62 miles (1 kilometer) of the highest-producing wells
were 40% more likely to have low birth-weight babies compared to
pregnant women living farther away from wells or near inactive
wells only. We also found that rural women living near the
highest-producing wells were 20% more likely to have babies who
were small for their gestational age, which is an indication of
reduced fetal growth.
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/06/us-oil-refineries-exceeding-limits-for-cancer-causing-benzene-report-finds
At least 10 US oil refineries have been emitting cancer-causing
benzene above the federal government’s limits, according to a
new report from the Environmental Integrity Project.
The group reviewed a year of air monitoring data recorded at the
fence lines of 114 refineries, as reported to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The facilities are not breaking the law, but they are required
by EPA to analyze the causes of the emissions and try to reduce
them.
Eric Schaeffer, the executive director of the Environmental
Integrity Project, said while some refineries have made
improvements, others are still releasing benzene at harmful
rates.
“Benzene comes with elevated cancer risk but also lots of
non-cancer issues that are harder to quantify,” Schaeffer said.
People can get sick from low levels in the long term or high
levels in the short term.
As I've said before, I expect every drop of oil and ton of coal
that is recoverable - regardless of profitability - to be pumped
and burned. When the outright subsidies don't work the
government will mandate the production of FF. They will have no
choice. Your investments will do well.
Currently Russia is playing hardball with the EU around the gas
shortage as it relates to both with the migrant crisis and
Ukraine. The colder it gets the more leverage the Russians
have.
#Post#: 1604--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: K-Dog Date: November 12, 2021, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]It’s probably further out there on the horizon than
anybody who has posted so far thinks it is....food will be more
expensive, but nobody is about to starve. We still have plenty
of FF’s and we still know how to make ammonium nitrate.[/quote]
Nobody is about to starve? They already have. A million
Afghan children are at risk of dying amid acute malnutrition
right now. Breakdown of infrastructure is all that is needed.
A Seneca Cliff is approached.
The Price of Ammonium Nitrate has tripled. There are already
poor 3rd world farmers who can't afford to buy fertilizer for
next years harvest, so total food production will be less next
year. At least one person will stave as a direct result, likely
a child. They count as people but are easily ignored. In some
poor countries food already takes 50% of income. Any increase
in price at all in these places will cause some peeps to starve.
And one person or a million, it does not matter. The same
tragedy played one time, or replayed a million times like a
video with views. It is the same tragedy.
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for
one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did
for me.”
The mathematics of morality does not follow normal rules.
I doubt increase in food cost will lead to better diets. Rather
the opposite will happen and from bad diet some will die. That
won't be starvation directly. A case of human nature. The
uncommon is ignored. Out of sight and out of mind. People
already are starving. As we approach a Seneca cliff, there will
be many more.
#Post#: 1608--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: Digwe Must Date: November 12, 2021, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=74.msg1604#msg1604
date=1636739417]
[quote]It’s probably further out there on the horizon than
anybody who has posted so far thinks it is....food will be more
expensive, but nobody is about to starve. We still have plenty
of FF’s and we still know how to make ammonium nitrate.[/quote]
Nobody is about to starve? They already have. A million
Afghan children are at risk of dying amid acute malnutrition
right now. Breakdown of infrastructure is all that is needed.
A Seneca Cliff is approached.
The Price of Ammonium Nitrate has tripled. There are already
poor 3rd world farmers who can't afford to buy fertilizer for
next years harvest, so total food production will be less next
year. At least one person will stave as a direct result, likely
a child. They count as people but are easily ignored. In some
poor countries food already takes 50% of income. Any increase
in price at all in these places will cause some peeps to starve.
And one person or a million, it does not matter. The same
tragedy played one time, or replayed a million times like a
video with views. It is the same tragedy.
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for
one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did
for me.”
The mathematics of morality does not follow normal rules.
I doubt increase in food cost will lead to better diets. Rather
the opposite will happen and from bad diet some will die. That
won't be starvation directly. A case of human nature. The
uncommon is ignored. Out of sight and out of mind. People
already are starving. As we approach a Seneca cliff, there will
be many more.
[/quote]
[b]"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a
crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom
to choose correctly."
Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates[/b]
#Post#: 1609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: John of Wallan Date: November 12, 2021, 2:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any animal needs food to survive.
Cheap energy and resources in last 100 years have led to
increased food for human animals, hence population explosion.
