We have previous written three lists on this topic and it is always a very popular one. This time we look at facts that are very commonly held but completely wrong. Feel free to add your own to the comments for others to read. If you want to read over the previous lists, here they are:
Top 10 Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
10 More Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
Another 10 Fascinating Facts That Are Wrong
The error: We have five body senses – sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste.
These are the traditional five senses, but there are in fact many more – some say up to 21. Obvious additions to the list are balance, pain, and temperature. Furthermore, we have internal senses which traditionally number four: imagination, memory, common sense (not to be confused with commonsense which many people lack!), and the estimative power. Mythverse has a very interesting article which covers a number of senses seldom mentioned. You can read that here.
The error: A rainbow has seven colors
We are, no doubt, all familiar with the old phrase “Roy G. Biv” used to remember the colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. This series of colors was coined by Newton who initially excluded indigo and violet. While a rainbow does appear to have seven colors, it is, in fact, one continuous spectrum of color and it is merely an artifact of human color perception that makes it appear to be a series of bands. There are also things called supernumerary rainbows which have more than 7 bands visible to the human eye (pictured above – note the extra green and purple bands at the bottom of the rainbow).
The error: Drinking alcohol warms you up
This is entirely untrue – yet it is still commonly seen as an antidote to coldness in movies, and people still believe the myth about the St Bernard dogs with casks of liquor around their necks! In fact, when you drink alcohol, your body temperature drops! This is because alcohol allows more blood to reach the surface of the body, and more heat is radiated or conducted away. Any feeling of warmth experienced after drinking alcohol is explained by the fact that this flow of blood to the surface warms the skin and the ends of the sensory nerves in the skin, and these convey to the brain a sensation of warmth. The fact that alcohol actually lowers the temperature of the body was first announced by Sir B. Ward Richardson in 1866 to the British Association. [Source]
The error: Small earthquakes can reduce the chance of a big one
There is a common myth (particularly in New Zealand where earthquakes are common) that if you have a lot of small earthquakes, it helps to alleviate the pressures building up that can cause a big one. But this is not true. Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5′s, 1000 magnitude 4′s, 32,000 magnitude 3′s to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are never enough to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. [Source]
The error: You must wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming
While there is a theoretical concern based on the fact that the body diverts the circulation of blood to the gut and away from the muscles that this might possibly cause a cramp, no one has ever drowned because they went swimming with a full tummy. Going swimming after eating a big meal might make you uncomfortable, but it won’t cause you to drown. And even if you did get a cramp, in most cases you could easily exit the water before any real damage is done.
The error: The earth is dangerously overpopulated or is getting close to being so
This is a myth which has been around for quite some time – from the Anglican minister Malthus in the 18th century who said: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” to environmentalists who see humans as evil in comparison to the rest of nature. But, in truth, the world is a big place with plenty of space. So, how much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. If we used the American average of 8,000 square feet to four people, the entire population of the planet would fit into a space as big as Texas and Nevada combined – leaving the rest of the land for food production and entertainment venues. I should also mention that many countries in the west are now in a period of population implosion as families are getting smaller.
The error: Using a cellphone on a plane can cause interference and, consequently, a crash.
The FAA has tested all sorts of electronic devices for 25 years, at 100 times the RF interference levels—and nothing happened. The FAA simply states that no link between operating the devices has been proved. It’s been left up to the airlines to determine their own policy—and that policy is to put away your Blackberry. By using your cellphone during flight, you risk interfering with a flight crew—but the plane won’t crash. Consequently, some airlines are now allowing the use of cellphones during flights. [Source]
The error: When you get older, you become bad tempered
A recent study found that our personalities don’t change much after age 30. So, if you’re cheerful and gregarious in your 40s, you can expect to be the same in your 80s. Marked personality changes some seniors experience are due not to normal aging but to some related disease like dementia or stroke. This is something worth considering when you are planning to marry in your thirties – your future spouse probably behaves now the same way he or she will for the rest of his or her life. [Source]
The error: Sushi is raw fish
Sushi does not mean raw fish, and not all sushi includes raw fish. The usual Japanese term for raw fish is sashimi. The term sushi actually refers to the way the rice is prepared with a vinegary dressing. Toppings for the rice may traditionally include raw fish—but also cooked seafood, fish roe, egg, or vegetables such as cucumber, daikon radish, or ume plum. The dish constituting sushi and other fillings wrapped in a seaweed is referred to as makizushi, not sushi.
