Greg Boyles

MnO4- + 8 H+ +5 e- Mn2+ + 4 H2O 1.51 is an oxidising agent and the Fe2+ is able to be oxidised is the simplest answer. I remember the rules with E0 values in electrolysis etc when figuring out which reactions will take place at the anode and cathode, but I don't remember what the rules are with them when figuring out if a particular redox reaction will take place.

That exactly what I meant, but just chose to express it more creatively. Don't doubt that for a second and it is truly amazing what we have managed to unravel from the mystrery of our denes. But what we do currently know is still the tip of the iceberg compared to what we are yet to figure out, hence our understanding is as yet relatively rudimentary.

Just provided some evidence but you have chosen to ignore it, just as I chose to ignore yours. It is just a case of competing statistics ad norseum.

I really don't think that whether or not drought causes famine is the subject of debate in the genuine scientific community! Like I said, debating science as it applies to human over population with some one with a religious agenda is an exercise in futility. If I new this about anyone then I simply would not bother engaging with them. I in my opinion everyone whould lay their cards on the table so we can all see exactly where each is coming from. After all that is precisely what happens in all non internet forum public debates. No one participates without their credentials and their vocation being stated up front by the chair. So what has anyone in here got to hide? http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html The poverty picture is not as rosie as you prefer to paint it.

I don't think it is possible to have a non-emmotional debate about this subject. For starters there is a great deal of christain bagage that inevitably comes out in the form of refusal to accept that the biolgical and ecological rules that apply to all other species don't apply to humans. We are special because we were created in the image of god and given dominion over the earth and that god will protect us, seems to have been replaced by human ingenuity and technology will save humans from ecological catastrophe. I have just had a debate in the political forum as whether or not drought and reduction in local food production is A cause of famine for example. That smacks to me of the 'miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish' in the gospel of john.......as in emergency aid which might become a problem with the global food shortage. Same problem with climate change debate. A lot of emmotive baggage is brought to the debate - economic baggage, religious baggage, personal wealth baggage......

If you won't acknowledge that famines at least CAN be caused by drought and the resulting reduction in food production, without specific evidence other than the basics of ecology, then I see little point in debating further with you. Because in that case it is clear to me that you most likely have an underlying religious agenda here. And there is little point in debating biology and ecology with the faithful! Would you care to lay your cards on the table Jeskill? Are you a practicising christian and/or involved with a christian aid organisation? There is no reasoning through biology and ecology with the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish" in the Gospel of John.

What would you like evidence for? That drought reduces local food production? Or that Somalia is suffering a severe drought? As previously stated, those who deny that the excessive number of humans is a major cause of poverty, and should be what we focus our efforts on, are as pedantic as those who do not want to acknowledge that humans are having some effect on the global climate. Unqualified, and often uneducated, self appointed 'experts' were a major cause of the muddying of the climate change debate, particularly in Australia. I have liitle doubt that similar unqualified, as in lacking the education to understand the biological and ecological basics and often with underlying religious agendas, will continue to muddy the over population debate.

Either you do not understand what inductive reasonong is or you are biolgically illiterate or both! As I said, name a single species that exhibits genuine monotonic growth. If you can then you can leitimately claim that my inductive reasoning is invalid. There are as many or more examples of worsening poverty as their are improvements. It is a pointless exercise in di#$ measuring via statistics. You don't set your own personal daily consumption based on a small windfall from tattslotto or what ever last week. Similarly you don't measure sustainability of food production by how many you can feed in the best of conditions and with the best of technology. A sustainable population level is that which can be comfortably in the worst of times, e.g. drought, with the simplest of technology. The average farmer understands the definition of sustainable when it comes to stocking his paddocks One day the penny will drop for you people and you to will finally understand the true definition of the word 'sustainable'. The Somalia famine IS cause by lack of local food production due to drought. For every statistic you can quote showing that global poverty has improved I could quote another showing that it has deteriorated. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/05/commodities-food-drink-industry According to the UN, lack of adequate food is a cause of political instability and famines.

That biologist pointed out that my conclusion cannot be drawn based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning. I pointed out that it CAN be drawn via INDUCTIVE reasoning! No I do not want to llisten to people like you as you make all the same pedantic, illigitimate and deceptive arguments as those who deny anthropogenic climate change. Over population will be the next major political battle front as is climate change at present. Dr Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colarado. A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH If any fraction of the observed global warming can be attributed to the activities of humans, then this constitutes positive proof that the human population, living as we do, has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth. THIS SITUATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE! AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT IS AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH THAT ALL PROPOSALS OR EFFORTS TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING OR TO MOVE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY ARE SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL FRAUDS IF THEY DO NOT ADVOCATE REDUCING POPULATIONS TO SUSTAINABLE LEVELS AT THE LOCAL, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL SCALES.

It is not fallacious DJBRuce. It is a valid conclusion arrived at via inductive reasoning given that bacteria and humans share a common ancestor and are subject to the same biological and ecological rules. End of subject! I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours, i.e. that poverty has increased as the global population has increased beyond the capacity of the green revolution to provide additional food. At what ecological cost. There are plenty of scientists, particularly ecologists and biologists, who would dispute such a conclusion. China is the only exception. I am referring to western governments in particular that think the only solution to third world poverty is more food and medicine. Fertility coontrol should be a integrated and compulsory component of any foreign aid provided by the west. Emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives amounts to little to late. The global population is widely expected to outstrip food production hence the UN is getting desperate and calling for a new green revolution. However in my opinion it will not prevent mass starvation, food wars and global migration. Perhaps we should follow China's lead and impose a global one child policy for a number of decades.

We have failed to eliminate poverty and educate girls by a mile with a population of 7 billion. The global population is expected to peak at 9-11 billion by 2050. We are facing global warming and peak oil. What evidence can anyone provide that we will be able to do better job with elimination of poverty and education of girls under those conditions? What evidence can you provide that we will even be able to feed that many people? Are you of the opinion that mass starvation is a better than, if necessary, compelling people to stop at 2 children?

Blah blah blah..... You wouldn't be the first to come up with that. I did not say that the third world should have no children, I said they should have less children or enabled to do so if they cannot. I have 2 children myself, and if everyone on Earth was encouraged or enabled to stop at two we would not be having this discussion! I find many of the answers provided are not good enough in the words of swansont. In other words fertility control is all to hard so we will just keep our fingers crossed and hope that global fertility declines enough before we run out of food and water.

Not at all. As I said he was well aware of the third world population dragon and unambiguously warned the world that his green revolution was not a total solution, in his nobel prize acceptance speech I believe. The failure has been more subsequent genertions of politicians and scientists who did not and are not taking his warning seriously. Perhaps Norman was being naive in believing that they would have the courage to do something about third world fertility.

Similar reason that zebras devloped hooves but primates didn't I guess. Different genetic make ups to start with so different horses for courses. As to precise reasons, genetic evolution is a complicated business and our understanding of it is as yet rather rudimentary.

Surely not every photon in the light you shine at the collection of atoms will strike the right electron and not every electron in an excited state will receive another photon at the right time to keep it in that excited state. So you always have a mixture of electrons entering an excited state and droping back from an excited state.

Great idea in theory - I have no doubt it would work. But my problem with this strategy alone is as follows..... Norman Borlaug warned the world, at the height of his green revolution in the 50s and 60s, that he had bought us perhaps a few decades to tame the third world population dragon, as he put it. Since that time the worlds politicians have pretty much sat around with their thumbs up their ar$holes too afraid that they will upset some people by suggesting they should have fewer children. We may have to face the prospect that there are just to many people in poverty now to make the above a logistically practical response that will acheive a large enough reduction in fertility in a short enough time.

Given the weight of human history against us and the sheer number of civilisations that have risen and fallen I doubt that western civilisation will be any different. But I hold out some hope that we will be the first civilisation where intellect and rationality wins out over the base instincts and emotive irrationality of the human mob. And it is no longer about human ingenuity, it is about humans humbly sticking to their place within evolutionary creation. Every problem we face is a result of previous rounds of human ingenuity that has allowed the human population to expand ever increasing the poker stakes. Sooner or later we will bust and there will be an unthinkable amount of human misery and suffering as a result. Well perhaps the scientific community needs to take responsibility in recognizing the greed and foolishness of the non-scientific community before they go releasing their research or even undertaking it! I guess it comes down to the magnitude of the harm caused by their inventions. The above example is of local harmful effects if misused. DDT represents globalalised harm with any use. Yadda yadda yadda. Politicians blame scientists, scientists blame polticians,............. How about the scientific community, with its greater intellect, adopt more responsibility for the human race. They are in a position of power and power without responsibility is dangerous. 9 billion is the UN's most optimistic prediction. Their predictions range up to 10-11 billion I think. We are already suffering signficant food shortages now Essay with 7 billion or so. I believe that most efforts should go towards fertility reduction and some to more efficient resource management. As I have said previously, there are physical limits to how efficient you can use resources. So focusing on that and assuming that the global population will stabilise at a managable level us rather foolish in my opinion. A bit like trading up on your house with the assumption you will soon be on a higher wage.

They still have a limited lifespan, even if a long one, and will eventually cease growing. Every species eventually loses the battle for life. One way or another life is always self limiting. As will the human race, either by our own hands or at the hands of mother nature. So why don't we stop the childish charade that we can put off doing anything about our numbers indefinitely.

The manufacturers of DDT were just doin their job providin products people wanted. So were the manufacturers of asbestos buildin products. Their products were later found to be toxic and carcinogenic They are now required to pay compensation for failure to consider the unforseen consequences of their business activities. Perhaps the scientists involved in developing them should also bare some responsibility. Similarly scientists involved in developing hiher yielding crops will give politicians another excuse to not act on over population that will have far reaching consequences for human kind. Perhaps they should bare some of the responsibility for those consequences. What has been previously said about those having the power also baring the responsibility...... But they are not an example of monotonic growth are they swansont?????? There are no examples of monotonic growth on planet earth. There is always and internal bioloical or external ecoloical process that prevents it. Even a malignant tumour causes the death of the host and its growth is terminated.

Closing the borders......attacking a straw man gain. In Australia at least there is absolutley no need to close our national borders. Zero net population growth does not necessarily equal zero immigration. An annual immigration intake of around 50,000 in the absence of baby bonuses etc would most likely mean that Australia would be in zero net population growth. With the aging population and expected increased death rate we could probably bump up are immigration intake for a few decades. As in Melbourne the vast majority of new home buyers are overseas students that have gained permanent residency. Perhaps in SE QLD a proportion of them are retirees and those whose employment is related to the mines up there. Restriction on mining companies getting skilled immigrants would also mean that mining activity would be reduced and some of the resources left in the ground for future generations. Besides if property prices and the cost of living remains high in QLD, and there is reduced mining activity and jobs, then people will be less likely to want to live there. Problem solved without closing state borders. And Tim Flannery was Australian of the Year so your opinion of him is rather irrelevant!

Or the appropriate education to comprehend the issues, e.g. econimist or business background politicians being in charge of environmental portfolios! A big part of the problem is that they pander to the lowest common poorly educated denominator is society and unfortunately that is rather a lot of us. That lowest common denominator responds more to emotion and irrationality than it does to science and common sense. Hence remove the voting rights from that segement and the current crop of idiot politicians no longer have a client base. They can earn back that right to vote if they improve their education level, including perhaps some ethics. Some body posted that Socrates or some other famous ancient philosopher thought that democracy or rule of the mob was the worst form of government. Particularly with the climate change issue he has a point. Classic case in Victoria...... Those fwits Steve Bracks and John Brumby push for population growth in Victoria and therefore have to be seen to be doing something about the severe water shortages that it (combined with the drought) causes and hence they order the Wonthaggi desalination plant which results in everyone's water bills rising dramatically to pay for it. Then it rains and the desalination plant is not needed but they have left no means of escape from the contract for tax payers. And what's more they have allowed the developers to get more money than quoted if they have cost overruns. Then they are turfed out of office and bear no further responsibility for their f up. Why didn't they put the brakes on immigration into Victoria by taking us off the priority list during the drought. Then perhaps they would not have had to order the desalination plant.

The population will NOT stabilise so long as you keep providing additional water. That is nature of all animal species - they will ALWAYS expand their population to take up available resources. And then they crash when those resources fall below levels necessary to sustain that population. Human beings collectively as a species are like all other animal species - they have little or no awareness of long term future and do npt plan their affair in the event of possible or probable resource shortages. We have a very simple solution in Australia! Simply slash the immigration level to levels required for zero net population growth. The demand for residential property in QLD will plummet and there wioll be no need to build any further dams. Of course the building sector will be up in arms to see their cash flow destroyed. But then who the f cares about it - it's interests are not inline with the long term interests of this nation! They can all go and retrain and get jobs that are actually useful for the long term future of Australia. As for Australia's long term sustainable population limits....... Tim Flannery has quoted a figure of 12 million. I would guestimate it is some where between 12 million and 20 million. But until a proper SCIENTIFIC (not economic) enquiry is carried we will never know what the figure is.

Perhaps voting should be a privaledge that can be earned by anyone through education and recommendation by peers rather than an automatic right. As to how to setup up such a system so that the political and business classes do not entirely control who gets the vote, I don't know.

OK so the QLD government builds another 10 dams and the QLD population continues to grow. At some point QLD will again run out of fresh water for its population. What then JohnB? Build another 10 dams, and then another 10 and then 10 desalination plants?????? At what point do you propose that it end and that we stabilise the QLD population?

More pointless argument about the arrangement of the deck chair on the titanic! Humans may not occupy every ecological niche on Earth, but we clearly effect every ecological niche on Earth and reduce biodiverity in them. Through organochlorine pollution, e.g. DDT and Dieldrin, through introduction of exotic pest animals and plants e.g. rabbits and foxes and noxious weeds, through the removal of biomass from niches we do not occupy e.g. logging of forest, through building of dams and flooding of entire ecosystems and through climate change due to our CO2 emissions. The fact that the UN is talking about global food shortages and the need for another green revolution to cope with the global population blowing out to 9-10 billion is MORE than enough evidence to realise that the human race is running out of food. Did the passengers of the titanic require the evidence of sea water creeping up their legs to accept that their ship was sinking? No, so don't be so bloody well pedantic! If you are an over popoulation denier then understandably you do not want another group with the political power to derail your own short term interests. If so then TOUGH - time for you to move over and share the policy table with a group with a higher quality world view. If you are a scientist yourself then perhaps your species and your civilisation can no longer afford you indulging yourself in the luxury of not getting involved in politics! No. But others before you on other forums have mounted the argument that some particularly long lived species do represent examples of unrestrained growth, e.g. those bristle pines that represent thousands of years of growth. Since they are not thousands of metres tall or thousands of metres wide some environmental mechanism is consuming their tissue at a similar rate at which they are producing new tissue. Hence I now deliberately specify 'monotonic growth' as opposed to long lived boom bust cycles of growth.