Just like when food is exhausted due to over grazing in any
number of examples, the decline will be rapid.
It aint rocket surgery.
JOW
#Post#: 1614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: RE Date: November 12, 2021, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, it is a net loss of total population.
RE
#Post#: 1616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: Phil Potts Date: November 12, 2021, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=74.msg1601#msg1601
date=1636733134]
Fair enough. I would call it population decline myself. Just a
slow unravelling of the post world war 2 population
explosion/disaster.
[/quote]
I was trying to quote someone else, but this software always
quotes the wrong person, so I have to post something and delete
it, then quote the right person. This time that didn't work.
Are contraception, abortion, mandrought/marriage drought, low
sperm count, gender war and transgender hormone treatment the
real horsemen of the apocalypse?
"dieoff" by shrinking family began for European and anglosphere
population at least 60 yrs ago. I read they went from 1 in 3
people on earth to 1 in 7. If you consider Europe including UK
and Russia 750m, USA 330m, Canada 30m, Oz 25m and NZ 6m? White
south Africans 5m? Call it 1.15b, from 8b global population,
it's about 12% before even factoring in immigrants to those
countries and ethnic make up. In 1900, Europe alone was about
25% of world population
Including the new world around 33% seems reasonable. I'm
thinking it's probably around 10% now if there was 20%
immigrants.
China doesn't have any of the aforementioned horsemen that
caused that and most international airports that I see always
have a lot of Chinese families with 2 or 3 children. Those would
be living in the diaspora. Why then the extreme drop in
fertility in the past few years in china? It isn't just rising
standard of living, so I think it could be 5G and 6G radiation
contributing. Trump was dreaming when he said American telco was
working on 6G a few years ago.
I also balk at calling this process 'dieoff', although the
Tasmanian aborigines went extinct in the 1800s from infertility
caused by STD. Dieoff by the definition requiring being alive to
begin with, like grass or brain cells, might be beginning where
the Deagal 2025 report forecast:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 1618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dieoff Errata
By: RE Date: November 12, 2021, 10:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=74.msg1616#msg1616
date=1636772653]
I also balk at calling this process 'dieoff', although the
Tasmanian aborigines went extinct in the 1800s from infertility
caused by STD. Dieoff by the definition requiring being alive to
begin with, like grass or brain cells, might be beginning where
[/quote]
Call it a "Birthoff" then if you prefer. A Rose by any other
name is still a Rose. ;D
However, you are talking about a Population here, not an
Individual. If you express it as a ratio Births/Deaths, if the
number is >1 the population lives on. <1, it dies off. =1, it
remains stable. So you could call this Living On vs Living Off.
lol.
In other economic Newspeak, instead of saying it is shrinking or
contracting, the popular term is "degrowing". It's more
palatable and less fear inducing, so that is the word that is
used.
To me, it matters not whether the numerator is decreasing or the
denominator is increasing. The ratio is still <1. I call it a
Dieoff. You can call it whatever you like.
RE
#Post#: 1620--------------------------------------------------
Depopulation Trends
By: RE Date: November 13, 2021, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a short list of countries that showed a decreasing
population from the 2010 to the 2020 Census. There are others,
but not important for this post on the topic.
HTML https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population
The issue I will address here is why you can't REALLY use a
compound interest formula to figure dieoff (Liveoff? Birthoff?
Depopulation?)
What is done here to generate the projections from 2020-2030 is
to ASSUME that the ~1% annual population decrease will remain
CONSTANT through the next decade. With only a 1% annual
decrease, it would take quite a long time for the population of
Homo Sap to dwindle down. Unfortunately, this percentage is
unlikely to remain constant at 1%. Reason being all the
headwinds we currently face in food production and distribution,
all previously discussed.
We won't know the actual average rate of depopulation for the
2020-2030 time period until AFTER 2030. It won't be until after
the 2040 census (if there is one) that you might be able to
estimate how fast or slow the percentage is moving, up or down.
Few of us here will still be alive in 2040.
All we can do right now is to look at the TRENDS.
Trending now on Twitter: More DEAD PEOPLE.
RE
#Post#: 1621--------------------------------------------------
It's not a Dieoff, it's a Sexoff
By: RE Date: November 13, 2021, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trending now on Twitter: Celibacy
The latest sex and dating trend? Celibacy.
HTML https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2021/11/12/celibacy-emerging-dating-and-wellness-trend-experts-weigh-in/6373269001/?gnt-cfr=1
RE
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page