The error: In the United States, a policeman must answer truthfully when asked if he is a cop
Entrapment law in the United States does not forbid police officers from denying that they are police. It is more concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not, in the normal course of events, have considered. This is an error that is frequently seen in movies – or perhaps it is just that films are realistically depicting people who believe the myth – though I doubt it.
EXCUSE ME… that last sentence in my last post should read:
NOW shut up and go away. You aren’t worth the time I wasted responding to you.
I don’t know if entrapment necessarily means making someone commit a crime they otherwise wouldn’t – I feel like that would only happen under duress. You wouldn’t normally shoot a person unless they were about to kill your mom or something, but at the same time no one can “make” you sell drugs or rob a store unless they were holding a gun to your head and that *would* be duress and would not hold up in court. So a lot of the crimes people commit are crimes they *would* commit, entrapment or not. The police just happen to be the drug-buyer at the time, or whatever else.
At #10 – Thanks for the explanation; makes sense if you are undercover to reveal yourself as such.
We only have 5 senses, all other “additional” senses are products of the 5 senses.
sense – a general conscious awareness
imagination – the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses; “popular imagination created a world …
imagination is a manifestation, an invention that can be molded into reality by the 5 senses.
Enjoyable list nonetheless
[footnote] imagination can only be created with the company of the 5 sense.
The issue being here is, that if you leave a car door open in a vacant parking lot, you are leaving [bait]for anyone to catch. This includes people who don’t normally commit these offenses who happen to just check out the scene… The idea of entrapping a suspect is the belief that “we’ll get em off the streets quicker” when in reality they recruit people at random who may have no history of offenses. Law is not a game and it is not a sport either, so the idea of baiting potential villains isn’t a correct way of sustaining order.
Wow. I’ve been reading these lists for quite awhile now, and have NEVER seen as much pontificating puffery as the “save the wales, save the world” crowd in here today.
Yes, some areas of the world suck as to living conditions. Reminds me of the the old (and fantastic) Sam Kinnison routine – “MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOOOOOD IS!!!!”
The planet itself is FAR from overpopulated, and we have the resources to provide for a LOT more people. So oil runs out. We either figure out how to efficiently use solar or go back to candles and horses. But we can still eat, and there’s PLENTY of water (and we’ve figured out how to filter and recycle it pretty spectacularly as well).
The reason it seems overpopulated is because people are social animals, and like to cram themselves together.
I’ve got a great, Sam Kinnisonian solution for all you greenies that are terrified of sustainability or overpopulation of the Earth. Leave.
That way the rest of us have more room and won’t have to listen to your whining nonsense.
Yeah, #5 is an outright mistruth as presented here (and much has changed since Malthus). At this point, the concerns are, in order: depletion of arable lands; disruption of elemental and climatological cycles in order to avert depletion of arable lands; health effects 9acute and chronic) or disruption of elemental and climatological cycles. Add in somewhere in there the estimated 80,000–130,000 synthetic and persistent industrial chemicals that now permeate the biosphere and the absence of their known effects, singly or in combination (hence research programs like the NTP, REACH, TSCA, and EDSP) and you have many unanswered questions about health and development across the spectrum of living things. Additionally, the summed global population continues to inflate unimpeded, in spite of the mild recession of population replacement in industrialized nations like Italy and Sweden.
Do better homework. Maybe consult people who work on these issues instead of only Wikipedia.
@Randall (116):
Get off this planet? You serious? Where do you suppose we go? Mercury … too hot, mars … nothing there to use, venus … too dangerous … the moon … too cold … see a pattern?
The world is on an obvious track collision with depletion of resources. With that said if we continue to exhaust natural resources (that are not a complete necessity of sustainability) we will have quite a deal of trouble when trade comes into the picture. If a situation were to occur that global trade became absent [world trade] we would have to sustain ourselves to survive, due to grocery stores lacking in restocks. people already are molding their own farming communities in their own backyards to maintain life once oil is finally gone, or if the continual imperial battle for it has a catastrophic end that will hit home [instead of the "rag heads" in the dusty bowls of iraq]. It’s a damn shame to hear people really lean up against something and have pride with an establishment that really has no care for who or what you are unless you aid them in their self centered and distorted goals.
