Do atheists believe in magnetism?

[Truth in love]

How long do you think resources would last if we double the population in 25 years? And then double again after that in even less time? And we would still be short of this 80 plus billion you are claiming this planet can carry.

Based on all the evidence and not on wishful thinking, the best estimates of carrying capacity for the human population is around 10 billion sustainably with the current resources. And that is if we all switch to vegetarian diets. Sure we can cram more people in, but we aren't feeding all of the people now for lots of different reasons. It would take technology breakthroughs that currently don't exist and life would be nothing like we have now even then.

I'm not sure what trying to get everyone to live in Alaska would do? Not all of Alaska is liveable. 80 billion people would put the population Density at something like 6-10 times greater than the most crowded little countries.

Most of the corn we produce goes to feed livestock. We are not talking about 90 million acres of sweet corn for fair season.

If you increase the drain on resources without increasing the resources, there are less resources per person. Keep doing that and there will be less and less people too. And not in any fun way.

I did a little digging:


1. Birth rates are low in the developed world. Yes some of the developing world are having a lot of kids, but that is not happening in most of the west. Low birth rates are a much greater threat in the West than a high birth rate. QuickStats: Expected Number of Births over a Woman’s Lifetime ...

2. 1/3rd of all food is wasted Food Waste in America in 2022: Statistics & Facts | RTS. I very much doubt this will ever get to zero, but let’s say we reduce wasting 33% of our food each year to only 10% that means we could fed another billion or so people with what we are already making.

3. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Corn Production and Portion Used for Fuel Ethanol about 5 billion bushels of corn wasted in watering down gas.

4. https://osg.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/266/2020/12/Cost-of-ACEs_CA_OSG-Report_12092020.pdf Estimates vary a bit, but somewhere in the 1 trillion dollars a year in the USA are going to fix childhood trauma. And that’s just for medical stuff. How much food could we grow with the resources going into fixing problems that are nearly 100% avoidable?



Now I’m not going to argue that we can all have a 10,000 sq ft home and a private jet, but a medium sized home, car to drive, food to eat and the power on are very doable for a lot more people than we have now. It would require us to be smarter in how we live.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did a little digging:


1. Birth rates are low in the developed world. Yes some of the developing world are having a lot of kids, but that is not happening in most of the west. Low birth rates are a much greater threat in the West than a high birth rate. QuickStats: Expected Number of Births over a Woman’s Lifetime ...

2. 1/3rd of all food is wasted Food Waste in America in 2022: Statistics & Facts | RTS. I very much doubt this will ever get to zero, but let’s say we reduce wasting 33% of our food each year to only 10% that means we could fed another billion or so people with what we are already making.

3. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Corn Production and Portion Used for Fuel Ethanol about 5 billion bushels of corn wasted in watering down gas.

4. https://osg.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/266/2020/12/Cost-of-ACEs_CA_OSG-Report_12092020.pdf Estimates vary a bit, but somewhere in the 1 trillion dollars a year in the USA are going to fix childhood trauma. And that’s just for medical stuff. How much food could we grow with the resources going into fixing problems that are nearly 100% avoidable?



Now I’m not going to argue that we can all have a 10,000 sq ft home and a private jet, but a medium sized home, car to drive, food to eat and the power on are very doable for a lot more people than we have now. It would require us to be smarter in how we live.

None of this supports a carrying capacity on Earth for a human population exceeding 80 billion or getting even close to that. According to the amount of arable land available, we can grow enough food to support about 10 billion people if we all switch to vegetarian diets. If we want to eat meat, then those resources will be converted to animal production and not people production, so the number with meat eating is lower.

You can't eat gas, coal, gold, etc.

If we want to exceed that capacity we are going to have to have some breakthroughs in technology. That is how we have done it in the past, but the cost of that keeps going up. And I'm not talking dollars here specifically.

 

[Truth in love]

I am not denying their experiences. I am denying, potentially, their interpretation of those experiences.

Someone who is hallucinating is having an experience. But their experience is not one that gives correct information about the real world. And this is the case no matter how much the individual believe it.

If you want to see god everywhere, you are inclined to interpret experiences in terms of God. I am not denying the experience, but I am doubting that your interpretation isn't just confirmation bias.

I have no doubt confirmation bias has happened, but when we see consistent patterns week after week year after year such an explanation does not make sense.

 

[Truth in love]

Absolutely.



And if you look at their evidence, it is poor and full of misunderstandings. And that can be tested.



