Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 May 2001 13:22:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> I would rather have a plague that wiped half the planet's population (or left
> 90% of the women infertile) than a catastrophe that might wipe us ALL out, or
> take us below the sustainable population level.
Tom, let me see if I understand your reasoning for suggesting the 90%
female infertility rate. What you're suggesting seems to be:
Given 100 fertile women and 100 fertile men, the effective maximum
(barring twins and/or technological intervention) number of children brought
forth in a 9-month period is 100.
Given 100 fertile women and 100 men--90 of whom are sterile--the effective
maximum number of children brought forth in a 9-month period is also 100.
However, given 100 women--90 of whom are sterile--and 100 fertile men (or
a billion, for that matter), the effective maximum number of children
brought forth in a nine-month period is 10. Am I reading you right?
At first glance I was a little put off by your suggestion (and it still
doesn't thrill me to think of it in anything but theoretical terms), but
upon consideration I realized that your math-reasoning seems sound. I
mention this because others might read your 90% figure and react with the
same knee-jerk outrage that I felt (however, I read your post while I was at
home and wasn't able to post a reply until I got to work--when a cooler head
had prevailed).
Again, I'm squeamish about the 90% figure as a real-world solution, but in
a thought-experiment it's not completely far-fetched.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