Life on this planet is completely fulfilled by ego and its contamination with community, on a personal scale to a national one. this lifestyle has its outcomes, kind of like the way a parasite overkill’s its host.
If you honestly believe we are not over populated take a stroll in sao paolo, brasil. its where im from. It may just be one city on the planet, but there are cities scattered around the globe like confetti.
@robkellyj (128):
So… when they were handing out brains, rob, you were wandering around looking for candy?
Listen moron… it’s all well and good to take a blase attitude towards serious problems, but all that makes you is a waste of space, NOT a functioning member of society–let alone the human race as a whole. Nobody’s asking you to cry for starving children in Africa or to get worried about the extinction of the great horned owl. All that’s expected of you is that you stop for a minute and THINK. I realize that this might be a great novelty for someone such as yourself, who is clearly a piece of driftwood. But if you try it once, who knows… you might get the hang of it. Even come to like it.
“The planet itself is FAR from overpopulated,”
And what do you base that retarded averral? Glenn Beck told you so?
“and we have the resources to provide for a LOT more people.”
Name these resources. Where are they? I’ll give you a hint–you’re onto something. The resources DO exist. But guess what it takes to get at them? ENERGY JACKASS.
“So oil runs out. We either figure out how to efficiently use solar or go back to candles and horses.”
Oh, nothing to worry about then. Sure, we’ll just go back to the 19th century. Nobody’ll have a problem with that.
“But we can still eat,”
LISTEN, pinhead! The REASON we can feed ALL these people thus far is BECAUSE of our high technology. Take that away as you so blithely put it—go back to “horses and candles,” and we won’t BE ABLE to feed everyone anymore. GET IT?
For crying out loud—some days it seems like the average IQ of the average citizen is lower than shoe size.
“and there’s PLENTY of water (and we’ve figured out how to filter and recycle it pretty spectacularly as well).”
WRONG. Jerk.
In fact there is NOT “plenty” of water. Water, in fact, is scarce. Happen to notice how, this past summer, it was rare in Georgia? GEORGIA of all places. We’re not talking about Ethopia here, but in the Peach State (or whatever the hell Georgia is). Water is a constant struggle in some parts of the world–even in the developed world–even in the US…. because it is NOT easy to deal with shortages of it. Yes, we can clean up nasty waste water well, given ENERGY and TECHNOLOGY. But take away that energy and technology (see your earlier blather about “going back to horses and candles”) and lose a lot our ability to clean up the water. Not to mention that converting salt water to freshwater is EVEN now a prohibitively expensive process. Imagine it when things are worse.
“The reason it seems overpopulated is because people are social animals, and like to cram themselves together.”
NO… the reason it “seems” overpopulated is because it IS…. because demands for resources and energy are outstripping supply and our ability to produce them… and this is not getting better, but is getting worse.
“I’ve got a great, Sam Kinnisonian solution for all you greenies that are terrified of sustainability or overpopulation of the Earth. Leave.”
I’ve got an even better, and far more sensible solution, slimeball. YOU leave. You’re dragging down the level of average intelligence and probably polluting the gene pool.
Good list, Jamie!
@Taylor (130):
That’s a long-term solution, Taylor. Yup, you’re right, it might not be possible. We might not be able to use Mars. We might not be able to get out of the solar system to find other planets out in the cosmos. But I think better to try than to just throw in the towel when we don’t even know what’s out there—don’t you think?
Anyway, getting off the planet simply spreads us around so we don’t all get clobbered by a single calamity. The real solution is to keep advancing technology in terms of energy production so that we at the very least we can continue, for the foreseeable future, to defend ourselves from said calamities.
Maybe we can’t settle other worlds. But it’s worth trying.
The main thing, though, is to not take a blase attitude towards our problem. It’s a serious one. Extinction is the end result if we take the attitude of gliding along, hoping it all just “work out.”
Very good list! Fun to read!
Disagree with #5…
People take up so much resources and it would be one thing if everyone just had a building to live in. It is another thing for people to have corporate buildings and mini-malls.
We’ve already lost Tigers in the wild.. I ANTICIPATE more species will be lost due to human encroachment.
Also, #5 states that a lot of countries in the West are experiencing a population implosion. Uhm… which countries? So by decrease, do you mean from the normal family of 10 kids went down to 7 kids?
Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.
I’m not going to argue with you – it would certainly be amusing, but ultimately a time waster. I’ve debated obtuse idealogues like you before. It’s always the same old “whaaargaarrrrbl…”
And I’d pit my IQ against yours ANY day, kid.
@esamutash (112):
This is an interested question:
Do people not want to accept the fact of overpopulation because it goes against what some religions tell us?
i.e.: There are some christians out there that claim the earth is only a few thousand years old and humans walked with dinosaurs. This belief only comes about becuase it inhibits there followers from asking “how come the bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs, or how come the bible says we came from Adam and Eve when my science teacher says we evovled”.
In the bible God does tell us to reproduce…so the overpopulation argument again throws science in with religion. This may be a far strech from the evolution vs. creation standpoint but I can totally see were it would be conflicting.
@robkellyj (138): What does IQ have to do with anything? It’s not competency, it’s being learned. And obviously, you are not.
And, fyi, “Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.” is also an example of ad hominem argument.
G’day.
So the tiger issue is building up all the land that tigers live on and not poaching?
@robkellyj (138):
rob, you’re a card. A moronic, piece of ***** of a card… but a card. Sadly, it isn’t intentional. But it’s more fun to laugh at than with you anyway, loser.
“Ah, ad hominem – the last refuge of one who is so wedded to an argument or ideology that they can’t possibly open their eyes enough to admit they are wrong.”
Uh, no. Wrong. Apparently you don’t know my reputation on this site. I use ad hominem attacks all the time. It’s my charm.
But please—let’s not try to take the moral and intellectual high ground here, you who got only as intellectual as quoting Sam Kinnison, and who’s solution was for us all to go back to “horses and candles.” That’s some brilliant thinkin’, there, Lou.
“I’m not going to argue with you – it would certainly be amusing,”
For me, perhaps, yes. For you it would be crushing.
I nevertheless invite you to try. Go ahead, twerp.
“but ultimately a time waster. I’ve debated obtuse idealogues like you before. It’s always the same old “whaaargaarrrrbl…””
Is… that supposed to be clever in some way? Hmm.
Nah. On reflection it’s clear there’s no cleverneess about you.
“And I’d pit my IQ against yours ANY day, kid.”
HA. Kid. Nice. I’m 44 years old, jackass. And you don’t know WHO the ***** you’re talking to. I suggest you ask around about me before you go shooting your mouth off about pitting your IQ against mine.
@Taylor (130):
I’m sure you’re unaware on how completely possible, and even plausible, it is to terraform a place like Mars. Sure it would take some time, however the concept behind it is relatively simple. Send up some bacterial organisms the thrive in Carbon rich environments that also release oxygen into the atmosphere, which there are, and let them do there business in making an atmosphere. This would take a considerably amount of time, however while this is happening this newly created abundance of oxygen would bind with the random little Hydrogen atoms that occupy 98% of our universe and make some water. Before you know it, actually a relatively long time, you have an oxygen rich atmosphere, the kind in which plants thrive in. See where we’re going with this? At this point send in some plants and give them another lengthy amount of time to spread throughout the planet and create an atmospheric cycle very much similar to earth’s.
This is something that NASA scientists are putting a lot of thought into trying to make work. However it’d be incredibly expensive, and the question is whether or not it would take too long to be successful. I mean we’re talking about building an entire planet with just raw materials here. It could take more time than we have. I tend to think, however, that it’s definitely worth a shot.
@Randall (135):
I’m not trying to be balse, I’m just being realistic here. Maybe instead of focusing our efforts on leaving this planet we can focus our efforts on controlling the population, which I don’t even think is an issue at the moment.
And like I said before, there’s plenty of room here in Canada for everybody.
@Taylor (144):
Taylor, the point is that we cannot start abandoning technologies which might lead to new discoveries. Yes, by all means lets address the population problem… but we’re already at a level where our energy needs are being outstripped. You’re not going to solve the energy problem that way, by ONLY focusing or mainly focusing on population. There isn’t time for that.
Space, physics research, biomedical research, nanotechnology, etc. etc. etc.—all or any of these could lead to discoveries that could open up our energy possibilities. To walk away from any of them is taking the risk of suicide.
To abandon space is to run the risk, also, as I pointed out earlier, of getting trapped here and condemning our species to certain eventual extinction.
overpopulation is when the resources are insufficient to support the people present. As more and more people start living like the americans the world becomes more and more overpopulated. I would research my facts before presenting such an article with such assurance. We would need 6 earths to support us if everyone lived like in america. at the moment there are not enough resources to support us. the surplus resources in some countries do not outweigh the lack of them in other countries.
Great List.
Since I’m borderline omnipotent, I was suprised that even I was mislead by some of these facts. especially the first one!
@robkellyj (138): LOL
Let us see what my Crytsal Ball predicts. Rub… rub… Swirl…
A user called round ass, no randass, Andy All?, something close like that says, “Hey ASSHAT, I KNOW what ad hominem means, MORON! Don’t TRY to sound smart because you are STUPID!”
Rub… rub… rub… Oh, I see more…
“You THINK the END of the WORLD is AMUSING? F@#K OFF MORON! This is F%@KING SERIOUS! We are running OUT OF TIME you *****HEAD!”
My goodness, what’s this? It’s forming slowly… Through the foggy glass I see…
“You won’t last more than 3 SECONDS debating ME, F@$KTARTD! I don’t debate CHIMPANZEES and I work at an ACADEMIC INSTITUTE and have FACTS and STUDIES to back ME up, you PRESCHOOL ASSWIPE!”
Crap, the crystall ball went dark!
What does “whaaargaarrrrbl…” mean, anyway? OK, now to refresh and see how accurate this old bowling ball, I mean Crystal Ball is.
@dim (146): I was waiting for the Anti-American ***** to show up. Almost made it to 150 comments before then.
I’d wager that it’s common knowledge that alcohol does not warm you up and eating before stepping into a pool will not give you cramps. Smart-asses have been pointing these things out for decades.
@renegade01 (143):
I agree with you, it is possible for sure. I was watching a documentary about the solar system and it said one of the moons of Jupiter, Titan i’m pretty sure, might be our home some day, which is a cool thought, but it’s not gonna fix the population problem. You might be able to get some people to another planet, some people with money, but not everyone.
But it is for sure a long way off, and it might work for the world’s elite but not the masses.
@FortuneTeller (148):
You mock me?
I, at least, am funny. You, on the other hand… eh. Not so much.
Care to step up to the plate and address any of the points I made, the actual intellectual points that ought to be the topic of discussion here? Or do you want to just sit there and play cute? If the latter… don’t waste our time.
Twerp? Maybe my Crystal Ball needs to get polished at the local alley.
@Taylor (151):
Again, Taylor… the “getting off the planet” thing doesn’t really have much to do with the population issue—it was a tangent I went off on. The point is that it spreads humanity around and prevents us, therefore, from getting knocked off in one blow.
The reason I even brought it up is because it OUGHT to be a very serious and real goal for our species—BUT if we wait too long to work at it and developing better energy technologies, we’ll be screwed, and end up stuck here.
Get it?
Unicorn Farts: I was responding to the fact that he (Randall) questioned my intelligence and character. That’s why I brought up IQ. I’ve read his posts many times, and he fancies himself an intellectual, but is really just a *****-retentive blow-hard.
My “argument” (statement) was not an attack on his character – it was a description of how people (such as Randall) often resort to ad hominem attacks – because they are generally so narcissistic that cannot possibly accept that someone else may believe other than them (or are smarter, less ignorant – take your pick).
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
So, good day yourself.
@Randall (145):
Abandon space? I didn’t say that, I love space actually, it’s one of the most interesting aspects of life, I just can’t see how even 1% of the world could ever leave this planet based on money, politics and greed of those who have compared to those who have not, and those who have aren’t gonna be the ones in need of leaving the earth anyway, they’ll buy big places to live, lot’s of oil to use once we run out, etc, then they will leave if they have to, before everyone else that is.
Living on another planet is a good idea in theory, but then again so is communism.
@Taylor (156):
Eh, Taylor. I think you’re making too many assumptions. Getting off the earth is a LONG term goal. We’re not saying it can happen tomorrow.
By the time it CAN happen, we have no idea what the socio-political makeup of the earth—not to mention the economic—may look like.
At any rate, the idea is to keep working towards it as a goal NOW while we still can. AND to keep up our ability to defend the planet against impacts—which is an even more pressing necessity.
