[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the grand eqn debate (was: More musing on water change.)

Tyrone Genade wrote:

> Lastly, Scott Lewis, read the article you clearly have no idea what
> you are talking about.

I tried to read the article.  I'm not feeling inclined to pay for a
subscription to the web site.  I'm guessing you are referring to my post
about the "2.2 people vs 2.6 people"?  My comment was directed to you
grammar with regards how you used the "120%" and "160%" figures.

<quote of your original post>
[Interresting side note: see the article "Tracking the ecological
overshoot of the human economy" PNAS 99: 9266-9271,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.142033699 for a good time.
It states that humanity is in excess of 160% of the earths carrying
capacity. There working is abit iffy but the article remains an eye
<end quote>

<quote of your 'errata'>
Humanity has exceeded the earths carrying capacity by 120% not 160%.
My mistake.
<end quote>

To paraphrase the first statement:
Humanity's population is > 160% of Earth's carrying capacity.

To paraphrase the second statement:
Humanity's population exceeded Earth's carrying capacity by 120%.

This would mean the same thing as:
Humanity's population is at 220% of Earth's carrying capacity.

I suspect what you really meant to say was:
Humanity's population is at 120% of Earth's carrying capacity.

Mathematics is a pretty precise language.  It was with your language
(grammar) I was commenting on, not the factual content of the article.

Finally, I think I -do- have an idea of what I'm talking about.


-- Microsoft Outlook, the hacker's path to your hard disk.

See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm