Climate in the 21st Century

printer said:

Fertility rate, 2.1 is the replacement rate to keep the population stable. India 2.2, Indonesia 2.3, Iran 2.2, are getting close to breaking even. The rest of the countries have been "incorrectly" labelled "shit hole countries". I would guess their replacement rate might be higher than 2.1. From this it looks like developed countries run a deficit on replacement population.

1

China

1,439,323,776

1.7

2

India

1,380,004,385

2.2

3

United States

331,002,651

1.8

4

Indonesia

273,523,615

2.3

5

Pakistan

220,892,340

3.6

6

Brazil

212,559,417

1.7

7

Nigeria

206,139,589

5.4

8

Bangladesh

164,689,383

2.1

9

Russia

145,934,462

1.8

10

Mexico

128,932,753

2.1

11

Japan

126,476,461

1.4

12

Ethiopia

114,963,588

4.3

13

Philippines

109,581,078

2.6

14

Egypt

102,334,404

3.3

15

Vietnam

97,338,579

2.1

16

DR Congo

89,561,403

6.0

17

Turkey

84,339,067

2.1

18

Iran

83,992,949

2.2

19

Germany

83,783,942

1.6

20

Thailand

69,799,978

1.5

21

United Kingdom

67,886,011

1.8

22

France

65,273,511

1.9

23

Italy

60,461,826

1.3

24

Tanzania

59,734,218

4.9

25

South Africa

59,308,690

2.4

Population by Country (2024) - Worldometer

List of countries and dependencies in the world ranked by population, from the most populated. Growth rate, median age, fertility rate, area, density, population density, urbanization, urban population, share of world population.

www.worldometers.info

Or more fun, interactive map. Hover mouse over the country to see the rate. Just looking at the colors on the map says a lot.

Total Fertility Rate 2024

Click to expand...

The question though is why would we want to keep the population stable? With half as many people on earth, half as much smog, garbage, etc, the better this place would be...

Antidote Man said:

The question though is why would we want to keep the population stable? With half as many people on earth, half as much smog, garbage, etc, the better this place would be...

Click to expand...

That is one of the few things you've ever said that i've agreed with.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

That is one of the few things you've ever said that i've agreed with.

Click to expand...

well... thank you then I guess

Sickofitall420247 said:

Such as? Maybe the Africans need to stop breeding so much?

Click to expand...

And what is it that has them having more babies?

Antidote Man said:

The question though is why would we want to keep the population stable? With half as many people on earth, half as much smog, garbage, etc, the better this place would be...

Click to expand...

Never said it was a bad thing. The one problem is our society is based on consumption. More growth than last year. With less people, less growth. We will need a new system.

printer said:

And what is it that has them having more babies?



Never said it was a bad thing. The one problem is our society is based on consumption. More growth than last year. With less people, less growth. We will need a new system.

Click to expand...

We will need less people, I say. The question is who's going to go first...

Antidote Man said:

We will need less people, I say. The question is who's going to go first...

Click to expand...

the poor...they always go first
the wealthy can afford to live in protected circumstances, and the middle class, what little of it still exists, will be able to hold out longer than the poor.
Of course, once it advances to resource wars, who knows what will happen.

Antidote Man said:

The question though is why would we want to keep the population stable? With half as many people on earth, half as much smog, garbage, etc, the better this place would be...

Click to expand...

Waste per person is not a fixed quantity, even assuming a high standard of living. The “strip-mine, manufacture, consume, discard” modus of my youth is beginning to change.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

the poor...they always go first
the wealthy can afford to live in protected circumstances, and the middle class, what little of it still exists, will be able to hold out longer than the poor.
Of course, once it advances to resource wars, who knows what will happen.

Click to expand...

I think it would collapse that way. If we got rid of the the poor, who would do all the shit jobs that nobody else will do? I say we get rid of the rich.

And, as things go, if they make AI that can repair themselves and one another, and do all the shit jobs that nobody wants, and just for shits and giggles we're allowed to beat them and treat them as slaves to show our superior dominance, I think in a few thousands years things might level out and we can all do what we want as they serve us...

Antidote Man said:

I think it would collapse that way. If we got rid of the the poor, who would do all the shit jobs that nobody else will do? I say we get rid of the rich.

And, as things go, if they make AI that can repair themselves and one another, and do all the shit jobs that nobody wants, and just for shits and giggles we're allowed to beat them and treat them as slaves to show our superior dominance, I think in a few thousands years things might level out and we can all do what we want as they serve us...

Click to expand...

A smart toaster becomes a rebellious toaster.

Antidote Man said:

I think it would collapse that way. If we got rid of the the poor, who would do all the shit jobs that nobody else will do? I say we get rid of the rich.

And, as things go, if they make AI that can repair themselves and one another, and do all the shit jobs that nobody wants, and just for shits and giggles we're allowed to beat them and treat them as slaves to show our superior dominance, I think in a few thousands years things might level out and we can all do what we want as they serve us...

Click to expand...

Thousand?

printer said:

Thousand?

Click to expand...

he gets his science from cable sci-fi

Sickofitall420247 said:

Such as? Maybe the Africans need to stop breeding so much?

Click to expand...

The world is much better off as white rednecks drink their way to whiskey dick.

printer said:

And what is it that has them having more babies?



Never said it was a bad thing. The one problem is our society is based on consumption. More growth than last year. With less people, less growth. We will need a new system.

Click to expand...

It's about time for us to figure that out.

a yawn out of me

Antidote Man said:

I think it would collapse that way. If we got rid of the the poor, who would do all the shit jobs that nobody else will do? I say we get rid of the rich.

And, as things go, if they make AI that can repair themselves and one another, and do all the shit jobs that nobody wants, and just for shits and giggles we're allowed to beat them and treat them as slaves to show our superior dominance, I think in a few thousands years things might level out and we can all do what we want as they serve us...

Click to expand...

You speak as if we have a choice...When shit goes sideways, you get out of the way or you get crushed.
Trying to control the demise of billions of people is a fantasy, when it starts, it won't follow any plans or rules, the weakest will die of heat prostration, the rest will die from starvation and lack of water...which will lead to resource wars, where desperate people will perform desperate acts to survive.
There will be no controlling such a thing.

I was wondering what a couple of recent breakthroughs in perovskite solar cells would do for the longevity of this technology, which has been the main issue with it, and how it would compare with current silicone lifespans.

Although the tests were only conducted for a matter of months, the fact that the treated cells barely lost any efficiency at all suggests they should be able to endure for far longer. Along with another recent coating was estimated to give perovskite solar cells a 30-year lifetime, this plucky new contender might have patched up its Achilles heel and soon challenge silicon for solar supremacy.

How Dead EV Batteries are Perfect for Energy Storage

It’s been nice to see the growing popularity of electric vehicles these last few years, but EVs need batteries and batteries don’t last forever. In fact, the first generation of EV batteries are already dying, and there's an absolute dead battery typhoon coming. Lithium battery recycling is improving, but it's still far from where it needs to be. Luckily there's another option that's pretty simple. Just take those used batteries and repurpose them for less demanding large scale energy storage. That's exactly what’s happening at a recently opened 25 MWh grid scale energy storage system in California. But if these batteries are “dead,” how are they able to bring new life to renewable energy storage?

I think since recharging stations pumping a lot of kilowatts into EVs will need some kind of protection from the rain, that anything solar panel covered should also be used for shelter from the elements. Most gas stations have such shelters from the elements already and recharging an EV with hundreds of volts could be dangerous in the pouring rain. These solar trees don't provide shade or shelter and appear expensive to construct.

cannabineer said:

what happened in AD 357? My history is a bit threadbare.

Click to expand...

A turning point in history where Julian, Constatine’s nephew, defeated the union of great Germanic warrior tribes and expelled them from their homeland north of Italy and the Rhineland, ironically as the last pagan emperor opening the gates for centuries of barbaric christianization in many centuries to follow. iirc of course