OK, what is that system? Why is it not used? How does it resolve the dispute about whether Christianity or Islam is correct? And does it resolve it in a way that all parties can agree upon *ahead of time* depending on the outcomes?



Actually, I considered the arguments and found them wanting. And, again, there is very little agreement between, say, Christianity and Hinduism.

Again the choice is to not believe the evidence vs. it not being there. I think it is an important distinction.

As for improvement systems there are a few methods I've seen used.

1. Compare current practices to the actual sacred texts. Martin Luther is the poster boy for this method.

2. Review behaviors vs a set standard. This is one of the causes of one of the schisms in Catholicism years back the new people said they had to follow their oaths of chastity it did not go over well.

3. New Revelation. Christ giving the higher law would be a well known example of this.

4. Review by leaders. Many groups not all have a system where leaders review what is going on and if someone has gone off the rails they are removed from leadership. The Catholic Priest sex crud are an example of this not being done.

5. Voting (not my style, but often done is some groups)

6. Make a new group.

 

[Truth in love]

Huh?

People with *curiosity* try to approach a subject without preconceived ideas. In other words, no beliefs ahead of time, but open to the evidence that is found.

I don't know what you mean by 'who emerges'.

auto correct "engages"

Curiosity is great unless your a cat, but even there I have to believe something will come of my act.

I don't jump about flapping my arms trying to fly, however as a child I tried it a few times. Once I concluded that it would not work I gave it up. The hope, belief thought etc. That Action A could lead to result B or some discovery precedes action A.

 

[Truth in love]

None of this supports a carrying capacity on Earth for a human population exceeding 80 billion or getting even close to that. According to the amount of arable land available, we can grow enough food to support about 10 billion people if we all switch to vegetarian diets. If we want to eat meat, then those resources will be converted to animal production and not people production, so the number with meat eating is lower.

You can't eat gas, coal, gold, etc.

If we want to exceed that capacity we are going to have to have some breakthroughs in technology. That is how we have done it in the past, but the cost of that keeps going up. And I'm not talking dollars here specifically.

It may be tough, but life is tough. We can make a lot more land usable. The federal government is currently illegally occupying about 85 million acres of land. It's not all usable, but much of it is or could be. National Park System (U.S. National Park Service)

Our use of farm land is in decline
U.S. farming: total land in farms 2021 | Statista
under 900 mil acres.

Now lets say we put 1/2 of what is occipied by the feds to farm land that would be 42 million more acres. That's a lot of food.

And this is just in the US. Many other parts of the world could be improved to produce more and better food.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It may be tough, but life is tough. We can make a lot more land usable. The federal government is currently illegally occupying about 85 million acres of land. It's not all usable, but much of it is or could be. National Park System (U.S. National Park Service)

Our use of farm land is in decline
U.S. farming: total land in farms 2021 | Statista
under 900 mil acres.

Now lets say we put 1/2 of what is occipied by the feds to farm land that would be 42 million more acres. That's a lot of food.

And this is just in the US. Many other parts of the world could be improved to produce more and better food.

Are you talking about western land under the BLM? Good luck growing anything on that and with climate change, really, good luck.

 

[Truth in love]

Are you talking about western land under the BLM? Good luck growing anything on that and with climate change, really, good luck.

Some of it is junk, but a lot of it is good land that is poorly managed. Such as Southern Oregon. Great usable land, run for political purposes not to help people.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no doubt confirmation bias has happened, but when we see consistent patterns week after week year after year such an explanation does not make sense.

Sure it does when a society has a collection of shared beliefs. For example, near death experiences vary by society. That, to me, suggests it is suggestion, not something deeper.

Again the choice is to not believe the evidence vs. it not being there. I think it is an important distinction.

As for improvement systems there are a few methods I've seen used.

1. Compare current practices to the actual sacred texts. Martin Luther is the poster boy for this method.

2. Review behaviors vs a set standard. This is one of the causes of one of the schisms in Catholicism years back the new people said they had to follow their oaths of chastity it did not go over well.

3. New Revelation. Christ giving the higher law would be a well known example of this.

4. Review by leaders. Many groups not all have a system where leaders review what is going on and if someone has gone off the rails they are removed from leadership. The Catholic Priest sex crud are an example of this not being done.

5. Voting (not my style, but often done is some groups)

6. Make a new group.

None of which are tests for the truth of a doctrine, but only on societal agreement.

auto correct "engages"

Curiosity is great unless your a cat, but even there I have to believe something will come of my act.

I don't jump about flapping my arms trying to fly, however as a child I tried it a few times. Once I concluded that it would not work I gave it up. The hope, belief thought etc. That Action A could lead to result B or some discovery precedes action A.

Seems like this is a good example of NOT finding what you expected. No, you do not have to believe something will come from your act, other than understanding. You found out that flapping your arms does not lead to flight in spite of expectations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some of it is junk, but a lot of it is good land that is poorly managed. Such as Southern Oregon. Great usable land, run for political purposes not to help people.

More land could be turned into food production, but at some point we will run out of land while continuing to produce people. And there is the loss of what is on that land now and what it does for the planet. Cut down all the trees to grow wheat, corn and soybeans and what does the loss of those trees do?

What do you call "junk" land? Maybe it isn't good for crop production, but that doesn't mean it does nothing or is useless.

The problem comes down to this. When a population is reproducing beyond the ability of the environment to sustain it, that population will crash. What we do not know is where exactly that line exists for humanity. There have been estimates of the carrying capacity calculated, but these are not clear cut. But they cannot be ignored either or dismissed with empty answers alluding to vague solutions.

 

[Truth in love]

Sure it does when a society has a collection of shared beliefs. For example, near death experiences vary by society. That, to me, suggests it is suggestion, not something deeper.




None of which are tests for the truth of a doctrine, but only on societal agreement.



Seems like this is a good example of NOT finding what you expected. No, you do not have to believe something will come from your act, other than understanding. You found out that flapping your arms does not lead to flight in spite of expectations.

Well if you can't accept human action 101 I can't help you understand anything more complex.

 

[Truth in love]

More land could be turned into food production, but at some point we will run out of land while continuing to produce people. And there is the loss of what is on that land now and what it does for the planet. Cut down all the trees to grow wheat, corn and soybeans and what does the loss of those trees do?

What do you call "junk" land? Maybe it isn't good for crop production, but that doesn't mean it does nothing or is useless.

The problem comes down to this. When a population is reproducing beyond the ability of the environment to sustain it, that population will crash. What we do not know is where exactly that line exists for humanity. There have been estimates of the carrying capacity calculated, but these are not clear cut. But they cannot be ignored either or dismissed with empty answers alluding to vague solutions.

You are correct on the core issue. I however reject the alarmist nation that we are way past the line. The evidence says we have room. We can and should be smarter in how we use it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are correct on the core issue. I however reject the alarmist nation that we are way past the line. The evidence says we have room. We can and should be smarter in how we use it.

I do not know that concern about climate change, population growth, pollution and related issues is alarmist. I have heard people say that as we experience the changes that those people claim are not happening.

Certainly, there is yet some land that could be converted to agriculture, but at our present rate of growth, is there evidence that it would be enough. What would be the cost? Would we be condemning future, even greater masses of humanity to starvation and overcrowding so that some could survive on a band aid? More people will need more food, fuel, fiber and space.

Is it wiser to come to decisions about this when there is time to do something or better to wait until it may be too late?

All these capitalists that dismiss the concerns about the future of mankind would never suggest they handle their money like they suggest life on the Earth should be handled.

 

[Truth in love]

I do not know that concern about climate change, population growth, pollution and related issues is alarmist. I have heard people say that as we experience the changes that those people claim are not happening.

Certainly, there is yet some land that could be converted to agriculture, but at our present rate of growth, is there evidence that it would be enough. What would be the cost? Would we be condemning future, even greater masses of humanity to starvation and overcrowding so that some could survive on a band aid? More people will need more food, fuel, fiber and space.

Is it wiser to come to decisions about this when there is time to do something or better to wait until it may be too late?

All these capitalists that dismiss the concerns about the future of mankind would never suggest they handle their money like they suggest life on the Earth should be handled.

Pretty much all of the West (where we sell this narrative the hardest) is in population decline.

Cost are hard to figure out. The fact that we abuse kids and parents abandon them cost about 1 trillion a year in medical expenses in the USA. So If we just behaved a bit as a society we would have a ton in savings down the road.

now what does that mean in terms of turning rocky areas into farm land I don’t know, but I suspect a trillion a year (closer to 2 T if you count prisons courts substances being abused etc.) I think we could do a lot.

speaking of lots if everyone took .1 acres of their yard (us mean is about .25 ) and converted into food growing vs grass we would have about 1.4 million more acres of growing space.

It’s very doable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pretty much all of the West (where we sell this narrative the hardest) is in population decline.

Cost are hard to figure out. The fact that we abuse kids and parents abandon them cost about 1 trillion a year in medical expenses in the USA. So If we just behaved a bit as a society we would have a ton in savings down the road.

now what does that mean in terms of turning rocky areas into farm land I don’t know, but I suspect a trillion a year (closer to 2 T if you count prisons courts substances being abused etc.) I think we could do a lot.

speaking of lots if everyone took .1 acres of their yard (us mean is about .25 ) and converted into food growing vs grass we would have about 1.4 million more acres of growing space.

It’s very doable.

Is it practical to think that all yards can be converted to agriculture. What about the required inputs that such effort would require?

I'm not sure what child abuse has to do with land use and agriculture. It does seem to be a response to overcrowding. This is evidenced in other social species subjected to overcrowding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pretty much all of the West (where we sell this narrative the hardest) is in population decline.

Cost are hard to figure out. The fact that we abuse kids and parents abandon them cost about 1 trillion a year in medical expenses in the USA. So If we just behaved a bit as a society we would have a ton in savings down the road.

now what does that mean in terms of turning rocky areas into farm land I don’t know, but I suspect a trillion a year (closer to 2 T if you count prisons courts substances being abused etc.) I think we could do a lot.

speaking of lots if everyone took .1 acres of their yard (us mean is about .25 ) and converted into food growing vs grass we would have about 1.4 million more acres of growing space.

It’s very doable.

I see. You speculate on changing the behavior of the human population in order to divert funding to address a problem that is the result of poor behavior in the human population. There is a certain irony in that.

 

[Truth in love]

I see. You speculate on changing the behavior of the human population in order to divert funding to address a problem that is the result of poor behavior in the human population. There is a certain irony in that.

Well as a behavioral therapist I see people make changes all the time. A few people changing won’t do much. But millions making changes could be massive and very positive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well as a behavioral therapist I see people make changes all the time. A few people changing won’t do much. But millions making changes could be massive and very positive.

It would be incredible, since it is so difficult for it to happen on that scale. If it were easy, we would not be in the condition that we are in. I do not see it as a viable solution to our problems. The sort of evidence that would induce such a mass change in behavior would likely be the sort that is reducing the masses and the desired outcome would be too late a result to be meaningfully applied. In other words, the time to worry about a house fire is prior to being caught on the second floor with fire blocking escape.

 

[Truth in love]

It would be incredible, since it is so difficult for it to happen on that scale. If it were easy, we would not be in the condition that we are in. I do not see it as a viable solution to our problems. The sort of evidence that would induce such a mass change in behavior would likely be the sort that is reducing the masses and the desired outcome would be too late a result to be meaningfully applied. In other words, the time to worry about a house fire is prior to being caught on the second floor with fire blocking escape.

birth rates dropped a ton. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate

we went from an ag culture to a city culture in a few decades.

heck few people actually know how to function without a cell phone or internet which where largely new 20-30 years ago.

Not saying it would be quick or easy, but it’s not beyond other social changes in terms or scope.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

birth rates dropped a ton. U.S. Birth Rate 1950-2022

Except we don't know why the birth rate is declining.

we went from an ag culture to a city culture in a few decades.

Cities developed pretty much on the same timeline as rural populations and the development of this country. Not sure that says anything about how we might implement population management one way or the other or get people to plant gardens.

heck few people actually know how to function without a cell phone or internet which where largely new 20-30 years ago.

It is not clear that the adoption of technology is a predictive model of our ability to adopt practices like backyard farming.

We know a lot about the health effects of nicotine and have for decades, yet more than 10% of the US populations smokes and it is higher in many other countries even among a general global decline.

Even when there is a clear benefit for a behavior, it is difficult to get people to change.

Not saying it would be quick or easy, but it’s not beyond other social changes in terms or scope.

I have doubts and not just because of the ability for social change, but practical issues. I some parts of this country, backyard gardens would be input intensive and as such, counterproductive. Then there is the skill at production, pest issues, pesticide issues and safety, harvest, storage, shipping, etc. How this would effect supply and demand on a larger scale is unknown as well.

Personally, I think backyard gardening is a good idea and would have some impact, but how much, how widely and how sustainably, I don't know. Is it the answer if our global population exceeds carrying capacity? I have my doubts.