Alternative Technology Assn Forums

1. 

   MrEGuy
   Member

   OK the title of the thread hooked you in and implies that renewable energy is a problem when it is in fact part of the solution to global warming.

   My question is why is everyone concentrating on renewable electricity when live stock production emissions and to a lesser extent vehicle emissions are being ignored??

   Why is everyone concerned about the electricity death spiral when electricity is the key renewable energy, there should be a petroleum and gas death spiral as people move loads to electricity from petroleum and gas.

   Anyone fond of the idea of getting some Skippy or insects on their fork instead of beef??

   I feel that a renewable electricity tunnel vision approach is slowing down humanities response to climate change and causing unnecessary global warming. What does everyone else think???

   Posted Sunday 29 May 2016 @ 10:30:06 am from IP #
2. 

   wlb
   Member

   Interesting question.

   Posted Sunday 29 May 2016 @ 11:03:02 am from IP #
3. 

   Lance
   Key Master

   It's not so much a tunnel vision approach, rather that many people are focusing on the switch to renewables because it is something that seems like the logical thing to do as well as being something that we will be successful doing in the next 20 years or so.

   You are right about the livestock issue, many people, even environmentalists, choose to ignore this issue, in part because they think it is their fundamental right to eat what they want (it isn't). But many also realise that it is a very difficult thing to convince Joe average that he will have to stop eating meat at every second meal. But until the world stops eating meat, we are not going to get on top of the problems we face, nor will the human species become truly ethical until we, as a whole, recognise that eating meat is just morally wrong.

   Sorry to the meat eaters here, but killing and eating creatures, causing them fear and suffering, not to mention the ethics of producing animals only to kill them 5 or 10% through their lifespan, while torturing them in the process, can never be morally right, because humans simply don't need to eat meat, and you certainly don't need to kill native animals as a replacement. Millions of vegos and vegans on the planet are proof of that. There's an interesting TED talk on speciesism at https://youtu.be/swI68y2oQ60

   On the transport side of things, there's actually a lot going on, and indeed the shift towards electrification of all levels of transport is happening more rapidly than many people thought it would. As the transport sector becomes more electrified, and as the % of renewable energy grows, then the emissions of the transport sector will naturally decline.

   Of course, there are many other issues to address as well, such as our major cities all being designed around commuting every day, city planning needs a major overhaul in Oz and the US, we need to pay attention to how it's being done elsewhere.

   The biggest hinderance to the shift towards renewables is the control the major corporations have over many politicians - they are simply puppets for big oil etc because they need the donations from these sources. Of course, many pollies are also not very well educated (well educated on paper does not translate to well educated in life and the real world) and simply deny climate change, or think we will be able to fix it technologically. I suspect it will actually happen so fast that this won't be possible, but of course the people responsible for preventing real action won't be held accountable, that's not how this world works...

   Posted Sunday 29 May 2016 @ 11:07:54 am from IP #
4. 

   MrEGuy
   Member

   Thanks, I started thinking about it after reading this article.

   https://theconversation.com/eat-locals-swapping-sheep-and-cows-for-kangaroos-and-camels-could-help-our-environment-57349

   I eat beef like its going out of fashion and that article put a dent in my sense of pride that my PV system makes more electricity that I consume. I also frequent Whirlpool and some people over there don't see the problem with natural gas. That kind of got me thinking that our response to global warming is so narrow that it's not helping the situation.

   I can't believe that in this day and age I can still go down the the shops and spend $20 on a 2400w bar heater??? or install appliances(GAS) that can not be powered in a way that doesn't emit carbon pollution. Or work in an office that is climate controlled 2/47 has capacity for 100 workers but only has 4 workers in the office outside of business hours, not to mention the three instantaneous urns that operate 24/77. Drive home after night shift in a car equipped with headlights on a road that is lit up like a Christmas tree. But not light up as brightly as the supermarket that has been closed for several hours.

   It's like we (humanity) are not even trying, just slapping up a few PV panels to save a few bucks on our quarterly bills. Don't bother using the money you save to on a holiday to the Barrier Reef though.

   Posted Sunday 29 May 2016 @ 11:20:31 am from IP #
5. 

   rockabye
   Member

   Renewables may not be causing global warming but fossil fuel emissions, mainly particles, could be having a temporary temperature stabilisation effect. This video link in the comments of the guardian makes things look pretty bad.

