Date:         Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:08:38 -0500
Reply-To:     "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: Was!! now that it's Friday! Now: Rant!!

your 2 were claimed right here in the united states. world population is
growing at 1.4%/y, united states population by 1.1%/y. not only is neither
growth rate sustainable for long, even 0%/y growth is not sustainable for
long because the production of petroleum, our main energy source,
absolutely vital for modern industry, especially agriculture, is now
beginning its descent to zero.

dlk

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:08:43 -0500, Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU> wrote:

>Uh, your clocks are all wrong, it's still Friday, right????
>
>I have a friend whose response to this problem is to rant "boxes of
condoms
>on every street corner!!!!!"
>
>I haven't added to the global problem, but my two were claimed by a woman
in
>Africa or South Asia whose husband wouldn't let her use the condoms
because
>his brood demonstrated his virility.
>
>
>Joy
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Joy Hecht
>and Matilda, 1989 Burgundy Vanagon
>and Henrietta, sad-eyed orangutan who waltzes with Matilda and me
>and Bicycle and Kayak, who ride on Matilda
>and my 2002 green Prius, waiting for our return from the vanadventures
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
>Of Daniel L. Katz
>Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:23 AM
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: Re: Was!! now that it's Friday! Now: Rant!!
>
>
>yes, growth is phenomenal. united states population is some
>294 million, and growing at the rate of 1.1%/y, or approxiamtely 3.3
>million per year, which is roughly census 2000 for the entire state of
>oregon. if you think about it, 2%/y growth would imply adding roughly the
>average population of an entire state per year(since 1 is 2% of 50), so 1%
>growth is closer to the population of 1 less populated state, such as
>oregon. relative to current energy consumption, this means we are
>increasing consumption, each year, by approximately the consumption of the
>entire state of oregon. this is nuts.
>
>dlk