Want to save the planet, off yourself?

[legot73]

I understand the naive academic observation, but the bicycle element is aggrevating. A treadmill might be a better illustration since bicycling is often a productive substitute for burning fossil fuels:

And such a good school, too. :mad:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/09/go_bicycling_de.html

[Platy]

I looked at the professor's paper.

Like physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said, "This isn't right, it isn't even wrong."

However, it does make one environmentally significant point. Reduction of per capita resource requirements doesn't solve problems that are fundamentally caused by overpopulation.

[pedex]

yup, ever look at a world population growth chart? its scary to say the least, then factor in how many resources we americans use and just try to imagine the rest of world doing the same !!!!!!! not physically possible

[redden]

He's probably a member of this church

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

[legot73]

I agree with the overpopulation issue, but I think its a stretch to tie it to cycling. Why not advances in health care, new drugs, mismanaged welfare, anitquated views on birth control by religious groups, or something more relevant.

Not to be morbid, but I don't see any consideration for a "cycling related deaths" adjustment for this long-living population of cyclists. I just view the cycling link as reckless conjecture, but coming from Wharton, some relatively intelligent people might just buy it.

I'm just venting.

[redden]

He's probably a member of this church

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

[gwd]

I looked at the professor's paper.

Like physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said, "This isn't right, it isn't even wrong."

However, it does make one environmentally significant point. Reduction of per capita resource requirements doesn't solve problems that are fundamentally caused by overpopulation.
The paper came up earlier in the "Bikes and Health" thread. His results are sensitive to his assumptions and it looks like he assumes you own a car, if you
don't own a car or some of his other numbers are off he would get other results. Also, he's making assumptions about energy use decades in the future without any discounting. He's counting certain energy savings today against uncertain expenditures in the future. As a professor at Wharton he should know better. If the peak oil people are right or even close most car owners today won't be able to burn energy at the same rate 40 years from now.

Overpoplulation will correct itself of course, it would be nice if we came up with a more pleasant way to do it than war, disease, starvation or pollution.

[krazygluon]

I'm getting sick of this "old age causes overpopulation" crap. Did anyon ever take a demography (sociology of populations) class?

The population boom wasn't just caused by the added longevity that resulted from the across-the-board drop in mortality thanks to germ-theory and modern medicine. it was caused by the LACK of a drop in birth-rate. wanna know why the US and europe import guest workers? among other reasons its because our native populations are all decreasing because of the decreased birthrates that have happened because of widespread education and sex-ed. we know for a fact that when you properly educate a population, the overpopulation problem begins to correct itself.

so get it straight...overpopulation isn't caused by living longer, its caused by a a lag between the decrease of mortality rates and the resultant decrease of birth rates.

the pleasant solution qwd is looking for is simple: birth control. (and I don't mean abstinence...)