   "David Wasdall, climate scientist, who presents excellent videos with precise and clear information

   Watch and learn. Then go and stand outside your MP's house until they take ACTION."

   https://vimeo.com/64413595

   Posted Monday 30 May 2016 @ 10:24:24 am from IP #
6. 

   dax
   Member

   The manufacture of alternative technology certainly does contribute to global warming, as manufacturing processes are driven by coal fired generation in 99% of cases. The difference is, once they are manufactured, their contribution stops, unlike consumerism technology and the associated never ending waste.

   If we had smart people running industry, we would be orientating our alternative technology manufacturing to be driven by solar furnaces, or even the humble Stirling engine driven generation, which would eliminate the technologies contribution to warming.

   Sadly that will never happen as urban dwellers will never stop their consumerism and its associated destruction and climate warming. The majority of warming gases, except for the production of useless cloven hoofed environmentally destructive animal practices, all come from urban areas, including the methane producing waste they constantly produce with deluded their throw away mentality.

   Unless that stops, global warming will continue unabated no matter what they do.

   Posted Monday 30 May 2016 @ 10:46:25 pm from IP #
7. 

   Diver
   Member

   Greenhouse gas reduction has a time lag effect on environmental change, the 'future' is already cast in CH4.

   Posted Tuesday 31 May 2016 @ 1:10:28 am from IP #
8. 

   dax
   Member

   That's very true, sadly it's been that way since the 1980's and may well be in the just a few short years, when we really feel the effects of what we did 10 years ago.

   I doubt anyone has a clue as to what will actually happen to our climate, ecology and food chains. We are in for a massive shock when the major food chains collapse and that is very very close. They are already beginning to say the growing shark attacks are from global warming, but the reality may well be these attacks are a result of food in the seas becoming scarce, as humans dredge the seas and take out millions of tonnes a day. Whilst dumping all our waste and sewage into the oceans.

   There is no way we can sustain human population growth, throw away consumerism and never ending pollution and expect our planet to continue as if nothing has happened. Climate is just the tip of the iceberg of what we are about to face.

   Posted Tuesday 31 May 2016 @ 9:03:48 pm from IP #
9. 

   divestyoursuper
   Member

   The short answer is that if we can crack the renewable energy challenge then large parts of the transport sector will be able to move to electrification very quickly.

   Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 3:02:30 am from IP #
10. 

    Baldrick
    Member

    Dax

    There is a very common misconception that population growth will destroy the planet. Population growth is well under control and continues to fall.

    While humans have been very bad at doing many things, controlling population is not one of them. Population control is one of our few success stories.

    The secret is to Educate Girls, and it's working.

    Will provide a link when I have time.

    Edit:

    Google "Don’t Panic – The Facts About Population"

    Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 7:42:40 am from IP #
11. 

    Diver
    Member

    World Population Clock.

    http://www.eahdfoundation.org/world_live_clock.php

    Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 11:46:07 am from IP #
12. 

    dax
    Member

    Baldrick said:
    Dax

    There is a very common misconception that population growth will destroy the planet. Population growth is well under control and continues to fall.

    While humans have been very bad at doing many things, controlling population is not one of them. Population control is one of our few success stories.

    The secret is to Educate Girls, and it's working.

    Will provide a link when I have time.

    Edit:

    Google "Don’t Panic – The Facts About Population"

    Denial is the hallmark of ideological humanity, along with empty hope, they are what is destroying life on this planet. However as has happened in past history, this is the end of a human evolutionary era and ideologues are way past their evolutionary use by date. Just love it when ideologues and in particular god nutters make ludicrous claims the opposite to reality, when it is they who are the problem for our future.

    It's a well known historical and evolutionary fact, when something reaches the peak of it's evolution, it appears to be in control. Yet the reality is it's in decline and we have seen this during this ideological era when ideological cultures have been at the top of their game, they collapse or are over run by their own actions.

    This is what is happening now, ideological humanity sees itself as being in control and having the power to determine the future. The facts are, ideological humanity is destroying itself with its own greed, denial and reliance upon delusion and deception. That's why we are seeing so much ideological conflict and determination by the varying ideological insanities to prove they are the best believers in fantasy and deluded mythology and they use force and destruction to push their fantasies as real.

    The world cities are overcrowded, polluted, wasteful blights on the planet. Their throw away consumerism is not sustainable in any way and in the end will destroy them. Add urbanites produce the majority of waste and pollution, they are not sustainable any more and are on the way out.

    Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 8:34:39 pm from IP #
13. 

    Lance
    Key Master

    Have to go with Dax on this one, population is way out of control, realistically the planet can really only support a billion or so people (and that's optimistic), if you want to be really sustainable, and leave a decent percentage of the planet for other species. Where we are now is totally unsustainable and there is going to be a huge environmental and species collapse in the next few decades, there's pretty much no stopping it now, from all the indicators.

    Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 10:00:28 pm from IP #
14. 

    Baldrick
    Member

    Dax

    The planet and humans have many challenges and the best way to address these challenges is with Science. The work done by the ATA and many others that post here is also based on Science. Science loves debate, it is the key to the search for truth.

    The Anti-Climate Change advocates use rhetoric rather than facts. They cherry pick data to fit their agenda. When confronted with facts, they ignore them, and keep repeating their same old lines. They believe that if you keep repeating a lie it will become a fact.

    The facts are that the rate of population increase is reducing. The population will continue to grow but it will plateau. In the long term you will even see it reduce, (natural disasters, war and the odd pandemic), without any intervention. The fact that we achieved this without realizing, is not unusual. We had no idea that education could have such wide reaching consequences. Maybe it's dumb luck or the reward for doing the right thing, nobody knows.

    If you have any facts that contradict Hans and Ola Rosling's work, I would be happy to debate them.

    Posted Wednesday 1 Jun 2016 @ 11:02:31 pm from IP #
15. 

    Lance
    Key Master

    The rate of population increase may be reducing, but the population is still increasing, it may well plateau, figures I've seen are that it will hit around 10 billion before starting to decline. With the constant push for a higher standard of living (ie, more stuff) for more people on the planet, it's anyones guess what will happen in the next few decades.

    But all the proponents of "let the population sort itself out" assume that the planet is entirely here for humans, they don't take into account the massive loss of habitat that has already happened and that only gets worse each day, the extinction of many species, and the irreversible (in the relative short term) damage done to many pristine areas of the planet. It's the "earth is here purely for humans" attituted that is making a mess of the planet, and it's not just greedy capaitalists who have that attitude, it is very common amongs the more fundamentally religious as well.

    I'm sure that as more people improve their education and understand the problems over population is causing, we will get on top of it, but it will be way too late by then, by many indicators it already is.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 12:29:35 am from IP #
16. 

    Diver
    Member

    Lance said:
    I'm sure that as more people improve their education and understand the problems over population is causing, we will get on top of it, but it will be way too late by then, by many indicators it already is.

    Yep. It's now a countdown to when the Arctic's Yamal Peninsula's sea bed pingos go ping.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 12:49:32 am from IP #
17. 

    sun2steam
    Member

    The problem with population is that we cannot do much because this is not under our control. All developed countries have a birth rate that will let the population shrink without immigration.
    And how can We tell to the people in Africa, Middle East, Asia and South America to breed less??
    That would be neo-colonialism.
    Our only hope is to educate girls and women all over the world better and empower them as this has proven to bring down the birth rate. But our governments keep cutting development aid, the only fair measure we have for reducing world-wide population growth.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 3:04:41 am from IP #
18. 

    Morbo
    Member

    that brings back memories, newspaper being distributed with condoms stapled in, somewhere in Africa.
    if people get more wealthy and there are retirement funds, then there is less need for children. Now I get John Howards drift, that Australia needs more children (preferably blond and blue eyed, would be too easy to get migrants in)

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 5:12:13 am from IP #
19. 

    Diver
    Member

    Morbo said:
    .....newspaper being distributed with condoms stapled in,

    Hmmm, I don't think that would have been an overly successful campaign somehow.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 7:41:25 am from IP #
20. 

    Morbo
    Member

    plus if you look on some peoples wasteline, I think, 1 westerner has at least the footprint of 10 Indians or 20 Ethiopians. So, people voting for reducing of population, do you have kids? If you want change, start with yourself?

