Greg Boyles

Medicine is the science and art of healing.

Therefore GPs are scientists even if they do not engage in research.

http://medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/somsweb.nsf

School of medical sciences - faculty of medicine

When I was working at the austin hospital I was not engaged in research, merely routine laboratory work, but I was never the less a grade 1 medical scientist.

Exclusive engagement in scientific research does not seem to be a requirement for the title of 'scientist'.

But then again the art of diagnosis is very much like research. The GP gather's initial evidence from the patient and formulates a hypothesis as to their illness. He then orders appropriate diagnostic tests, looks at the results and then decides whether his initial hypothesis is correct or not. Eventually he forumulates a conclusion or diagnosis and then embarks on a treatment regime for the patient.

How can one argue that this is not a scientific process?

I had heard somewhere of a theory that said, the mutation that seperated humans from apes had something to do with a sugar produced in the body to fight off malaria. I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it though. But interesting non the less.

Westerners can't fight off malaria well at all.

I'm sure that many metals do. I know at least platinum and ruthenium from my personal work experience. Surely almost all d-metals will in some form or fashion though.

I am pretty certain that iron does not form a complex with ammonia.

What about when the human rights of people alive today conflict with the human rights of future genertions?

E.G. Around procreation and over population and exhaustion of natural resources.

What?

I can't even parse that.

 

 

Anyway, nickel salts form a precipitate with ammonia solution, but they dissolve in an excess of aqueous ammonia.

The solution looks a lot like the copper ammonia complex.

 

Have a look here

http://www.public.as...nal/nickel.html

I thought he meant that the coordination complex itself was insoluble.

Interesting, pretty much the same colour as the copper coordination complex.

What else apart from Ni, Ag and Cu forms a complex with ammonia?

It always intrigued me as to why say iron does not form a complex with ammonia. Why is that?

Hi,

Just having an issue with making up a solution and don't trust myself that i am doing it properly!

 

My protocol says that i need to prepare 0.05M Tris HCL buffer PH 7.4, containing 1.0M NACL, 20mM EDTA, 1mM PMSF.

 

I need to make 3ml in total.

 

I have 1M stock solution of Tris HCL buffer PH 7.4, and EDTA, NACL, and PMSF in solid form.

 

I am thinking that I probably do not need the NACL as its purpose was probably to adjust the PH to the desired level but as mine is already at 7.4 i might not need it.

 

Does anybody know the right quantities to make up this solution or can offer any advice in this area i would greatly appreciate it.

 

Thanks

 

Siobhan

0.05M is simply 1/20 the concentration of 1M

So you would take 5ml of your stock and mix it with 95ml of water.....do that x times to end up with the volume you require.

If you need the NaCl then work out the total weight required for the total volume of your working solution and just dissolve it in the working solution.

Three points:

1. Africa is arguably the least overpopulated of the continents.

If africa is not over populated then why does the continent suffer from perpetual famines, war, genocide and political instability etc?

2. Your statement is implicitly racist, suggesting that continued malarial deaths would be useful in reducing the alleged overpopulation of the continent.

Racist slurs are not a substitute for reasoned arguments.

And you are wrong anyway.

To coin a phrase my brother once jokingly used "I am not racist, I just hate everyone"

If westerners were advocating the use of DDT in the west to control malaria and prevent deaths I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing.......that their interests in not dieing from malaria do not trump the interests of future generations in not having their environment and bodies tainted with a toxin.

3. What evidence do you have that limited and controlled application of DDT in Africa would have a longterm global impact?

I don't need to provide evidence as it has already been done. DDT is found in the blood of nearly everyone on earth and in wildlife in the artic and antarctic. And there are strong links between DDT and diabetes and other human diseases.

OK. I think I see your thesis. You are opposed to altruism and have many selfish genes.

If WHO got their way and started wide scale spraying of DDT on houses across africa tomorrow then, at 45 yo, I would be unlikely to be signficantly effected by it.

So my concern is primarily with the environment and future generations of both westerners and africans who will have to live in it.

Who is to say that you and members of WHO are not being incredibly short sighted and reprehensibly selfish yourselves???

What are they going to do when mosquito resistance to DDT emerges due to its wide scale use? Are they going to try even more noxious chemicals and will you sit here and continue advocating their foolish behaviour.

The west really needs to get over this all consuming culture of the individual.

And how is saving african lives now only to have them die of starvation later being altruistic.

If aid organisations arose that respected ecological balance as it applies to humans and made substantial rather than token efforts to reduce fertility in compensation for decreasing the death rate then I would be all for them and donate willingly.

Until such time I remain a consciencious objector.

Then please explain how dictating how they spend their money isn't massive hypocrisy.

Because spending their money on disseminating DDT in Africa will ultimately effect me, my children and our local environment and I f'ing well OBJECT.

Preventing malarial deaths in an over populated Africa does not justify the long term adverse impacts of DDT across the globe.

The interests of individuals in Africa do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe.

And more particularly the interest of soft westners who have an unrealistic abhorance of death, and who our out to make a name for themselves in charitable circles, do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe.

You had better start getting accustomed to death swansont because before to much longer westerners will be joining africans in a higher death rate and a shorter average life span . In our case due to antibiotic resistant bugs due to our long misuse of antibiotics.

Africans have coped with malaria for decades and they will continue to cope. It is not for westeners to tell them they should poison themselves slowly with highly toxic insecticides.

You make my point for me. GPs are not generally trained to do research. That's a specialization.

 

Anecdote: I once asked my doctor how a glucose monitor worked. His response? "I don't know. I'm not a scientist."

A fresh graduate from a BSc is not qualified to undertake research on their own either swansont, so your point is poorly made!

They have to continue their studies with honours, masters and phd or, in rare cases, gain decades of research experience before they take the lead in research projects.

Just as GP have continue their studies with a speciality at which point they may well engage in research relevant to that speciality.

GP's and anyone else with a medical degree is a fully fledged member of the medical science community!

Put another way, you have no evidence that the people are not being specifically informed about DDT, as you had claimed. Just that education in general is poor.

Perhaps they do make a cursory attempt to explain to africans about the risk of DDT.

But one may as well go down to the local Ultratune and try to explain to the teenage apprentice motor mechanic about the chemistry and health risks of DDT.

It is an exercise in fultility unless you are do so to some one with at least a basic science education.

So until they can make africans understand DDT at our/their education level they have no right to thrust it upon them.

Western countries were able to eradicate malaria. What is the risk/reward? Let's see the analysis.

 

 

 

You can always pony up the money to pay for the more expensive solutions. How much did you donate to the cause last year? You did give money to this effort, right? And you're upset that your money is being used inappropriately?

I have no interest or inclination to donate money to current aid efforts in africa or any where else in the world.

None of the aid organisations, so far as I am aware, make any serious attempts to compensate for the decreased death rate that they bring about by decreasing the birth rate by an equivalent amount.

I do not and will never donate on principal.

Anatomical pathologists in the department of anatomical pathology these were not GPs, now were they? That was Arete's point to which you objected, and the context of the discussion.

Oh yes they were swansont - you don't become an anatomical patholgist without first obtaining a medical degree. The same with any medical specialist. Doctors, including GPs are indeed scientists in every sense.

The only difference between a GP and a scientist is that GPs are not engaged in research work and scientists with a medical degree plus specialisation (and involved in research) generally don't engage directly in routine laboratory tasks - that is left to the lesser qualified scientists like me with a BSc.

Again, do the analysis and show that this is true. Apply the ethics of choosing who dies to the problem as well. Of course, everybody dies this is a matter of who dies and when. What were the death and disease rates from DDT when it was in widespread use as a general crop insecticide, and what will it be in much more limited use as vector control. Show me that it's better to be dead than suffer from a chronic disease much later in life, and what the relative numbers will be.

 

 

 

And if we don't learn to analyze the problem we are doomed to knee-jerk reactions.

The best I can do on proof of poor african awareness of DDT is to provide evidence of the poor general education standard in africa:

Mr Nxesi said educational standards were falling because governments were using cheap, lowly qualified teachers who were ill motivated and were, therefore, not able to provide the type of quality education that was needed.<BR _extended="true"><BR _extended="true">He said the resources needed to support education were shrinking now with many schools lacking the proper infrastructure and congenial environment for effective learning.<BR _extended="true"><BR _extended="true">"In our present African situation some rural areas do not have proper classrooms and even teachers and pupils find it tough to measure up to those with all the facilities that make learning very easier." He said school fees was a major barrier, especially to pupils from poor backgrounds and commended the government for implementing the capitation grant saying the ultimate aim of education for all was to make education free and compulsory so that the poor would also have access to education which had the long term effect of eradicating poverty.<BR _extended="true">

There is plenty of material on the web detailing this. If education standards are low then it is reasonable to assume that few are savy about DDT.

And as for the rest of you post swansont......

You are only comparing death rates of malaria and DDT exposure. What about the chronic health effects of DDT exposure? There is ample anecdotal evidence to support that and enough for western countries to pahse out its use.

Why then do westerners seek to impose DDT on AFricans when they are not prepared to use themselves. This smacks of double standards. They would rather impose cheap and toxic DDT on Africans rather than supply them with more expensive anti-malarial drugs. Apart from the fact that it is well know that DDT does not just effect the people and communities who spray it.

And it is not you place to decide that the chronic health effects on africans and damage to their local environment is justified to reduce their death rate from malaria. That choice should be made by africans WHEN AND ONLY WHEN they are fully savy of DDT.

Your claim was that they are not being made aware of the effects of DDT, regardless of the source.

 

 

 

I would fight against any regulatory body telling me what opinion I have to have or that decided on a single course of action for any problem whose solution had multiple approaches. In my experience scientists respond much better to cooperation than coercion.

 

 

 

Medical doctors are not trained to do research.

Anatomical pathologists in the depeartment of anatomical pathology at the Austin Hospital in Melbourne were directly involved in medical research on Alzhiemers disease etc when I was working there. They may not have performed the actual lab work but they are fully versed in the scientific process etc and are therefore scientists as well as specialist doctors.

But in the walt eliza hall at the university of melbourne there are plenty of medical doctors involved in research rather than general practice.

At least in medical pathology spheres, those who do a science degree specialise in performing the technical laboratory work while those with a medical pathology degree specialise is interpreting the results of laboratory tests and have the last say on the conclusions (not us laboratory scientists).

So pull your head in swansont and stop prattling on about things you obviously have no direct experience of.

If disease, lack of medicine was the only population controls then they would have still ended up like Easter Island. Why use population control methods like abortion, and infanticide if disease was already removing enough people? If they did not practice silviculture they would not have had any trees. They built irrigation systems, refined intensive farming systems where they had plentiful food for everyone.

 

 

I couldnt find any info on the web about the History of New Guinea, but heres another similar Island where the people have lived sustainably for about 3000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia

Perhaps it was a combination of environmental wisdom similar to Aboriginal culture, strong resource base, high infant mortaility, short life span and sporadic clan warfare that kept their numbers in check and the civilisation stable on average for so long. I seem to also remember a mention in Tim Flannery's book about the equivalent of aboriginal story places where hunting etc was prohibitted for game conservation purposes and the disruption of this system by christian missionaries.........but was that the central highlands civilisation or was it more the coastal tribes......I am not sure now.

But never the less westerners will not be happy with type of ecological balance. If we wish to maintain our current consumption patterns and life styles then there will have to vastly less of us and we will probably have to live with some level of regulation of procreation.

Don't move the goalposts or shift the burden of proof. I am not advocating the use of DDT, I am asking you to come up with some substantial justification for your position. For once.

Sorry swansont but I cannot provide you with proof that average africans have no idea exactly what DDT is. But most would agree that it is a reasonable assumption given the general education standards in africa.

I actually tried a bit of googling on the subject but all I came up with is dip $%#& westerners telling africans and western opponents that they ought to accept the use of DDT to eliminate malaria. But nothing about them taking the trouble to educate africans about the health risks of and contraversy surrounding DDT. A bit about the Stockholm conevention trying phase out the use of DDT in Africa while WHO is simultaneously trying to promote its use.

Here's another example of groups of scientists all heading out in different directions and undermining each other.

Here again is an example of why we need a global regulatory body for science so that all scientists are singing from the same hym book.

This is a strawman. GPs are not medical scientists. Scientists are not policy makers.

Rubbish! A medical degree follows the scientific method and doctors are indeed trained as scientists before they go on to specific medical training.

So you're using an assumption that some sort of global regulatory body would prevent scientific advancements from resulting in indeterminable practical outcomes which may or may not result in indeterminable negative side effects to demand scientists be curtailed to research which is in line with your own sociopolitical agenda...

 

No thanks.

Well we will see in the next few decades wont we. Given that there is already substantial mistrust of science within the general public and the fact that few of you have or will have lasting answers to our global problems you may find such regulation being increasingly imposed on you whether you want it or not!

The problem is that much of the public recognizes there is a major global catastrophe looming (peak oil, peak food, peak fish, climate change, over population.....)

Major party politicians want act decisively because they fear losing their cash flow from major business donors.

The scientific community exhibits nothing but disunity as to what to do about this problem - some advocate solar voltaics and thermal, others wind power, others nuclear power.........some recognize over population as the problem, some don't and some are just too afraid to acknowledge it due to the very difficult questions that follow.

The public wants a unified narrative of what we are going to do about this and they just aint getting it from either source. Outside the scientific community disunity is seen as death.

The only way that the scientific community can provide leadership that may have some hope of being respected by the majority of the general public is to present a unified public voice that encompases what do do about over population, dwindling oil supplies, global warming,........

That can only be acheived via a global regulatory body and public face. Have all the scientific debates you want internally, disclose these debates to the public or not but present a consensus global voice to the general public through the regulatory body.

Hi, I remember performing a practical once whereby ammonia solution was added to a solution of Nickel(II) chloride, with a purple precipitate appearing. This has always stuck with me as an example of an insoluble complex, and noting that many other ammonia complexes are soluble, it has now got me wondering why some complexes of any kind dissolve whilst others don't. Could anyone who has more theory please recommend to me something which would help me understand why some complexes dissolve and others don't in water under standard conditions? I realise this may be a bit involved, so I was thinking of a textbook or an area of inorganic chemistry which covers this? Many thanks.

Is nickel diamine what ever insoluble is it? We did the copper ammonia thing in high school and I mucked around with it at home but it never occured to try it with nickel salts or anything else.....not that such salts are easily available at the super market or the garden centre.

Chemistry is fun - it was my all time favourite subject at high school. I learned quickly about house hold use of assorted chemicals because I was always on the look out for a cheap source of them to experiment with.

Might want to check who actually wrote that post. Hint: it was me.

 

 

 

You can dissolve something without it being soluble in the solvent you are putting it in. This, however, is completely aside from the OP. If you would like to discuss it further, please start a thread about it.

 

 

 

In fact:

 

 

 

Greg, you appear to be going in confusing circles with whatever it is you are trying to say. At this point in the argument your only reproach is to argue semantics for purposes I fail to understand. Do you still have an argument to make in light of what everyone has said here and if so, would you be so kind as to summarize it for us so that we might get back on topic?

Oops.......reflex action.....will rephrase the post as a non-Cuthber reply

I'm not talking about water (and have never even mentioned it in any of my posts), I'm talking about ammonia. And no one is talking in absolutes, we're talking in chemistry, where negligible molar solubility is typically described as insoluble.

 

 

 

That's because the ammonia reacts with the copper hydroxide, whereas the water does not. You're talking about two different compounds with very different reactivity profiles, so I quite honestly do not understand what point you are trying to drive here. Copper (II) is right on the borderline of being a hard and soft acid and will react accordingly with a hard base such as ammonia. Silver is a soft acid - i.e. it accepts electron pairs and will form complexes in which the predominating acid-base interaction is covalent in nature. Typically we say that soft acids will only react with soft bases and hard acids with hard bases; that being said, ammonia can, in some cases, donate its lone pair of electrons to form a covalent bond with a soft Lewis acid such as Ag⁺. This is why some silver halides react with it. Silver iodide does not react with ammonia though, as John noted. This is because the iodide ion is a soft base. Bromide and chloride ions are not. Sulfur is another soft base - do you see where I am going with this?

 

 

 

This is correct. Solubility should not be confused with the ability for something to dissolve. As noted, there are plenty of compounds that are insoluble in a given solvent, but will still dissolve due to various reactions that take place.

 

 

 

Firstly, your initial sentence in this post is rather unnecessary. This isn't fight club, it's a discussion board. I understand there has been a deal of hostility, but there's no reason to try and encourage more.

 

Secondly, the only person who has talked about the existence (Ag(NH₃)₂)₂S is you. Ignoring the fact that you have written it chemically incorrect, I am incredibly skeptical that such a compound would exist; talking about whether or not it's soluble in ammonia is therefore a pointless endeavor. Ag₂S won't react with ammonia, nor is it soluble in it. John and I have tried saying this to you a number of times in a number of ways already.

Solubility is the property of a solid, liquid, or gaseous chemical substance called solute to dissolve in a solid, liquid, or gaseous solvent to form a homogeneous ...

Solubility is ability to dissolve in a solvent. There is no difference between a coordination complex involving water molecules (which many or most salts form when they dissolve in water) and a coordinaion complex involving both ammonia and water molecules.

So I have not the faintest idea what you mean by this statement iodine:

Solubility should not be confused with the ability for something to dissolve

And Cuthber specifically refered to solubility of Ag2S as determining whether or not ammonia could break the chemical bonds.

And I have never once indicated that I believed that the chemical species in ammonia solution would be (Ag(NH₃)₂)₂S

Perhaps if there would have been adequate testing in the 1930's it wouldn't have been developed as an insectiside. This is why I asked you if there was some kind of test that could account for every possible affect that a product could have on anything.

 

 

I do believe over the past half century or more there have been advancements in the regulatory process of harmfull products. As there are medical boards for drugs, there are also boards for toxic chemicals and other hazardous products. What is it about recent techknowlegy that accountability knowingly falls through the cracks? DDT was produced before there was any oversight of hazardous chemicals. It can't be used as a reason to have oversight and accountability now. So if there is a reason for further accountability, lay something down for us that can be applied to todays processes.

Medical regulatory bodies do not tolerate individualism in GPs in going off and treating people with natural remedies or drugs that they have a hunch will help, rather than scientifically verified drugs and methods.

Nor should we tolerate scientists going off and trying to solve global warming etc through their own pet projects. We can no longer afford to continue with this approach. It may have served humanity in the past but now it is increasingly putting humanity and the global ecosystem as we depend on it at risk.

The example of DDT and other substances is exactly the reason that scientific regulation is required......so that scientists/business are prevented from making similar mistakes in the future.

I can't give you a future reason why regulation is required because I cannot predict what noxious substances scientists/businessx will come up with.

But let's implement a comprehensive regulatory safety net before they do come up with the next DDT or what ever.

But not just noxious chemical but regulation of all the technologies that are currently being developed as a short term quick fix for climate change and all our other mounting global environmental problems.

By reaching for short term quick fixes scientists are pushing us towards a crash in the human population rather than moving us away from it. I.E. Scientists are facilitating society to avoid fixing the underlying structural problems of western society - over population and over consumption. On such matters we need to put an end scientific individualism and start implementing a globally coordinated scientific strategy on climate change etc that gets all scientists singing from the same hym book. Central to that global strategy will be human population reduction and management.

And some sort of global regulatory body for science and scientists is required for that.

If disease, lack of medicine was the only population controls then they would have still ended up like Easter Island. Why use population control methods like abortion, and infanticide if disease was already removing enough people? If they did not practice silviculture they would not have had any trees. They built irrigation systems, refined intensive farming systems where they had plentiful food for everyone.

 

 

I couldnt find any info on the web about the History of New Guinea, but heres another similar Island where the people have lived sustainably for about 3000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikopia

How do you know how many boom bust cycles there have been in 3000 years? They have certainly lived there for that long but you can't assume that their civilisation has been entirely stable, happy and harmonious for all that time. They may have just been luckier than the esater islanders in disease taking a greater toll on their infants or the resource base being more substantial.

And any way. IF you read Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters you would realise that central highlands New Guinea society is far from happy and harmonious.

They had fringe dwellers in the surrounding mountains who preyed upon the farmers, i.e. canibals.

They had a well developed system of retribution involving entire families and multiple generations that no doubt took a signficant toll on young reproductive males in particular.

They was a high level of xenophobia between tribes and familes.

This as well as starvation, epidemics, war and genocide etc are mother nature's methods of population control and she will eventually take global human population control out of our hands if we fail to manage it ourselves.

I realize this is cross-posted, but to be clear:

 

Pyrolysis directly addresses the "heart of our problems," which is managing the balance of carbon--and the balance of food, fuel, and fiber--in the global biogeochemosphere.

 

 

 

The heart of our problems is that there are two many people burning fossil fuels and felling forrests in the first place. If we were not clearing forests at an astronomical rate there would be no need to attempt to artificially sequester carbon via pyrolysis.

New guinea people were not scientists, yet they solved these problems. Its nothing to do with intelligence that these problems are not being solved. People have to see that their is a problem. You can see that people are responsive to these things. The popularity of FairTrade food. Increase in recycling, and lots of other things. The main impediment is governments and companies.

They solved nothing. Disease/lack of modern medicine and no ability to increase food production through technology has kept their numbers in check. Perfect ecological balance. Modern medicine and technology disturbs ecological balance, and the sooner westerners acknowledge this the better off we will all be.

I agree about the possibility of new industries, but what exactly would they be and whom would pay for them?

 

It seems like you would need a dictator to implement some of these changes, to limit growth, and create new industries. Its almost a contradiction. Except that we already have governments and corporations whom function as dictators under the pretence of democracy.

I dread to think that you are right calabi, that it will take suspension of democracy for several decades in order to alter are current disaterous path. But that would require we get a very benevolent and environmentall aware dictatorship.......unlikely. Perhaps we will just have to settle for a dictatorship that simply removes much of the incentive to procreate for the majority of people.

Maybe you missed the second half of that title (after the 2050 date)... "while greatly reducing environmental damage."

 

That is sort of the main point really. The green revolution was about a few making lots of money by feeding extra people while destroying the environment.

This new knowledge allows many people to make a little money by feeding planned people while fixing the environment.

 

 

 

recall - over 30% of GHG emissions can be managed through land-use sectors.

 

~ ?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the carbon sequestration that is perpetually just another decade away.

The above is a pipe dream rather than a practical possibility.

Another technological band aid that will briefly reduce the pain until the global wound becomes positively gangrenous.

 

I dont know if thats an official law or something but I dont think its in our nature to just use up resources. Many Island peoples, New Guinea for one example have lived for 60,000 years or so with finite resources. They used many methods, abortions, infanticides, silviculture, drainage, fallow(as a few examples), to keep them sustainable in the environment.

 

Of course the country is screwed up now but thats mainly our fault. Maybe we europeans are inferior.

The vast majority of humans are not educated in science, or more particularly ecology, and are not even aware that that they behave the same way as any other animal regarding reproduction and food supplies.

The human population has continually expanded and crashed in response to food supplies since it evolved. The latest in increase in food supply has resulted from oil derived energy but the 'oil bubble' is not going to last.

The vast majority of humans are no longer hunter gatherers/agriculturalists and are not living within their ecological means.

The only way that current populations can be sustained is by taking resources from distant parts of the globe, often from less technologically developed peoples.

Right. No, that doesn't sound good.

 

New industries need the demand first. This is all predicated on a global recognition of the value of carbon, which is where global education and cooperation are needed. Our future will be determined by how we manage carbon. As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based economy and ecosystem, it only seems to make sense. Plus it is the only sense that makes things viable in the long term, so either we will eventually figure this out... or not.

 

New Industries can produce (directly or indirectly) food, fuel and fiber, by managing the balance of carbon that cycles between the atmospheric and soil pools. Neat, huh?

 

Pyrolysis is the key to these new industries. Specifically, reductive pyrolysis....

 

 

While this book does not go into the details of reductive pyrolysis, the title suggests the direction we need to be moving.

 

~

Just another technological band aid that does not address the heart of our problems and that cannot and will not last.

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could).

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

 

I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but....

C'mon...

...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now?

There are currently about 7 billion humans on Earth, perhaps a few billion of whom are affluent and have low fertility.

The global ecosystem is already crumbling under the weight of our collective consumption so what makes you think that it withstand further increases in consumption so that you can 'develop' the third world and hopefully reduce their fertility.

What makes you think that high standard of living is the sole determinant of fertility? There are many cultural factors that are independant of standard of living.

Since Norman Borlaug's green revolution we have dismally failed to develop the third world and reduce its fertility. The global population is triple what it was and poverty and human suffering is more widespread. What makes you think we are likely to be any more successful with development now?

Seems like you flogging a dead horse to me.

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could).

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

 

I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but....

C'mon...

...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now?

 

 

And that is all correct, but what other option is there?

It needs to be noted that the "green" revolution is at the root of many of today's current resource problems, so this new information (within the past decade) about land use does provide a new option...

 

 

 

I would suggest that scientists take their focus off providing more food and put it on developing better and cheaper contraceptives and more efficient means of distributing and administering them at the very least.

http://en.wikipedia....DDT_and_malaria

 

Here's is some info on the subject. I don't believe you should use DDT as your base argument for this thread Greg. It was first compounded in the late 1800's. Try to hold that guy responsible. It was found to be a popular insectiside starting in the 1930's. Hard to hold those responsible too. Not to mention that there are only connections (not proof) between that drug and illnesses in the regions DDT levels were over normal. I'm sure you could find similar connections like that all over the place.

 

 

 

Secondly, those medical boards do not regulate the science behind the drug itself. Before a drug can be cleared it has to undergo a battery of tests to decide whether or not it is harmfull to the general public. I belive it is the drug company that brings it to this point and not the particular scientist. As we've found out through trial and error, there are no sure ways to cover the scope that a drug or chemical may have. How would you propose to come up with a test that says this product will not hurt anyone or anything EVER? It's impossible. We have to look at the general field that a product is applied to and go from there. The only way to hold a company at fault would be if they knowingly withheld information or were negligable when announcing a products use. Then it would amount to a criminal misdeed instead of an unintentional oversight.

 

People being held acountable for wanting to know how the world works is an absolutely rediculous thing to want. It's like saying that Newton is responsible for every plane crash and dumbass that jumps off a bridge to their death. It's like saying the inventor of rope should be accountable for inventing a way for people to off themselves throughout its existance. Or maybe the companies that make rope should be held accountable. I'm sure we could apply some sort of sciences to the application of using a rope for hanging. Therefore it would fall into the catagory of science, and is to be held accountable for future incident. Make sense?

Drug companies employ scientists to 'clear' new drugs before they can bring them to drug trials. Therefore the medical authorities are effectively regulating the scientists employed by the drug company.

My critics do not seem to want to hear this so I will again repeat it!

I am suggesting the scientific regulation be fosused on applied science, such as drugs developement and insecticide product development and genetically modified crops, rather than on pure research, such as 'how the world works'.

PErhaps if there was adequate scientific regulation in the 1930s then DDT would never have been developed as an insecticide and there would no dilemma as to who to attribute blame for it to now.

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people.

 

"In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment."

"By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide."

As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain.

 

 

 

This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy.

===

 

 

 

The New Scientist article mentioned:

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

 

===

Population isn't the critical part of the problem now.

Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected.

 

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

===

 

Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

Population growth has barely been constrained.

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people.

 

"In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment."

"By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide."

As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain.

 

 

 

This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy.

===

 

 

 

The New Scientist article mentioned:

 

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity."

 

Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes).

Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes).

 

===

Population isn't the critical part of the problem now.

Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected.

 

"And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution."

===

 

Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

Check you history Essay.

Norman Borlaug intended his green revolution to provide more food for the third world long enough for the west to "tame the third world population dragon" as he put it.

But that is not what happened. Rather than successfully taming the third world population dragon, the green revolution caused the global popultion to triple from about 2 billion at the time to around 6 billion.

Ecology 101 states that the population of any species will always expand to take up the available food supply and then crash when that food supply is exhausted. Humans are no different.

There is every reason to believe that, if scientists successfully increase food production further, the human population will again expand to take up that additional food supply and so further compound our global problems.

some experiments require an inert atmosphere. does anybody know how one can be achieved at home easily?

You might be able to get old a small cylinder of helium gas, used to blow up helium ballons, and flush out most of the air from your container.

Of cource not but how does this argue my point? I didn't say the system shouldn't be in place just that idea's will be lost. (edit) The point being that ethics has it's place and shouldn't be used where it can only hinder.

Read my post in "Earth Science" titled "Limits to growth" taken from an article in the Scientific American.

The reason for my suggesting this is that the current poorly regulated and wild west nature of the scientific enterprise is accelerting us towards what this article is predicting will happen rather than saving us from it.

All our current global problems are caused by our misuse and overuse of technology to treat the symptoms of over population and over consumption. In solving one problem we create a worst problem that future generations must contend with. For example oil energy increased food production etc only to bring about global warming. DDT to reduce crop losses only to threaten the extinction of birds of prey and perhaps increase the instance of diabetes and cancer.

Politicians and legislators are continually playing catch up with scientists and the new technologies they develop. And as long as science continues to provide short term ban aid solutions we will collectively never address the underlying structural problems - over population and over consumption.

Therefore science and scientists should be subject to self regulation and restraint in a similar way that the medical profession is.

Again, establish that they are ignorant.

Come on swansont. Are you really going to sit here and argue that the average african is as educated and savy about DDT as you are?

In advocaing the use of a highly dangerous chemical the onus is on you to prove that africans are adequately aware of the dangers and freely choose to use it. The people whose houses you wish to spray DDT on, not the corrupt african politicians who he tell you that you can use it on their people.