I have always said both the cloud and AI are bad.

I do not use cloud storage persoanlly, so don't be pointing fingers here!

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the
extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
and water usage, etc.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A nudist wedding makes the best man easy to identify.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Technically speaking, in a closed loop cooling system, there should be minima
waterloss, except for the possibility of increased evaporation due to artifica
heating of your cooling ponds.

Increased energy usage for cloud and AI BAD!
Increased energy usage by forcing everyone to adopt Electric Vehicles GOOD.

Sounds to me like the old adage , "If you think the problem's bad now. Wait'l we solve it!"

I get what you are saying there, except governments and at least some folks
who are pushing electric vehicles are also pushing AI. I suspect that they want to blame "cloud" to free up more energy and IT resources for AI.

So it is "cloud (and general comsumer use) of energy BAD!"
"AI and electric vehicles GOOD!" :D

I don't see how something sitting on a storage device is using up near as
much energy as a CPU-intensive AI process.

With the way big tech is pushing AI I unfortunately expect to be living in
some bad sci-fi story before I shuffle off of this rock.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * You radiate cold shafts of broken glass!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I have always said both the cloud and AI are bad.

I do not use cloud storage persoanlly, so don't be pointing fingers here!

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the

>extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
>cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
>and water usage, etc.

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but
suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem
than cloud storage..

Personally, I do use a cloud account for files I need to transfer
between multiple units or files I temporarily park there for others
to download, but I doubt I have 5 meg of total data on there..

---
* SLMR Rob * Sometimes you're the windshield..Sometimes you're the bug
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Reminds me of the song, "In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)"

"In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you"

"Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears"

"In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive."

LOL I know that one. ;) The TV show "Futurama" spoofed it several years
ago with "In the Year 252525" during an episode about time travel horribly
gone wrong. :D

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A restless eye across a weary room...
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I don't (on purpose anyway) here, either. My guess is that they want the

>extra storage that "the cloud" is using for AI and are therefore blaming
>cloud users for what is really being caused by increased AI usage... energy
>and water usage, etc.

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem
than cloud storage..

IMHO, the folks mining Bitcoin... and running AI servers... would require a
lot more cooling (and therefor water) than cloud storage. Storing files shouldn't really have much of any abnormally high cooling requirements as it
is not a CPU/GPU intensive process.

Also IMHO, they are trying to make "regular people" think they are the
problem in order to free up resources for increased AI use.

Personally, I do use a cloud account for files I need to transfer
between multiple units or files I temporarily park there for others
to download, but I doubt I have 5 meg of total data on there..

I doubt that anything you've described is processor intensive, either. ;)

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * A momentary lapse of reason that binds a life to a life..
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Re: Re: Forget a hosepipe ban
By: Rob Mccart to MIKE POWELL on Tue Aug 19 2025 08:33 am

If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from. Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

The reports make it sound like the water isn't recycled and that the water is "used" by the data center, as if they're talking about continuous use. Whether that's accurate or not, I don't know. You'd think you could cool the water passively and recirculate it, but then you're adding more radiant heat into the environment.

If water is running through a closed system you wouldn't think there'd be an issue with treating it and releasing it back into the water supply, but I'm sure it's not worth the decrease in net shareholder value.
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

I half wonder if people mining Bitcoin aren't a bigger problem

>> than cloud storage..

IMHO, the folks mining Bitcoin... and running AI servers... would require a

>lot more cooling (and therefor water) than cloud storage. Storing files
>shouldn't really have much of any abnormally high cooling requirements as it
>is not a CPU/GPU intensive process.

Also IMHO, they are trying to make "regular people" think they are the

>problem in order to free up resources for increased AI use.

Yes, the Gov't likes to blame us for things that allow them to duck
the blame and usually guilt us into letting them charge more for
services without us complaining about it.

I think a lot of the Global Warming stuff is being used so we will
pay more for gasoline, electricity and such without complaint..

NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question
whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
fewer people on earth to create it..

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar
ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

---
* SLMR Rob * No, my powers can only be used for good
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

RM> If I recall this was more about water usage than electricity use but
RM> suggestied that less data stored on servers would reduce the amount
RM> of water needed to cool them. I'd think a big part of the water part
RM> of it would depend on if coolant is recycled or just dumped with new
RM> water coming in to replace it, and where that water is coming from.
RM> Pretty much anything could be used but I suppose if the servers are
RM> in a city then it's a huge waste of clean, processed, drinking water.

In the case of water usage, electricity generation and water go hand in hand.

>s water is used for either steam for the turbines, or for cooling. Leaking p
>s or evaperation in the cooling ponds will result in a net loss. So more pow
>= more heat = more water used.

Yes, I was going to mention the other day that a system creating so
much heat it needs to be water cooled also likely makes so much heat
that it couldn't be easily recycled unless there were vast reserves
of it. Much simpler to just dump the hot water and bring in fresh
cooler water.

Also, there are lots of power plants that use water driven turbines
without heat, so much of that here that our power company is called
Ontario Hydro (or Hydro One).

---
* SLMR Rob * I don't work here... I'm a consultant
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

The reports make it sound like the water isn't recycled and that the water is

>sed" by the data center, as if they're talking about continuous use. Whether
>t's accurate or not, I don't know. You'd think you could cool the water passi
>y and recirculate it, but then you're adding more radiant heat into the envir
>ent.

If water is running through a closed system you wouldn't think there'd be an

>ue with treating it and releasing it back into the water supply, but I'm sure
>'s not worth the decrease in net shareholder value.

Yes, I touched on that in a previous message.. I wouldn't think that
water used for cooling would be polluted to any great extent, but
you are still pulling it out of fresh drinking water in same cases
and possibly dumping it into the sewage treatment plants.

---
* SLMR Rob * There are only 2 valid opinions - mine and the wrong one.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I think a lot of the Global Warming stuff is being used so we will
pay more for gasoline, electricity and such without complaint..

NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question
whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
fewer people on earth to create it..

Yeah, I get that. Use something that has some truth to it in order to
scare us all into doing something "they" (the government, corporations, or
some mix of the two) want us to. Pretty sure they've tried multiple times
with Global Warming/Climate Change. It seems to have worked in some countries/regions, too.

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar
ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

The best explanation I have seen was on a PBS special a few years back.
They looked at how the northern regions of Canada, currently mostly frozen, were once rich with plant life. They were quick to point out that this was
the case while these lands were mostly in their current position, and not
from back before the continents shifted to where they are now.

They visited several other areas that used to be much different, showing evidence in the rocks and ice cores of where different cycles began and
ended. The end conclusion was that the Earth has always had these cycles, but that the arrival of man (and more specifically, our adoption of fire, urbanization, and industrialization) has caused these cycles to be more "compact" -- to change more frequently and with greater speed than they used to.

I don't find that difficult to believe.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim
that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completely caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * She cried away her life since she fell off the cradle!!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Evaporative cooling towers? Yes, some water can be reused, but by their very name, a vast quantity is lost into the atmosphere due evaporation. A Google search says depending on the system between 1 and 30% is reused.

So much for nuclear power not having any affect on the climate, or global warming.


* SLMR 2.1a * "I am EVIL Homer! I am EVIL Homer!" - Homer
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

NOTE: I'm not saying Globel Warming is not happening, I question

>> whether we caused it or could do anything to stop it seeing as
>> it's happened multiple times in the past when there were a lot
>> fewer people on earth to create it..

Yeah, I get that. Use something that has some truth to it in order to

>scare us all into doing something "they" (the government, corporations, or
>some mix of the two) want us to. Pretty sure they've tried multiple times
>with Global Warming/Climate Change. It seems to have worked in some
>countries/regions, too.

Yes, part of it is also that what they want us to stop doing is
still good for the planet, so making it sound like it's much more
important that we do these things has a double benefit to the gov't
and for pollution, although we all pay $ for it..

The world has had a lot more years (twice as many) without polar

>> ice caps as with them and 4000 years ago they could grow crops
>> in England that it is now too Cold to grow..

Global warming or natural correction?

The best explanation I have seen was on a PBS special a few years back.

>They looked at how the northern regions of Canada, currently mostly frozen,
>were once rich with plant life. They were quick to point out that this was
>the case while these lands were mostly in their current position, and not
>from back before the continents shifted to where they are now.

They visited several other areas that used to be much different, showing

>evidence in the rocks and ice cores of where different cycles began and
>ended. The end conclusion was that the Earth has always had these cycles, bu
>that the arrival of man (and more specifically, our adoption of fire,
>urbanization, and industrialization) has caused these cycles to be more
>"compact" -- to change more frequently and with greater speed than they used
>to.

I don't find that difficult to believe.

Yes, they can find proof of what was happening thousands of years
ago if they take the time and money to investigate.

As you said, the Canadian arctic (perma-frost) used to be a vast
grassland plus out prairies where most of our crops are grown
used to be Desert thousands of years ago so for that reason I
always use the term Climate Change rather than Global Warming.

There is an excellent book that looks at all this with references
to the real science they use in the book, but the book itself is
a fictional, entertaining story about eco-terrorists written by
Michael Crichton called State of Fear.

That was written in 2004 so some of it may be somewhat outdated
but one thing I recall, I hope correctly, was them talking about
how the ocean levels were rapidly rising, and he pointed out that
there are some inhabited islands where the highest point is only
a few feet above sea level, and they haven't had any problems yet.