    And its not just beef, just learned, it takes 10kg of small fish to produce 1 kg of tuna. Sardines, anyone?

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 11:34:41 am from IP #
21. 

    dax
    Member

    Baldrick said:
    The facts are that the rate of population increase is reducing. The population will continue to grow but it will plateau. In the long term you will even see it reduce, (natural disasters, war and the odd pandemic), without any intervention. The fact that we achieved this without realizing, is not unusual. We had no idea that education could have such wide reaching consequences. Maybe it's dumb luck or the reward for doing the right thing, nobody knows.

    If you have any facts that contradict Hans and Ola Rosling's work, I would be happy to debate them.

    Rational logic states, the population will only stop increasing when ideological humanity stops their never ending desperation to increase their population footprint and overwhelm others. This is the viewable reality of all ideologies and their factions throughout history and it continues today on a world scale.

    The only intervention will be nature in many guises, the most telling will be the psychological collapse as the fantasy worlds of ideologues collapse around them, which is becoming very apparent around the globe. Especially in ideologically controlled cultures, where they are all in a state of internal conflict and psychological confusion. This relates to the extremely high chemically saturated foods consumed by 99.9% of humanity, which is not only having a biological effect, but a psychological one.

    There is nothing to debate, denial is the only thing ideologues have left, their lies deceptions and suppressions have not stopped evolution and never will. The only plausible aspect that can be debated is the time line and as time is a human concept, it's irrelevant because the true state of decline is hidden deep within nature and won't be revealed until it has taken effect.

    In Tasmania, it takes 18kg of wild caught fish to produce 1kg of Atlantic salmon. For that same salmon production 10 years ago, they used 1.6kg of antibiotics to keep disease at bay. Today they use 18 tonnes of antibiotics along with many other chemicals to try to control disease, mutations and colour. This is the same with every food industry utilising animal products, your dairy products are saturated with antibiotics, hormones and chemicals. Such logic is the the epitome of ideological existence and why they are way past their evolutionary use by date, like Neanderthals and previous incarnations of humanity.

    The facts are renewable energy is the only way for anyone to survive, but if you live in an urban environment, you have no chance whatsoever, as you rely totally upon others to provide for your existence. History provides us with all the evidence needed to support that fact, in all wars and pandemics, it is population areas which suffer the most in all ways and this time, there will be no one to come to their rescue.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 7:54:49 pm from IP #
22. 

    Morbo
    Member

    dax, I hope you did your bit and refused to procreate?

    Religions are good. They been created to justify
    -the killing of people thet don't belong yo your tribe
    -accepting your own death for the better of your tribe
    ok, they refuse birth control, but thats done later using guns

    only 1/3 of worlds population has chemicals in their food I guess, the western world. Rest still does it old style. Or does not even have food. The western world has the biggest impact. At least Europe tries to introduce legislation for more fuel efficient and less polluting cars and low GWP refrigerants. Australia of course is way behind, also in terms of reneweables.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 9:46:55 pm from IP #
23. 

    APR
    Member

    dax said:
    Rational logic states, the population will only stop increasing when....

    Dax, there is a statistical correlation that could suggest countries with a low incident of TV in the household have a higher birth rate. Perhaps consumerism has an up side

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 9:51:27 pm from IP #
24. 

    dax
    Member

    Sadly ideologues have to make up any excuse they can to not take responsibility for their footprint on the planet. One of those bizarre efforts is to try to pass blame to others and desperately try to apologise and defend their indefensible delusions and mythological beliefs. When I had my children, the problems we face today, were not even recognised and two children is not contributing to the problem of humanity, if we want to sustain human existence.

    There is not one aspect of religions that is good historically or present day, just like all ideologies. All they have contributed to evolution is the genocide of most living things on the planet. Religious and ideological beliefs, are the product of a negative evolutionary psychological mutation, something which nature is about to evolve out of existence.

    I think your guess is wrong, the majority of humans live on chemically saturated diets and denuded soils. The 3rd world impoverished, subsist on chemically saturated foods provided by western societies, the majority of those foods are the rejects and seconds they can't sell, so they dump them on impoverished countries and governments pay them so they can increase their profit growth. The rest of the human population subsists on chemically saturated foods grown in heavily saturated artificial fertilisers, pesticide ridden soils, using heavily polluted waters and air.

    Australia imports more than 80% of processed foods, all coming from countries which have heavily contaminated soils, air and waters. Daily we read of contaminated foods effecting people, when it comes to the take away industry, it happens many thousands of times a day, as does food poisoning from junk and all processed foods. Most urban dwellers obtain the majority of their foods from junk food shops and overseas processed packaged foods. One look at the trolleys of just about all shopper slaves coming out of multinational supermarkets, contain nothing but junk foods and useless chemical rubbish.

    It's reality which drives the evolutionary process, not the delusions of ideologues and not even alternative technological methods will save those incapable of living in the real world and outside their insane ideological controls.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 10:20:08 pm from IP #
25. 

    dax
    Member

    APR said:
    Dax, there is a statistical correlation that could suggest countries with a low incident of TV in the household have a higher birth rate. Perhaps consumerism has an up side

    The problem is, ideologies are determined to move those without TV to countries with TV because that's the only way they can continue profit and consumerism growth. In their deluded minds, ideological institutions believe it increases the controls of their ideology, which is another bizarre approach proven not to have worked throughout history and why the worlds insane churches promote open borders, so all god nutters can invade sane countries and destroy them in the name of their mythical god of war.

    Consumerism has no upside, just all down sides, as our growing land fills, toxic dumps, polluted land and waters, along with billions of tonnes of plastic killing sea life and chocking our oceans.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 10:31:11 pm from IP #
26. 

    Baldrick
    Member

    Dax

    There has always been a big debate about what is a sustainable population for the planet. Unfortunately most of the debate isn't driven by facts but myth.

    Those who wish to drastically reduce the population paint a simple utopian world where everybody lives on an acre block growing their own food and trading their excess with their neighbors. They bake their own bread. Their houses and water is heated by wood from their own block. They get water from their own well. They see this as true sustainable living.

    You can live like the Amish now if you wish, but you cannot have Computers, TV, the Internet, low pollution, Airlines, tractors, accurate weather forecasts and cheap transportation.

    While I admire the Amish for their faith, I cannot forgive them for their lack of education. The Amish will never produce another Shakespeare, Dylan, Beethoven, Van Gough or even Mandela. Because they do not understand to principal of "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants". Or to put it simply, we move forward by building on the work of others.

    But where do electric or bio-diesel cars, Solar Panels, generators, computers, batteries, TV's or refrigerators come from? There is no car farm where you can just grow the next model with GPS. These products are produced in cities by those who are educated in Universities.

    Some even dream of going back to a simpler time, to the days of the horse. They also conveniently forget that the car was seen as low pollution means of transportation when compared to the horse.

    The truth is that many of those who preach population reduction are the rich, western countries, worried about maintaining their comfortable lifestyle.

    There was a very good documentary about a family in China. Remember, China has a lot of very fertile land, unlike Australia. The husband was working in the cities to make some extra money. The wife and child stayed at home on the family farm. She worked from sun up to sunset just to grow enough food to feed themselves for the year. We are talking about backbreaking manual work that never ends. These are people who are not well fed, it's just rice and vegetables. Meat is a luxury and only for very special ocasions. Like when they have had a good litter from the pigs, the crops didn't fail, nobody needed the doctor or school fee's didn't rise. How are these people going to afford to send their child to high school let alone university.

    The reality of a sustainable lifestyle is a fantasy created by the rich. All anybody or any country can sensibly do is to reduce their own burden on the planet. Those who demand that the poor need to do more, should be willing to compensate the poor, and I can never see that happening.

    As far us Australia is concerned, we need to stop complaining about others and put our own house in order.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 10:50:29 pm from IP #
27. 

    Baldrick
    Member

    Dax

    Consumerism gave you home computers. When they first started selling them to consumers, most people laughed. They were seen as just another toy for Christmas, nobody expected them to have the impact on society that they did.

    Now I'm a nerd so technology is something that I follow with great interest. When it comes to predicting future trends I'm 100% accurate, I have been wrong every time. For some strange reason the market moves off into some other direction that I could never have imagined.

