With November well over now and our thoughts are now on Christmas - and the New Year.
I just wanted to recommend the following to you as a sort of Christmas gift. I'm a member and there is so much stuff on this Membership site that I am still ploughing through it and learning lots of new things. If you are interested in making money via the Internet then this is very likely one of the best places to belong to.
So Jeremy Gislason has devised a sizzling, take-it-to-the-bank package, just for you, to make sure 2010 can be your best year yet.
If you're in a hurry, this the fast link to success:
Privileged Memberships
You'll have a ball.
It really is a complete no-brainer, because he's giving you a lifetime's top level access to his top ten, five-start membership sites. What's more...
If you hit this link: Privileged Memberships right away, you'll be able to take a full 30 days to test drive it all. And, here's the advantage it gives you...
Because you're getting a boatload of Master Reseller and other licenses on red hot products, such as books, courses, videos and software (and other items too hot to mention in an open blog), which you can use to pour cash straight into your PayPal account.
That way, when the 30 days trial is up, you'll not only have enough to cover the pitifully tiny payment for all this PLUS enough left over for the best ever New Year's party.
But I must WARN YOU: this is such a lucrative giveaway, he's naturally having to severely limit who gets on board. So, don't waste another minute before you go to:
Privileged Memberships
Regards
Jim
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Is It Really Our Right?
In light of the issues facing the world with Climate Change and the predicted growth of the world’s population to over 20 billion within 100 years, is it not time to start thinking about some possible solutions.
As a consequence of my previous blog 'Is Climate Control Really the Issue?' I received a number of messages from people who thought that perhaps I was suggesting that there should be some controls on who is allowed to have children and who is not. This idea had not actually crossed my mind but now that it has been presented - perhaps it is one way of solving some of the problems.
We automatically assume that it is our right to have children and no one should be able to take that right away from us even if it means that indirectly it might result in the over population of the earth and perhaps the demise of millions of people.
In the same way we tend to believe that we have the right to speak our mind. In practise we don’t! Well we can - but might have to face the consequences of what we say!
Is it a correct belief that we should assume that we have the absolute right to have as many children as we wish or the right to say what we want when we want? Has anyone really challenged these unwritten laws?
When I think about it, I’m not sure that any of us have the right to put the world at risk just because we want to have one or more children. Currently the world average population growth rate is 1.12% per year. That means that in 100 years time the population will have grown to 20.8 billion. That’s quite a lot of people!
If we take this into our own hands and decide it is our right to have as many children as we want – let’s say that the annual population increase doubles to just 2.24%. That would see a world population in 2109 of just over 64 billion people, a three fold increase on what is anticipated and ten times more than reside here at the moment.
But here is the real worry. If that increase doubled again to 4.48% annum, we would have a staggering 584 billion people within 100 years, an 87 times increase over the current levels. I won’t go any further but it does show that even small changes can make a huge difference.
If every person restricted the number of children they produce to just one (two per couple) the growth would be much reduced. We have to remember there are millions of younger people who have yet to add to the population statistics over the next 25 to 30 years. Once that has happened the increase rate would be reduced substantially.
It is very easy for people to say that if they want six children they will have six children – it is their right, but is it?
If we take a look at the animal kingdom, Mother Nature seems to have control. If a lioness produces too many young when food is short, they ultimately go hungry and die. If an area of jungle gets over populated, the animals fight each other until the balance is restored.
We human beings will do everything possible to lengthen our lives. We have successful reduced or eradicated many illnesses and diseases that naturally helped reduce the population. We used to fight each other a lot more, thus losing more people.
Medical advances can keep people alive even when they are very elderly and sick. Ultimately can we expect people to live to be 100 or 120 or even longer? This would definitely exasperate the situation even more.
But are there any other options?
If we look forward to the future, to when the population has grown to say 100 or 200 billion, and the sheer number of people is just more than the earth can sustain.
What then?
Do we send the undesirables to the Moon?
Do we allow the rich to go to Mars?
Well these are a few possibilities we can develop if the necessary technology to get to these places, especially in light of the shrinking fuel reserves, are built. Of course only a few will be able to go leaving the vast majority here on earth starving and dying.
Ah!
Perhaps that is the solution … dying!
..
As a consequence of my previous blog 'Is Climate Control Really the Issue?' I received a number of messages from people who thought that perhaps I was suggesting that there should be some controls on who is allowed to have children and who is not. This idea had not actually crossed my mind but now that it has been presented - perhaps it is one way of solving some of the problems.
We automatically assume that it is our right to have children and no one should be able to take that right away from us even if it means that indirectly it might result in the over population of the earth and perhaps the demise of millions of people.
In the same way we tend to believe that we have the right to speak our mind. In practise we don’t! Well we can - but might have to face the consequences of what we say!
Is it a correct belief that we should assume that we have the absolute right to have as many children as we wish or the right to say what we want when we want? Has anyone really challenged these unwritten laws?
When I think about it, I’m not sure that any of us have the right to put the world at risk just because we want to have one or more children. Currently the world average population growth rate is 1.12% per year. That means that in 100 years time the population will have grown to 20.8 billion. That’s quite a lot of people!
