Posted by GreenLifeInnovators on November 16, 2009, 5:00 pm





Dear fellow "greenies"



Recently I came across a series of 8 video-clips on YouTube showing a

lecture with Dr Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus in physics at the

University of Boulder, Colorado about arithmetic, population growth

and energy depletion. Usually a lecture by an old professor in front

of a group of students is not something one would consider to be a

terrifying experience. But this perspective, that he is communicating,

really is.



Not only does Dr Bartlett explain why we are in much bigger trouble

than most people think. He also explains why the nature of exponential

growth is such, that we will not see the problems until a very short

time until we run into them. This lecture goes to the very core of our

challenges ahead.



You don't have to possess university level skills in mathematics to

follow his lines of reasoning, but below high school level you would

probably not get too much out of it.



For your convenience, we have embedded all of the 8 video clips on one

page on our blog. You can find them here:



http://blog.green-life-innovators.org/2009/11/07/the-brutal-end-of-the-growth-paradigm/



If you, like we do, find the message that Dr Bartlett delivers in this

video of the utmost importance to the human race, then please do not

keep it to yourself, but share the information about this lecture with

friends and acquaintances, through email, online forums and social

media. Yea, and write to your politicians and the media about it

too.



Kind regards

Vidar Kristiansen

Green Life Innovators - Green tech the Open Source way

http://www.green-life-innovators.org/



Dear fellow "greenies"Recently I came across a series of 8 video-clips on YouTube showing alecture with Dr Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus in physics at theUniversity of Boulder, Colorado about arithmetic, population growthand energy depletion. Usually a lecture by an old professor in frontof a group of students is not something one would consider to be aterrifying experience. But this perspective, that he is communicating,really is.Not only does Dr Bartlett explain why we are in much bigger troublethan most people think. He also explains why the nature of exponentialgrowth is such, that we will not see the problems until a very shorttime until we run into them. This lecture goes to the very core of ourchallenges ahead.You don't have to possess university level skills in mathematics tofollow his lines of reasoning, but below high school level you wouldprobably not get too much out of it.For your convenience, we have embedded all of the 8 video clips on onepage on our blog. You can find them here:http://blog.green-life-innovators.org/2009/11/07/the-brutal-end-of-the-growth-paradigm/If you, like we do, find the message that Dr Bartlett delivers in thisvideo of the utmost importance to the human race, then please do notkeep it to yourself, but share the information about this lecture withfriends and acquaintances, through email, online forums and socialmedia. Yea, and write to your politicians and the media about ittoo.Kind regardsVidar KristiansenGreen Life Innovators - Green tech the Open Source wayhttp://www.green-life-innovators.org/

Posted by Curbie on November 16, 2009, 7:10 pm





A friend emailed me the YouTube links a while ago, very simple math

and explanation. I don't know how "green" the notion of negative

population growth is, but it's the ONE solution that greatly reduces

energy, hunger, and poverty issues. Solving energy, hunger, and

poverty issues without negative population growth is mathematically

impossible, but politicians seem to base tax policy on positive

population growth. So catch 22.



In my view, a good explanation though.



Curbie





A friend emailed me the YouTube links a while ago, very simple mathand explanation. I don't know how "green" the notion of negativepopulation growth is, but it's the ONE solution that greatly reducesenergy, hunger, and poverty issues. Solving energy, hunger, andpoverty issues without negative population growth is mathematicallyimpossible, but politicians seem to base tax policy on positivepopulation growth. So catch 22.In my view, a good explanation though.Curbie

Posted by Josepi on November 17, 2009, 12:22 am





So the Chinese have it all over the Americans then.







So the Chinese have it all over the Americans then.

Posted by Maury Markowitz on November 20, 2009, 6:34 pm







Yeah, that's what Malthus said too. It basically goes like this: the

human population is growing exponentially (it isn't) and our food

resources grow geometrically (they don't). Therefore we will be

subject to massive starvation in the very near future - around the

middle to late 1800s. At that point there would be more humans than

all the land in the world could support.



As you are no doubt aware, we did not suffer the starvation event that

he predicted, although we came close. In the late 1800s our

agricultural output started outpacing human needs through a series of

improvements in methods, equipment, fertilizers (a major one) and

pesticides and insecticides. In the 1960s the introduction of the high-

yield crops resulted in another massive improvement in food output. As

a result, we are practically drowning in food, to the point where

there are more obese people than starving ones, even in Africa and

other "poster children" for food problems. In fact, the amount of land

under cultivation in industrialized societies has decreased

dramatically over time.



The problem with Malthus' claim, or any one like it, is that it

discounts the creative power of the human mind. More people means more

minds, and more minds means more invention. But -- and this is key --

the collective IQ of the planet is a factor of the number of brains

times the number of connections between them, times the efficiency of

those communications links. One major output of the inventive process

are the tools that better communications between us -- like the

internet channel we are using right now -- the constant multiplier has

increased by leaps and bounds. A million people's collective inventive

capability is many times greater today than it was 100 years ago.



As a result, human ingenuity increases more quickly than the human

population. Perhaps you have noticed the ever increasing rate of

invention over time? Just over a decade ago we developed the physics

for GMR, which was productized and in your computer in about a year.

This rate of improvement has never before been seen in human history,

and appears to be accelerating. As a result, many futurists have

written of an era where change is so pervasive and rapid that our

current predictive tools are simply useless, a time they call "the

singularity".



Simply put, applying math to problems with humanity like these is like

trying to come up with a formula for why you like your lover. You

might be able to do it, but it will confuse the issue more than it

will help.



Maury



Yeah, that's what Malthus said too. It basically goes like this: thehuman population is growing exponentially (it isn't) and our foodresources grow geometrically (they don't). Therefore we will besubject to massive starvation in the very near future - around themiddle to late 1800s. At that point there would be more humans thanall the land in the world could support.As you are no doubt aware, we did not suffer the starvation event thathe predicted, although we came close. In the late 1800s ouragricultural output started outpacing human needs through a series ofimprovements in methods, equipment, fertilizers (a major one) andpesticides and insecticides. In the 1960s the introduction of the high-yield crops resulted in another massive improvement in food output. Asa result, we are practically drowning in food, to the point wherethere are more obese people than starving ones, even in Africa andother "poster children" for food problems. In fact, the amount of landunder cultivation in industrialized societies has decreaseddramatically over time.The problem with Malthus' claim, or any one like it, is that itdiscounts the creative power of the human mind. More people means moreminds, and more minds means more invention. But -- and this is key --the collective IQ of the planet is a factor of the number of brainstimes the number of connections between them, times the efficiency ofthose communications links. One major output of the inventive processare the tools that better communications between us -- like theinternet channel we are using right now -- the constant multiplier hasincreased by leaps and bounds. A million people's collective inventivecapability is many times greater today than it was 100 years ago.As a result, human ingenuity increases more quickly than the humanpopulation. Perhaps you have noticed the ever increasing rate ofinvention over time? Just over a decade ago we developed the physicsfor GMR, which was productized and in your computer in about a year.This rate of improvement has never before been seen in human history,and appears to be accelerating. As a result, many futurists havewritten of an era where change is so pervasive and rapid that ourcurrent predictive tools are simply useless, a time they call "thesingularity".Simply put, applying math to problems with humanity like these is liketrying to come up with a formula for why you like your lover. Youmight be able to do it, but it will confuse the issue more than itwill help.Maury

Posted by harry on November 22, 2009, 3:15 pm