lemur

I don't know if this will help you, but I like to comprehend concepts in reference to ones I already understand. Density is mass per unit volume, so I look for another concept in the same form, such as doughnuts per dollar. Then I think, if I get 2 doughnuts for a dollar, that is 2 doughnuts/dollar, because it's a ration of doughnuts to dollars where there's only one dollar. So now you have to figure out how many kg per unit volume to get the density. That means you have to set it up as a ratio and covert it to a proportion where the unit volume is 1. I hope this helps and doesn't make it more confusing.

Where did people ever get the idea that water was a source of energy instead of electrolyzed hydrogen being a energy-storage medium?

Doesn't it get "broken" by combining into H2O or other compounds? You want a proton with an electron hole? I think that is called ionization, but what is the point?

That's what I was wondering. FIrst, is the web strong enough to hold a wasp? Second, is the spider immune from the wasp stinging it if it tries to process it before it's dead. Third, is the spider smart enough to wait to avoid getting stung. Fourth, will the wasps figure out the spider is a threat and attack it? (that seems not to have happened yet and they've been there a while) Fifth, why didn't I just make a vertical list instead of writing this in paragraph form?

Interesting. And what do they do after being ejected into "empty space?" Do they not coalesce into new galaxies eventually? I think we're talking about opposite sides of the same coin, but maybe I misunderstand. The strong force is attractive, but it can only bond the two protons once they are sufficiently close, right? To get this close, they have to get beyond their electron clouds/shells/whatever. So whatever force causes/allows them to encapsulate themselves with an electron prevents the protons from fusing under low-pressure conditions, right? So by transcending this tendency to repel each other, via electron shells/clouds, protons maintain a form of potential energy of fusion in low-pressure situations, no? Fine, apology accepted. Either of us may have insights that the other one lacks, but if we make this into a pissing contest it will only detract from the productivity of the discussion, right? why then? Then I don't get how you're saying that Heisenberg uncertainty relates to particle momentum. Do the particles themselves have volume or are they points? If they are pure zero-dimensional points, can they be compressed limitlessly? Nice quantification of the issues involved. So the stuff beyond the heliopause is moving very slowly. What do you expect at such a high altitude in a gravity-well? Once that stuff starts to descend into the gravity-well, though, don't you think it will accelerate? By the time it gets to the planets it may have quite some momentum, no? A distant observer, maybe, but what about the dynamics of the system internally? What about the procession of light through spacetime? Light will change directions much more traveling through a cloud of dents in spacetime than through a single large gravity-well, no? I don't know. Personally, I think that gravitational lensing is treated as too isolated a phenomenon. After all, if you look at the variety of optical effects that exist terrestrially, why would you expect in less variety extra-terrestrially? Imo, we're just not able to explore the universe as thoroughly as terrestrial space, so we're somewhat alienated from being able to recognize all the optical variations. Thanks, I've never heard of this. I assumed it would be possible to consolidate the law of conservation but I didn't know it had already been done.