@robkellyj (155):
I note with interest, rob, that you can take the time to call me an “***** retentive blowhard” who “fancies himself an intellectual”… but you can’t take the time to refute any of the substantive things I’ve said.
Clearly this is because you can’t.
I use insults as a form of finesse, to amuse and entertain. Others, such as yourself, try to use them as a subsitute for anything of value or worth to say.
The good news is that Randall isn’t going to get any grumpier as he gets older. The bad news is that he is going to be this grumpy for the rest of his life.
@astraya (159):
You read that article too, huh? It’s reassuring in a way, isn’t it?
@astraya (159):
Sorry, duh… that was one of the items on the list. I forgot that. It was also in an article online I saw the other day.
@Randall (157):
You just like to argue eh? I don’t even really care about this but it’s fun pushing people’s buttons haha
@Taylor (162):
You’re not pushing MY buttons, Taylor. I couldn’t care less if you get behind my plan for saving the human race.
But that’s the difference between Americans and Canadians. I GOT a plan. I’m thinking ahead, I’m all for trying. You, on the other hand, just wanna give up and have us all over for a brew.
Randall: “but you can’t take the time to refute any of the substantive things I’ve said.
Clearly this is because you can’t.”
Another of your (many) leaps of logic.
Personally, I don’t care that your ignorant – it’s not my job to educate you. If you are unwilling or (more likely) unable to educate yourself, then my embarrassing you online is certainly not going to help.
And the difference between Americans and Canadians is that we really don’t give a ***** WHAT you do in your ice hole. Only fit for penguins and moose.
you’re – before Randall jumps all over my typo
Some sushi is raw
Old people get grumpy because they realise they have wasted their life and that they are going to die soon.
Cell phones can interrupt the communications systems on a plane.
Considering that the majority of resources belong to the top few percentile of wealthiest people, then yes; the world is overpopulated beyond belief.
@Randall (157):
In 2009, a man who was so unbelievably self important that he fancied himself as some sort of fortune teller, said this:
‘In point of fact, a lot of doomsayers in the 60s and 70s were making grim predictions about overpopulation focused primarily on the presumed inability of food production to keep up with demand. Of course none of these great prophets foresaw the great strides that were already underway, and would soon come, in regards to more efficient food production techniques of various kinds. Today we’re feeding more people than we ever thought possible. It’s a great thing. And no, mass starvation is not right around the corner.’
I wager that in 2059, a man who is so unbelievably self important that he will fancy himself as some sort of fortune teller will say this:
‘In point of fact, a lot of doomsayers in the 00s and 10s were making grim predictions about overpopulation focused primarily on the presumed inability of energy production to keep up with demand. Of course none of these great prophets foresaw the great strides that were already underway, and would soon come, in regards to more efficient energy production techniques of various kinds. Today we’ve got more energy available than we ever thought possible. It’s a great thing. And no, mass energy shortage is not right around the corner.’
#5? Ummm…. We are dangerously overpopulated.
@robkellyj (164):
“Another of your (many) leaps of logic.”
Hardly. You’ve had more than an enough time and opportunity to address, directly, the substance of what I said. You have failed to do so. To assume, therefore, that you cannot, is not at all a “leap” of logic. It is, rather, quite logical.
If you can refute me, do so. If not, admitting it would be the manly thing to do.
“Personally, I don’t care that your ignorant – it’s not my job to educate you.”
Well, it’s convenient to say it’s “not your job.” But still, rob… if I’m SO ignorant… do, please, illustrate how I’m ignorant. Correct me. Refute what I’ve said.
“If you are unwilling or (more likely) unable to educate yourself, then my embarrassing you online is certainly not going to help.”
AGAIN, rob… I INVITE you to “embarrass” me here. Do so. Clearly you’re confident that you can. Please… go right ahead.
The fact is, *****, that you can’t. You’re all bluff, and you have nothing to answer anything I said.
“And the difference between Americans and Canadians is that we really don’t give a ***** WHAT you do in your ice hole. Only fit for penguins and moose.”
I’M AN AMERICAN JACKASS. TAYLOR is the Canadian.
I will admit that I was wrong: I did not know you are American.
I did, and do know, however, that you are a douche.
Keep going on about “your” plan to “save the world,” Batman – they serve good pudding in the asylum.