If we take this into our own hands and decide it is our right to have as many children as we want – let’s say that the annual population increase doubles to just 2.24%. That would see a world population in 2109 of just over 64 billion people, a three fold increase on what is anticipated and ten times more than reside here at the moment.
But here is the real worry. If that increase doubled again to 4.48% annum, we would have a staggering 584 billion people within 100 years, an 87 times increase over the current levels. I won’t go any further but it does show that even small changes can make a huge difference.
If every person restricted the number of children they produce to just one (two per couple) the growth would be much reduced. We have to remember there are millions of younger people who have yet to add to the population statistics over the next 25 to 30 years. Once that has happened the increase rate would be reduced substantially.
It is very easy for people to say that if they want six children they will have six children – it is their right, but is it?
If we take a look at the animal kingdom, Mother Nature seems to have control. If a lioness produces too many young when food is short, they ultimately go hungry and die. If an area of jungle gets over populated, the animals fight each other until the balance is restored.
We human beings will do everything possible to lengthen our lives. We have successful reduced or eradicated many illnesses and diseases that naturally helped reduce the population. We used to fight each other a lot more, thus losing more people.
Medical advances can keep people alive even when they are very elderly and sick. Ultimately can we expect people to live to be 100 or 120 or even longer? This would definitely exasperate the situation even more.
But are there any other options?
If we look forward to the future, to when the population has grown to say 100 or 200 billion, and the sheer number of people is just more than the earth can sustain.
What then?
Do we send the undesirables to the Moon?
Do we allow the rich to go to Mars?
Well these are a few possibilities we can develop if the necessary technology to get to these places, especially in light of the shrinking fuel reserves, are built. Of course only a few will be able to go leaving the vast majority here on earth starving and dying.
Ah!
Perhaps that is the solution … dying!
..
Monday, December 07, 2009
Is Climate Control Really the Issue?
Today it is estimated that there will be 6,842,771,203 (6.8 billion) people living on earth by the end of this month, December 2009. This estimate is based upon the latest figures and the lowest suggested growth estimate available - an annual net population increase of just 1.12% across the world year upon year.
If we apply this 1.12% per annum increase to the current population and compound it up, in just 100 years, that is the end of December 2109, the world will be home to 20,841,938,636 (20.8 billion) people, a real increase of just over 211% on today’s estimated figure. That is a massive three times as many people as today, living, breathing, eating and needing to be housed.
If the level of CO2 being produced by the existing 6.8 billion people is already more than the world’s environment can cope with, what real reductions would we have to achieve to ensure that the total emissions in 2109 are less than they are today? Allowing for the tripling of the population, then we will have to reduce our overall production of CO2 gases by over 70% per person. Could you manage using 70% less petrol, or 70% less electricity? That is just the cap of the iceberg!
This is an important question, but perhaps even more important is the question asking just how we will feed and house all these people, let alone doing it and decreasing the total amount of emissions given off as well?
When we consider that the estimated oil and natural gas reserves are likely to have been exhausted well before 2109, and the estimated 150 years supply of coal (at today’s consumption rates) will probably be nearly at its end as demand grows to replace oil and gas, this will make the situation even worse. Even if these figures are wrong, no one is going to deny that this isn’t going to happen at some stage in the future.
Naturally new improved forms of renewable energy, advance nuclear power etc will be discovered and brought into production. A huge proportion of this new power will be in the form of generated electricity and we need to find new ways to use it. We are very reliant on fossil fuels for oil, lubricants, chemicals, medicine, road surfaces and many other items.
There are five main types of renewable energy, namely solar power, wind power, hydropower, biomass energy and geothermal power. All these have their issues and they all result in production of electricity. Biomass involves the burning of bio material to produce heat, steam and electricity and geothermal, the extraction of heat from inner earth.
We also have Bio Fuels, which basically means that oils can be extracted from plants or other organic material such as algae, or fermented to produce alcohol type products. The issue here is that we would need vast tracts of land (or sea) handed over to producing the required crops and with the anticipated huge increase in demand for food production this is likely to result in a massive clash between food and fuel production and demand.
Because of the nature of machinery with its moving parts, there will always be a demand for lubricants to keep them working, and the output of the bio fuel industry is likely to be totally consumed by this market.
As the world population grows, the demands on these declining fuel resources will grow as well, reducing the length of time we can expect to have them available. The use of oil, natural gas and particularly coal contributes in a big way to greenhouse gases and just make the situation even more difficult to control.
The estimated population growth in the UK is around 0.6% per annum, about half of the worldwide average, but this still means that by 2109 the population in the UK will have risen from the current 61,708,895 to 113,590,446 an increase of nearly 85% on today’s figures.
In the UK we already have a problem producing all the food we require, importing large amounts from other countries by sea and air. If we are to reduce pollution then that level of importing will have to be reduced dramatically, and we as a country will have to produce a great deal more.
Allowing that we will always have to import food that can only be grown in other climate areas, perhaps we need to investigate and research ways of producing some these items ourselves. For example, with the increasing temperature over the 100 years, perhaps we could grow our own coffee thus saving the need to import it.
Sadly, our education, political and business environments do not appear to be taking much notice of what is happening and especially what is going to happen over the next 100 years. Are they interested in investing in the production of some of the imported food types, new energy friendly machinery, improved vehicles and generally recognising the need to start taking action now?
And what about us the normal people on the street?
Can you imagine what it would be like if there were twice as many vehicles on the roads. Twice as many trains - requiring more railway lines and stations, stations with car parks twice their current size. What about planes, twice as many planes. More runways, more noise … ah … thankfully no, there will be no fuel for their engines!
Twice as many people in the supermarket on Saturday, twice as many houses, twice as many jobs, twice as many children, twice as many pensioners (perhaps even more as medicine and health levels improve) … the list goes on and on.
Do we as individuals have a responsibly to do something now?
Of course none of us will be around to see the outcome and therefore will not be involved or affected by what is going to happen. Indeed by the time we get to 2109 things might have change dramatically for the better, and the predicted outcome might not be anywhere near as bad … but just maybe it will be even worse – especially as we all love talking about these things and not quite so keen in getting involved and doing something.
If we apply this 1.12% per annum increase to the current population and compound it up, in just 100 years, that is the end of December 2109, the world will be home to 20,841,938,636 (20.8 billion) people, a real increase of just over 211% on today’s estimated figure. That is a massive three times as many people as today, living, breathing, eating and needing to be housed.
If the level of CO2 being produced by the existing 6.8 billion people is already more than the world’s environment can cope with, what real reductions would we have to achieve to ensure that the total emissions in 2109 are less than they are today? Allowing for the tripling of the population, then we will have to reduce our overall production of CO2 gases by over 70% per person. Could you manage using 70% less petrol, or 70% less electricity? That is just the cap of the iceberg!
This is an important question, but perhaps even more important is the question asking just how we will feed and house all these people, let alone doing it and decreasing the total amount of emissions given off as well?
When we consider that the estimated oil and natural gas reserves are likely to have been exhausted well before 2109, and the estimated 150 years supply of coal (at today’s consumption rates) will probably be nearly at its end as demand grows to replace oil and gas, this will make the situation even worse. Even if these figures are wrong, no one is going to deny that this isn’t going to happen at some stage in the future.
Naturally new improved forms of renewable energy, advance nuclear power etc will be discovered and brought into production. A huge proportion of this new power will be in the form of generated electricity and we need to find new ways to use it. We are very reliant on fossil fuels for oil, lubricants, chemicals, medicine, road surfaces and many other items.
There are five main types of renewable energy, namely solar power, wind power, hydropower, biomass energy and geothermal power. All these have their issues and they all result in production of electricity. Biomass involves the burning of bio material to produce heat, steam and electricity and geothermal, the extraction of heat from inner earth.
We also have Bio Fuels, which basically means that oils can be extracted from plants or other organic material such as algae, or fermented to produce alcohol type products. The issue here is that we would need vast tracts of land (or sea) handed over to producing the required crops and with the anticipated huge increase in demand for food production this is likely to result in a massive clash between food and fuel production and demand.
Because of the nature of machinery with its moving parts, there will always be a demand for lubricants to keep them working, and the output of the bio fuel industry is likely to be totally consumed by this market.
As the world population grows, the demands on these declining fuel resources will grow as well, reducing the length of time we can expect to have them available. The use of oil, natural gas and particularly coal contributes in a big way to greenhouse gases and just make the situation even more difficult to control.
The estimated population growth in the UK is around 0.6% per annum, about half of the worldwide average, but this still means that by 2109 the population in the UK will have risen from the current 61,708,895 to 113,590,446 an increase of nearly 85% on today’s figures.
In the UK we already have a problem producing all the food we require, importing large amounts from other countries by sea and air. If we are to reduce pollution then that level of importing will have to be reduced dramatically, and we as a country will have to produce a great deal more.
Allowing that we will always have to import food that can only be grown in other climate areas, perhaps we need to investigate and research ways of producing some these items ourselves. For example, with the increasing temperature over the 100 years, perhaps we could grow our own coffee thus saving the need to import it.
Sadly, our education, political and business environments do not appear to be taking much notice of what is happening and especially what is going to happen over the next 100 years. Are they interested in investing in the production of some of the imported food types, new energy friendly machinery, improved vehicles and generally recognising the need to start taking action now?
And what about us the normal people on the street?
Can you imagine what it would be like if there were twice as many vehicles on the roads. Twice as many trains - requiring more railway lines and stations, stations with car parks twice their current size. What about planes, twice as many planes. More runways, more noise … ah … thankfully no, there will be no fuel for their engines!
Twice as many people in the supermarket on Saturday, twice as many houses, twice as many jobs, twice as many children, twice as many pensioners (perhaps even more as medicine and health levels improve) … the list goes on and on.
Do we as individuals have a responsibly to do something now?
Of course none of us will be around to see the outcome and therefore will not be involved or affected by what is going to happen. Indeed by the time we get to 2109 things might have change dramatically for the better, and the predicted outcome might not be anywhere near as bad … but just maybe it will be even worse – especially as we all love talking about these things and not quite so keen in getting involved and doing something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)