Except that the reason they're getting dropped in the bin is that the seller is throwing away one every two hours just in case the consumer decides to show up. So if 100 restaurants typically demand 1 ton of fish each per month, that creates demand for 100 tons of fish instead of, say, 50 tons. If demand for fish would be 50 tons, why would the ships bring in 100 tons? What you don't seem to get is how cultural evolution works. As economic/cultural practices shifts, they establish new bases from which to innovate. I'm not talking about a one time shift in "k" but a continuous series of shifts, each of which creates a new basis for the next one. Good example. Flexibility in taste is a factor influencing cultural evolution. Once their taste is flexible enough to accept one fish as a substitute for another, they may even be able to accept soy-based fish substitutes (as I do). If people would welcome technological/cultural evolution instead of being suspicious and resistant to it, it would be interesting to see what the actual limits of evolution would be. That's funny, I always thought that ecology was the study of ecosystems, food-webs, etc. There are a lot of interdependencies in food-webs that can influence each other's resource-availability. If a goat is eating the grass in a lawn and the grass replenishes at a rate that sustains the goat, you can get a consistent supply of milk from the goat. If the goat has babies and you eat them, there will be no competition for the grass. Ultimately, you have to figure out the most efficient conversion from sunlight to human consumption. If you achieved that, and population was still increasing at an unsustainable rate, you would have to seek alternative methods of energy-creation. If, somehow, you reached limits in that scenario, you would have to begin launching interstellar and intergalactic voyages. Eventually, if every star's energy output and all the fusion-fuel in the universe was being exhausted, you'd have to think about population control. But probably by sending people into increasingly closer orbits to a black-hole, you could dilate their time infinitely and have people living for eternity in near-C orbit around a black hole in what seemed like the blink of an eye for outside observers. This is an artificial assumption if you believe in either evolution and/or genetic engineering. I'll keep that in mind as long as I have my big-brain. Maybe nerve-cells could be engineered to operate the same at a smaller size. In my academic training, I learned to accept subjectivity and emotions. Waste is annoying when there are people killing and dying over resources. After all, why should people being killing and dying so that other people can casually waste what other people are giving and taking life for? And yet in practice, the domains overlap and are brought to bear on each other. True, disease is not a resourcing issue. On the contrary, all sciences struggle with value/interest neutrality of their practitioners. Science may be perfect but scientists are human and therefore imperfect. Science attempts to control for values/interests but where it fails it operates as propaganda for the values/interests it's neutral-appearance masks. Fine, does that mean they shouldn't be critically dissected, analyzed, and evolve? At any point, are you capable of accepting that the premises of your research model influence your outcomes/conclusions? You're assuming there are limits to time dilation/compression ratios. What makes you assume that? Have you ever paid any attention to religious practices of fasting? People actually experience fasting as spiritually nourishing. What do you think about the idea that people can starve themselves and experience that as life-enhancing? Humans already get recycled. Humans also already control their own reproduction. You just don't seem to want to accept the fact that they do this spontaneously/naturally. You also don't want to imagine that there are cultural forms possible where growth and control are not mutually exclusive categories. I believe there is a state of culture in which you would reproduce without constraint and, likewise, consume yourself and others without constraint - but you would have no right or ability to influence others in their reproductive behavior. Sorry, you're operating in the realm of absolute abstraction. In that realm, the universe is perfectly predictable according to the a priori assumptions you make about it.

I found a spider web next to a wasp nest (see attached jpg). This seems like a potentially epic battle could evolve. I'm curious who people think will win and your reasons.

I can't get into discussion about all your criticisms. Many of them just misrecognize what I'm saying so by the time I clarify and defend my reasoning, it will get very convoluted and probably the maximum post-length will be reached. Because gravity is an attractive, centripetal force. I'm not saying that it is impossible that objects can reach orbital equilibrium where they maintain constant distance from each other indefinitely due to frictionless geodesic motion, but to the extent that random particles/object keep falling into more massive ones and causing their gravitational fields to grow in strength and reach, I would expect the coalescence to be a progressive phenomenon. You make a good point about heat-death of black holes, which would raise the question of what process occurs faster, hawking radiation or mass-coalescence and gravitation-increase. Eventually, I could see how if everything has already fallen into black holes, the black holes themselves will slowly radiate into masslessness, but they have to capture all the other matter-energy first, no? Put it this way: if it was possible to pull the two protons of a helium atom apart and stabilize them as hydrogen atoms, the process would be endothermic, correct? In fact, wouldn't the amount of energy invested in separating them be equal to the amount that would be released by re-fusing them? Isn't this similar to investing energy in pumping water uphill and then releasing that (potential) energy by allowing the water to flow back down hill and drive a turbine? I'm sure it is quite important for your self-esteem to establish an asymmetrical relationship between us in this discussion but my interest here is physics, not the social relations of the discussion. And when lead is reached, does fusion continue only now endothermically? I assume this is how uranium and other unstable elements get formed. But you are clearly the expert. Why isn't the average momentum the same thing as heat? Are you saying that due to very high compression, momentum becomes intermittent instead of consistent? Or the answer could have to do with gravity-related time/light distortion as the overall gravitational characteristics are evolving until the formation of the black hole. Have you thought about what I said about the sun's radiation and the maintenance of the heliopause? It may be that stars create a frictionless bubble using their radiation which permits planets to form stable frictionless orbits while they are radiating sufficient energy to maintain the relative vacuum. In this sense, interstellar space may be much less vacuum-like and chaotic enough to result in very different gravity-space relations as within the heliospheres formed by stars. Because the galaxies are the result of a longer process of coalescence to begin with? If intergalactic gas slowly coalesced into a galaxy, why would that process of coalescence slow and stop and result in permanent orbital equilibrium? So you think there is no difference in the spacetime fabric topology of numerous small gravity-wells verses on very large unified gravity well? Because gravity dilates/contracts spacetime. Theoretically, shouldn't each galaxy have a certain gravitational lensing effect due to its gravitational web? As such, isn't observing from inside a galaxy somewhat like observing the outside of a lens from inside of it?

How about time dilation? If interstellar vessels were accelerated to relativistic speeds, wouldn't humans age more slowly aboard them than on Earth? In the same sense, couldn't higher-gravity environments result in faster aging and the people who moved there would have shorter longevity measured in Earth time. Also, it may be the case that humans ultimately choose to integrate into the same bodies, so that for example a married couple would undergo transplant surgery where two consciousnesses live within the same body. If this kind of consolidation technology was available, population of bodies would actually decrease as souls-per-body increased. Eventually, bodies just die and it is up to individuals to decide what happens to their soul after that. Exponetial vs. arithmetic growth is a classical basis for establishing the inevitability of overpopulation, but in practice I don't see why resources can't grow exponentially as well. If resources are replenished by recycling, for example, isn't the only limiting factor to resource-availability the speed at which things can be recycled into usable products? The point is that if you're focussed on eventual resource limits, it makes technological innovations seem to have ultimate limits as well. If you focus on perpetuating progress in conservation, it makes technological innovation seem to always be one step ahead of resource limitations. Your approach causes people to give up progress - mine causes people to keep pursuing progress with the hope that it has no limitations. It's a political choice of which approach to population-sustainability you want to pursue.

Does this refer to gardening? If so, I sometimes sprout seeds in a pot and then transplant them. Sprouting seeds in the ground directly seems to work better, though, because it avoids the transplant shock, I think. Is this at all what you are looking for with this thread?

People tend to eschew innovation as long as they have a way to avoid it. If population control succeeds in stabilizing global population, economics would motivate political authority to limit economic efficiency to prevent market crashes. This already occurs through migration control and trade agreements.

Necessity is the mother of invention. edit: or maybe the father.

You just perfectly avoided getting my point, why? The point was that the kinetic energy, i.e. momentum, of the objects/particles results in volume of the system. Pressure is basically a function of gravity. When orbiting objects slow down, they fall into the gravity well. If they gain more velocity in a non-downward direction, they gain altitude. Good description. Now consider that the solar system is de-frictioned by the heliotrope remaining at a far distance from the sun. If the sun would stop radiating energy and solar wind, would the heliotrope not collapse and result in much friction for the planets? Why? Doesn't gravity cause pressure, pressure cause heat, and pressure and heat cause fusion? I know that. I was referring to light weight gasses coagulating into stars. Because without any momentum being added to it, it is in line to. It's just a question of time until the friction it encounters decelerates it to a degenerative orbit. So just as an object's altitude in a gravitational field exists as potential energy, two protons distance from each other exist as potential energy of fusion. To the extent that protons are separated/repelled from each other as hydrogen, they have the potential to fuse into heavier particles. So when the fusion process merges them and releases energy, the potential energy in their separation/repulsion is expended, no? Ok, thanks. Does this present an argument or are you just clarifying the details of how it works? So fusion just slowly shifts outward due to increasing volume of helium at the core? Sorry, I was using "collapse" to mean the equivalent of "contract." I wasn't thinking about collapsing as rapid contraction. I was thinking along these lines, but I don't know enough about how the internal structure of particles is defined except for that various levels of sub-atomic particles are defined, like quarks and leptons. I don't understand those, though. Interesting. Is there an assumption of minimum volume of particles? I know, but if the contents were not gas but heavy elements, they wouldn't fuse, would they? How so fast? If all orbits were non-decaying, how would stars ever congeal in the first place? Friction? Why would friction ever completely disappear in a galaxy/solar-system? Ok, no matter. Then they will fall into another gravity well eventually, no? But will the galaxies not coalesce into black holes prior to their heat death? Likewise, as they coalesce doesn't their average level of gravitation increase? If it does, couldn't that cause the appearance of expansion as the OP suggested?

I only used fish because you or someone else brought it up in an earlier post. My only point was that regardless of the commodity, it is an economic mistake to view consumer behavior as the ultimate determining factor in how much resources are used per unit consumption. A more wasteful culture of consumption therefore burden resource-management more than a more efficient culture, even if the more wasteful one has less reproduction, because it is still reproducing and expanding its waste-culture. Well, this is interesting but I'm not getting how you're relating it to the discussion at hand. I saw something once about crab-fishing where it was shown how there is a very short season to prevent overfishing. I would guess fishers have to report their catches and there would be a cut off for harvesting certain species after so much is caught, but it's just a guess. My issue is that if someone eats each fish caught, there is not as much demand if someone only eats one out of every 5 fish caught because then five times as many fish would have to be caught to satisfy demand. That's the whole problem with Mathusianism. It never takes into account technological or cultural changes. At this point I tend to view human behavior generally in terms of networks of mediated and delegated actions. Maybe "cyborg" is the better term insofar as humans consume resources according to technologically and culturally mediated needs and practices. So I don't think you can really base anything purely on numbers of living human bodies. You have to include all their delegates as well. So, for example, if a population of 100 people has 100 cows and another population of 200 people have no cows, you have to compare their total resource depletion according to how much water, arable land, etc. are consumed in total. Same story with technology advances that increase crop yields, farmable areas, etc. Then you can't really distinguish innovations that increase the ratio of resources to consumption, whether that's due to increased production or more conservation. So you can say that there is a limit to how much culture and technology can evolve, but I don't know why that would be the case. Ultimately, humans could become photosynthetic, I think. Not by genetically infusing them with chlorophyl but by figuring out a way to re-charge them directly with electricity. Personally, though, I think the most plausible scenario would involve engineering human bodies to be increasingly smaller. Would you still claim that there is a limit to how small humans can get and how many the Earth could sustain, even if they got them down to the size of, say, ants? This part is vague. Not sure what you're saying exactly. People don't have to have children to make their lives valuable. All human life has a certain value, which is why there's something rude in talking about overpopulation. It would make more sense to talk about under-resourcing, I think. Population-limit science has never been politically neutral. It has always been the ruling class's excuse to control others to preserve their power and territory. I just put myself in the shoes of someone who is being subject to meddling in my family choices because of the assumption that population growth has to be controlled. If someone would tell me I can't have a 3rd kid, I would want to know why not if I could modify my existing consumption and productivity to raise 3 with the resources of 2. Sure you could say that in three generations, 3 becomes 9 whereas 2 only becomes 4 - but that is assuming and punishing people for the potential future actions of their kids, which is unfair. Again, why not break it down to particular scenarios instead of keeping it at the general level? At the general level, the logical models you set up will always confirm their own assumptions. When you put a real-world scenario on the table, you can bring in various factors. What about the fact we can manufacture energy from atoms and generate artificial sunlight? What about the fact that we can multiply land area by building up instead of out?

Gas pressure is the result of kinetic energy of the gas particles colliding with one another correct? Likewise, the distances of planets and other satellites orbiting a star, or stars orbiting the center of a galaxy are also due to the kinetic energy working against gravity, correct? So is it really such a stretch to view orbital distance/velocity as being similar to gas-pressure in creating the volume of a solar system or galaxy? Ok, the planets are stars are not exchanging momentum due to collisions the way you would expect particles in a gas to do, but their velocity nevertheless produces an expansive effect, no? I don't know the conditions that caused the big bang to eventually form matter, but the fact that hydrogen fuses into heavier elements makes it possible to view gravitational coagulation as a catalyst for fusion. Thus, the fact that the big bang dispersed energy/matter broadly and with relatively even consistency amounts to a type of energy-potential. In other words, gravity only has the ability to induce fusion because matter was spread evenly so the spreading itself was the fuel for fusion to occur in a slow-crescendo as gasses coagulate and eventually reach a level of compression to "ignite." I knew that, but thanks. Eventually they will become black holes, though, to the extent that they will eventually be pulled into another black hole, correct? Stars consume dispersion of protons. Protons separated into hydrogen atoms are more widely dispersed than protons that fuse into helium and larger nuclei. So stars literally consume inter-proton repulsion (however they are repelled). The energy that sustains a star at a relatively large volume keeps a good deal of its contents at pressure-levels that slow down the fusion reaction (an assumption, admittedly, am I wrong?). So, as they consume their fuel, they eventually collapse and sometimes supernova or red-giant as a result of the sudden condensation (this is something I haven't read about for a while so I could be mixing some things up). When they finally consume what's left of their fusion potential, they collapse into either white dwarves, neutron stars, or black holes if they have sufficient mass. So apparently there is something collapse-resistant in matter to prevent the cooled stellar matter from collapsing smaller than the Schwarzschild radius in some cases. However, there seems to be something about the gravitation-levels of a certain amount of matter that does causes the matter to collapse/compress beyond that radius, at which point you get a black hole. Can any of this be applied to something that isn't a star? You mean like if elements too heavy to fuse coagulated into a massive, dense lump? I think they could eventually form a black hole, yes, but what is the relevance of that? Are there any galaxies without black holes at the center? I would guess that very young galaxies would have yet to develop black holes in the center. However, it makes sense that galaxies are slowly coagulating into smaller areas with denser centers. Could you have a galaxy where the contents reached a point of non-decaying orbit around the center? In that case, could the stars run out of fuel, collapse, and continue to orbit without falling into the center? My impression is that gravity always continues to drive coagulation of matter dispersed by the big-bang in one way or another. Likewise, the kinetic energy of stars and galaxies seems to be a product of the initial big bang and subsequent exchanges of momentum. Why wouldn't the solar system shrink once the sun goes out? Won't the planets slowly decelerate as they encounter occasional friction from various sources? Doesn't solar wind produce a certain amount of thrust for everything orbiting the sun? I know this isn't much, but what could prevent the planets from encountering friction for the rest of eternity? If they are slowing down due to friction, what would prevent their orbits from decaying if there was no thrust to counteract the friction-deceleration? In fact, maybe solar wind clears the orbital paths of the planets by keeping dust pushed out at the heliotrope. Once the sun goes out, that dust might fall back down and result in a lot more friction for the planets and asteroids.

Yes, but you said that if you don't believe in gravity, someone could falsify your disbelieve by dropping something. That implies that gravity must exist as a force by falsification of disbelief that it is the cause of falling objects. In other words, you want to use an empirical fact to verify the existence of a force by falsifying disbelief. Thus, I came up with a falsificatory example of your logic by plugging in a ridiculous force called "sleepylimbs" (I still think this sounds funny btw). If you disbelieve that the force, sleepylimbs, exists and your arm falls asleep it doesn't falsify your disbelief in the force and thus prove that sleepylimbs in fact exists as a force. It just verified the empirical fact that limbs can fall asleep. In your example, you didn't falsify disbelief in gravity; you just confirmed that things fall when dropped. Some other force could still be responsible for the falling; such as sleepylimbs;)

Ok, I see it has influenced the tone of your reply and I'm sorry for that b/c I have the same response sometimes when ppl deploy petty jabs. The only reason I said it was because it was my assessment and when an assessment can be taken as insulting I try to be blunt to avoid being condescending. I should have maintained a more constructive tone b/c I can't take a bitter battle of insults - well I can but I'd rather not. Not that directly, but patterns occur at each level of a supply-chain that influence the subsequent level. When people buy less of something, producers eventually reduce production. Supply and demand curves intersect and the quantity demanded becomes the quantity supplied, provided waste isn't factored into production costs, which it often is with food. Are you trying to throw my "on-paper analysis" assessment back at me? Well, you're right I don't. I only know how much food is thrown away at the retail level because I've been there and done that. I also know that every piece of food thrown away had to be produced, shipped, and prepared and that it was suitable for human consumption at the time of disposal. That means that someone else who consumed a fresh version of what was thrown away could have fed another one or more people with the food that was thrown away while waiting for that customer to get hungry and come in to shop. I went back and read post #38. You concluded by saying that individual consumption cannot be infinitely reduced so there must be some population level at which resources become insufficient to sustain everyone. My question is how do you know that? How do you know a system like in the Matrix won't be eventually possible, or that human consciousness won't be transplantable into computer hardware or that genetic engineering won't make it possible to shrink humans to the size of mice or smaller? Do you also realize that "overpopulation" is a descriptor that contains a subjective value judgment? It assumes that there is an optimum level of population that is not overpopulation by any standard. Who is to say that inhabitants of Rome in 100AD didn't find the world overpopulated and used this as a justification for imperialism and war/killing? You are making a direct link between human individuals and the resources they consume. My point is that total population size is not the determining factor in resource consumption, it is supply-chain activities that occur prior to the consumer level. In other words, you would be more correct to cite overpopulation of food-service facilities than of individual consumers, where resource depletion is concerned. It's not that "I really want to talk about it here." It's that I don't view population science as detached from the politics of resource-control and cultural domination. In other words, I don't think population scientists are rigorously objective and their bias toward blaming population numbers for resource-depletion causes them to make certain assumptions in constructing theory and methodology. Telling other people to leave their politics out of the discussion doesn't mean that population research does the same. It's not. It's wrong because you are not subjecting your theoretical and methodological assumptions to full critical scrutiny. You are making system-level assumptions without regard for the empirical level of what population and resource management look like in practice.

It's just ironic, imo, that wikipedia was designed to be open-edit so that people could directly modify it if they had criticism of the content yet people still criticize it for being potentially unreliable. What do they want to make it more reliable? All you can do is improve the content or take it as it is. People think there is some magical formula for assuring the reliability of information/knowledge. Unless someone has sufficient wisdom to be able to assess the validity of information for themselves, they have no choice but to rely on blind trust. It is somewhat annoying, imo, when people call for greater reliability so that they can avoid opening their eyes and actively critically assessing validity for themselves. You just have to start doing research and comparing sources and critically thinking about whether information makes sense and if not, why not. Critical questioning should act as a crucible for discarding blatantly false information and thinking in more depth about how to assess information that is not blatantly false. Reliable authority isn't a product of the legitimacy of the source but the reasonability of the claims. If claims can be reasoned to be weak, no amount of source-legitimacy can make them strong. So users have to apply reason instead of expecting reliable authorities to do it for them and serve them truth on a platter. Yes, of course everyone expects not to be led on a wild-goose-chase of intentional deceit but no one should take a destructive attitude toward any source that isn't absolutely bullet-proof. If your authority isn't reliable enough to assess the validity of a wikipedia article, what gives you the right/ability to demonize the source?

It's open for editing. When it's unreliable, you're supposed to edit it to make it better. If you don't have sufficient authority to improve its reliability, wouldn't that make you an unreliable judge of its reliability? If you seek authority that can determine its reliability, how would you know where to search and why? What basis does a person with unreliable authority have to trust ANY source, wikipedia or otherwise? You have to have a basis for assessing a source as reliable or not. If that basis is peer-review, what basis do you have to believe your peers are reliable/trustworthy sources of authority?

By claiming the presence of a lie, you are suggesting a truth that contradicts the lie. What truth is it that you are proposing in contrast to this "lie" exactly?

I don't think you can apply falsificationism to denial. If I theorize that there is a force called "sleepylimbs" that causes limbs to become numb sometimes and you believed there was no such force, would your disbelief be falsified the first time you woke up with your arm asleep?

I don't think you can apply falsificationism to denial. If I theorize that there is a force called "sleepylimbs" that causes limbs to become numb sometimes and you believed there was no such force, would your belief be falsified the first time you woke up with your arm asleep?

Excuse me if this question is naive, but what basis is there to assume that neutrons cannot fuse further under certain conditions? I am very interested in what basis there is to assume such a thing as maximum mass-density exists. I could imagine that black-holes are able to convert matter into pure gravitation by reducing all particles into a volume-less center-point in a pure gravitational field. Is this impossible for some reason?

Ok, I was looking from the reply summary. Now I see they are in the thread bars. First of all, it is usually prepared-food retailers responsible for the most waste in my perception, but of course people can throw away food at home too for various reasons. Your example makes sense, but my concern is the effect of popular overpopulation discourse on the social judgment put on people with larger than average families. Why should people regard others with "too many kids" as causing overpopulation when they themselves are contributing to resource depletion at a level of a family twice or more times their size? If a family with three kids results in resource-harvesting that could feed eight kids, what is the difference between that family and one with eight kids? Even though wealthier parents stereotypically have less kids to avoid depleting family wealth, they reproduce a culture of more wasteful consumption, which reduces the ability for the planet to support other people's reproductive choices. Isn't it the case that fishing at a certain level optimizes the reproductive rate of fish populations in the ocean? As such, shouldn't the target of fishing practices/policies be to maximize the reproduction rate of those fish populations? Then, shouldn't supply-chain management aim for maximum efficiency and minimum waste to feed the maximum number of people possible with the fish caught? Shouldn't this method be used in all food-resourcing and distribution supply-chains? If it was, do you think there would be any food shortage or hunger, except to the extent that people are denied access to food distribution channels? If all people had equal access to food distribution, do you think that people could afford to waste food? If people could not afford any more food than they consume, do you think people would want to have more kids than they could afford to feed? If they did, don't you think they would just make wars to gain more control over resources? If people were killing other people over resources and territory, don't you think they would evolve less destructive forms of population management such as birth control policies? Isn't that what is currently going on anyway? Is it any more fair for some people to legislate the reproductive rights of others than it is for them to use war to take resources and territory? If they were doing so for no other reason than to ensure their ability to sustain a culture of inefficiency and waste, wouldn't this seem like an abuse of power, iyo? Social stigma can have powerful effects, unfortunately. If the global economy was predicated on independent individual/family control of resources it would matter less but since many people are dependent on income or other sources of resources, social stigma can result in discrimination. So, for example, when certain ethnic minorities are stereotyped as having too many kids and causing overpopulation, they can get discriminated against economically. This in turn reinforces stereotypical associations of large family-size with poverty and works like a kind of informal ad hoc birth-control pressure. I.e. keep your family size small or face material deprivation. All human life is technically a luxurious waste of resources. However, few people would argue that human life should be eradicated to prevent waste. It makes more sense to minimize waste to allow for maximum human freedom. Every human adult is a child who has learned to solicit economic resources directly instead of relying on their parents or others. So without people taking the luxury of having children, there would be no adults. More responsible adults/children manage their resource-usage more conservatively and efficiently to reduce the economic stress they burden others with. Parents who can utilize resources more efficiently are actually better candidates to have more kids, imo, than people who produce more waste by living less efficiently. Ironically, however, it is the people with the greatest economic access that are able to comfortably have as many kids as they want and consume and waste as much as they want. I think if you would look at average longevity of large families in developing economies and compare that with average longevity in smaller families in developed economies, you might find a greater total number of years-lived among the smaller family in the developed economies. A family with three children who live an average of 75 years, for example, live a total of 225 years. A family of 6 children living an average of 40 years has a total of 240. Now, consider if the 6 kids consumed one-sixth of the resources of the 3 in the developed economies per capita, they would consume 1/3 the resources of the 3 kids even if they had the same longevity. This is possible if, for example, the 6 kids live as vegetarians since meat-production consumes something like 6 times the land, water, etc. as do crops. Of course, you can argue for forest-hunting where crops can't be grown, but I'm just talking about industrial, pasture-raised meat. I wonder what this ratio would be if you compared fish-eating with eating sea-weed and other ocean vegetation.

I think it would help a lot if you explained concretely your basic assumptions about elementary particles and their relationship to mass and energy. You seem to be saying that these particles change mass according to their configuration with other particles and it is unclear to me how you are saying they generate and radiate energy and what the relationship is between their radiating qualities and their mass. Also, when you use the word, "weight," are you using it interchangeably with "mass," or do you subscribe to the normative definitions where weight varies with gravity-levels and mass is independent of gravity? Further, you seem to regard volume as inherent along with space, which is confusing, imo.