Randall is telling the truth, but he is doing a poor job of educating anyone. However, he seems to harbour a genuine love for mankind, since he wants to ensure its continued survival, even against somewhat rare events like earth-shattering asteroid collisions and what not. It’s a good idea, to that end, to put some part of humanity on another planet, or perhaps on the moon (the domed cities of science fiction spring to mind). If Earth is wasted, humans may later repopulate it from the Moon, and vice versa. It’s hard to imagine that both parts of the Earth-Moon system would be rendered uninhabitable at the same time.
Colonizing the Moon will be quite costly, energywise, and that’s why Randall says we need to hurry up, while we still have energy to spare. I can’t disagree with that, can anyone?
As for the religious bunch who think there can never be overpopulation just because back when there were only two people, God told Adam and Eve to procreate and populate the Earth: I hope they don’t think God meant something stupid, like filling up the Earth until there’s only standing room. Would He have created all the animals and wild plants just so humans should later go and make them extinct?
i love these lists and have to say that i can see the argument in support of the number 5 suggestion for dealing with over population as to actual space available for inhabiting the planet.
questions such as – how would you build a waste system for all these people in one area? how would you take the food to japan? how would these people be sustained when fossil fules are being deplinished? make it sound as if there would be a sudden mass exados to these areas, and we would some how have lost all our planes ships and advances in renewable sources of power?
these are all things that could be taken care of with time and planning in preperation for such a move i would have thought.
so i can see the logic behind the statment of over population being a myth.
said great list
I love the way people with self professed high IQ’s obviously have very large egos as well. I will say no names because I’ve been visiting this site and leaving my own comments for some time and I chose the high road and simply don’t go after others that post and leave comments that differ from my own views. Even if someone directs a comment toward me I laugh it off because instead of wasting time going back and forth with someone that isn’t my intellectual equal I can just post facts that back up things I’ve posted and do it all without aiming said post at other people. People throw their age out there for others to see as if this is a way to justify their claims of being more mature in both intelligence and reason. When in reality it does just the opposite. Let’s stick to facts about the list we are discussing and quit attacking each other. If anybody reads this and wants to respond then please do so. But don’t aim any negative banter toward me directly because I won’t respond and you’ll just be wasting your time. Oh yeah! Nice list and good thing to know about the cops. The last few list haven’t been the best.
Great list!
However the explanation of the “overpopulation myth” is highly oversimplified.
No one is arguing we don’t have space to house all of the people on earth, the problem isn’t one of space, it’s one of resources, namely energy and food.
Right now we don’t have enough food for everyone on earth, and we’re approaching the point we may not have enough petroleum, each of these problems is solvable but the solutions may be mutually exclusive: the use of biomass-derived fuels would theoretically solve the problem of energy but it would take a vast portion of our arable land away from food production. The problem isn’t housing space, it’s resources.
In addition the kind of density mentioned in the list is likely undoable, some studies on animals have noted a drastic increase in aggressive behavior as population density increases, personal space is not the only issue, but also communal space and unused “buffer space”.
Jfrater: About the eating before swimming article…
My father went swimming after eating on a Sunday afternoon… He did not go deep.. In fact, he went deep enough for the water to reach his shoulders and he did mknow how to swim…
Enough said.. He got a bad cramp…He drowned..
*he knew how to swim..
I guess it really depends on the circumstances…
I think the overpopulation thing has to do with more than land, sure, there is enough physical land to accompany a bunch more people, but there are certainly not enough resources, which is the big problem with overpopulation in the first place.
while alcohol doesn’t truly warm a person, the right kind most certainly lends a warming sensation (whiskey, bourbon, etc).
@Randall (95): applause!
The availability of water is a huge problem where I live. It’s so bad that no new water meter permits have been issued in the last 10 years, and there is no chance, at this point, that any will be issued in future.
No permit, no new building.
A desal plant has been up for vote year after year, but the cost skyrockets year after year(and was absurdly costly to begin with). Our little village can’t afford it.
I do believe that there will be found ways to increase food production in land that is now not suitable for agriculture.
#6 made me laugh! I have always heard this, but I am living proof of it’s absurdity. All during my childhood my brother and I would swim every day it was warm enough and mum would bring our lunch to us poolside. We didn’t even get out of the water. I did the same for my kids. No one ever cramped.
@Randall (121):
“NOW shut up and go away. You aren’t worth the time I wasted responding to you.”
Of course, this is AFTER the bloviating. Simply priceless.