    The one product line is often seen as being totally pointless is cosmetics. While I may well believe that these products are just plain useless and totally unnecessary, I now realise that they are part of human evolution.

    If women truly believed that they are beautiful and don't need cosmetics, in the same way that men know that we are James Bond, evolution would have produced a very different society.

    99.9 percent of men on the planet wouldn't be good enough for any woman. The 0.1 of the male population that women deemed sufficiently intelligent and good looking. Would die very early from to much sex.

    So while I may think that the entire cosmetics industry is stupid, so long as women don't realise how beautiful they really are, ugly old farts like me have a chance of mating.

    Posted Thursday 2 Jun 2016 @ 11:23:49 pm from IP #
28. 

    Morbo
    Member

    the problem with buying cosmetics is, its really just vaseline and sunblock. If people would realise that, it would save them some money.
    While having 2 kids is not having an impact on total numbers, keep in mind, that western kids consume way more than their counterparts in other parts of the world. I read some about African woman with 9 kids, but only the oldest one get some sort of food. No entire forrests of paper nappies, no special paracetamol for childred (which is really just 1/2 of an adults portion), no entire rooms full of toys. Essentially just a hut to live in. No 400m2 house with the entire area climatised like even some ATA forum members have. No concerns like, should I put foam rubber onto my polished concrete floor. And foam rubber windows. Just a dirt floor and some holes in a wall.
    And no, no western food to Angola, in fact they grow food thats imported to the UK amongst other places

    Posted Friday 3 Jun 2016 @ 12:38:31 am from IP #
29. 

    dax
    Member

    Wow it seems some here can't read, or refuse to read because it may infect their programming and they may learn something. What gives some the impression I am advocating returning to the dark ages, when my company sticks to this century technology as I do in my home and life. No one can survive without technology into the future and it will be technology that will allow us to survive, nothing else. Its the way we use and abuse technology that is the problem, not the technology itself.

    My home is extremely technologically advanced, earth covered and no need for cooling or heating as it sits at 22-25deg year round. It provides us with all the foods we need, with very little work involved, allows us to travel extensively whilst the house looks after itself in every way and we can monitor it from around the globe. Attached glass houses, aquaponics, recycling of everything used in the house, making it a closed system if need be. Fully computerised electrical and electronics systems, running open source software and raspberry Pi computers. No fuel costs because we use seed oil fuels which reduce containments by over 80%.

    It's the urbanites who live in the past dark ages, relying upon the system for everything they need to exist. This is the century of responsibility, not irresponsibility which is exhibited by 99% of humans.

    Another laugh is those claiming places like Angola, have no food problems, because they export food to wealthy countries. The facts are they do export their food to other countries exclusively, whilst the poverty stricken population starves and relies upon the useless crap they have dumped on them, like GM foods no one else will take. No different to us exporting all our gas and leaving nothing for our future, just another example of the insanity of ideological humanity.

    The link below is one of thousands of links pointing out how impoverished countries are abused, used and destroyed to feed the greed and gluttony of wealthy ideological urban slaves. Yet the majority are in denial, because it goes against their programming which says, everything is cool, we have it under control and some god or ideological miracle will save us all.

    https://www.usaid.gov/crisis/angola

    Really hope I'm wrong, but to me the signs are saying it will be only a couple of years before urbanites will be looking at empty shops, flooded streets and collapsing infrastructure. Nature has yet begun to fight for its survival, but is ramping up to blow us away soon.

    The huge flooding of Europe is just a small sign of the beginning and our cities will suffer the same fate, simply because they emit so much junk, pollution and heat. It invites nature to deal with it and massive downpours, sea rise, denuded growing areas from drought then flooding, will do the job. Then ideological humanity will finish it as they go crazy, fight amongst themselves for nothing but clean air and water. Evolution is wonderful, if you accept and follow it. Technology used in the right way is an evolutionary process to a better existence, sadly ideological humanity just abuses it and life in general.

    Posted Friday 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:17:02 am from IP #
30. 

    dlvb19
    Member

    Sorry morbo. Lots of people make this mistake. If you have two kids then they each have 2 kids and your are still alive, which is likely, then depending on assumptions you have way more than parity. Deaths are linear, births are geometric

    Posted Friday 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:39:09 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic