Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

Tweaking your chime a wee bit... can't you admit that religion has
been the cause of most wars and most ills of the world ?:-)

Nope. Money is the cause of most wars. For example, the history of
the Crusades is more about plunder than religion. However, I will
admit that religion makes a good cover story.

As for the ills of the world, the basic problem is that the planet has
too many people. I have no idea what to do about that. Hopefully, I
won't be around when someone tries to solve that problem.

Drivel: Not too many years ago, mankind looked to religion for the
answers to his problems. Today, mankind seems to be look at religion
as the cause of his problems. That's a fairly impressive switch in
perhaps 150 years.

Just goes to show how adaptable the human race is, which is probably a
damn good thing,

Are you sure it's human adaptability that's prevented a meltdown and
not improved technology? Methinks technology has saved our posterior
from disaster so many times in the past, that we're taking continuous
progress for granted. That may not be true as we seem to again be
running out of everything (and what's left is polluted).

except for the hoodwinking of the west about AGW (the
Asians, Chinese and Japanese don't give a damn about it I notice btw).

You had to throw that in. I've been ignoring the never ending AGW
thread because it has become so repetitive.

Here's a thought experiment for you. If we don't downsize our
technology or lifestyle very much, what would you guess would be a
good sustainable number for the world population? Extra credit for
suggesting how we should get there. (I've worked out my guess, but
hesitate to post it as my reputation is already at an all time low).

Aside from some parts of Africa and countries like Australia and New Zealand
I expect we're pretty close to the maximum sustainable figure as it is, using
oil based products. Lose the readily available oil (or continue to use it
unwisely / wastefully) and those numbers will have to reduce.

Graham