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly
what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim

>that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completely
>caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
>natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time.

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,
long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well. The amount from
volcanoes is wildly debated online, some say they put out more than
people do and others say only 1% of what people create..

---
* SLMR Rob * Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Also, there are lots of power plants that use water driven turbines
without heat, so much of that here that our power company is called
Ontario Hydro (or Hydro One).

Not sure about Canada, but in the US I can not think of any new dam projects

>ng approved anywhere, as there has been a big enviromental backlash with the
>truction of natural habitates creating the lake.

Yes, it's much more difficult to get that approved these days. In some
places where you have a large river with a high falls naturally, they
can go in and just add the trubines with minimal damage, but sites
like that are rare. (Think - the power plant at Niagara Falls..)

That's mainly for big ones though. In Parry Sound, the closest small
town to me, they recently added a power turbine to a good sized
river that was already somewhat dammed many years ago to protect the
area from flooding during spring runoff and storms and such, which
adds some power to the grid.

Hmm.. Checking.. Apparently there was a smaller one there since
1919 that was rebuilt and puts out 3.1 megawatts of power, up
from the original 1.2 MW. But it's a quite small unit, not much
bigger than a couple of 2 car garages.

I've also heard about other Hydro electric plants in Canada that
run unattended with people only occasionally stopping in to check
on them to do whatever maintenance is needed. They have been
running virtually non stop for so long the power coming out of
them has to be converted from 25 cycle to 60 cycle before it can
be put back in the system. We haven't used 25 cycle power here
since the mid 1950's..

---
* SLMR Rob * I intend to live forever - so far so good
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

That was written in 2004 so some of it may be somewhat outdated
but one thing I recall, I hope correctly, was them talking about
how the ocean levels were rapidly rising, and he pointed out that
there are some inhabited islands where the highest point is only
a few feet above sea level, and they haven't had any problems yet.

I have noticed some social media "articles" (YouTube) where people are
pointing out that islands that should not longer be there still are.

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly
what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

This happens now and is a problem. IMHO, things like this help fuel the anti-science conspiracty theorists. People like to point to them like they
are just stupid but, unfortunately, there are often real events that help
fuel their fears.

What I do find difficult to believe is when supposedly expert people claim

>that shifts that happened *before* the industrial age were mostly/completel
>caused by man and not, say, a string of volcanic eruptions (or other
>natural phenomenon) that were known to have happened at about the same time

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,
long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well. The amount from
volcanoes is wildly debated online, some say they put out more than
people do and others say only 1% of what people create..

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also
be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be
"nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * "It's so cold in the D - this is hard to dance to..."
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

>> Evaporative cooling towers? Yes, some water can be reused, but by their ve
>> name, a vast quantity is lost into the atmosphere due evaporation. A Google
>> search says depending on the system between 1 and 30% is reused.

So much for nuclear power not having any affect on the climate, or global

>warming.

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the
climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
adding Carbon to the air..

---
* SLMR Rob * Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the
climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
adding Carbon to the air..

While it is not like adding carbon to the air, it does add fuel for clouds.
Immediately after 9/11, there was a study done on the affect of not having
any airplanes in the sky creating cloud fuel (i.e. their contrails). It
had a greater affect than one would imagine.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Wrinkles only go where smiles have been - Jimmy Buffett
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Another part was about how any scientists who didn't say exactly

>> what the Gov't wanted them to say lost their jobs and/or funding.

This happens now and is a problem. IMHO, things like this help fuel the

>anti-science conspiracty theorists. People like to point to them like they
>are just stupid but, unfortunately, there are often real events that help
>fuel their fears.

Yes, most people tend to have some idea of what they expect/want the
science to say, and tend to ignore anything that contradicts that idea.

I know one person who absolutely ignores the news programs, saying
that they are totally controlled by the gov't, and that all the
gov'ts in the world are all controlled by about 6 super wealthy
people who control the information that makes the news in a way
that makes them more money.

I'm sure that is a ridiculous exaggeration of the world reality but
there is some minor truth to news stories being chosen or slanted
to report what high powered people want them to say. And in recent
years you'll find that the same news stories, word for word, are
repeated on dozens of news networks since they are all owned by
one huge media corp. News anchors have lost their jobs for adding
their own opinions on the stories they report. You must read the
script but you can't change it or add to it..

Yes, there have been forest fires as long as there have been forests,

>> long before people, and a good sized volcanic eruption can add a
>> huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also

>be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be
>"nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

Yes, and most likely the truth is in the middle somewhere.
Nature is likely strongly at work here, but we could be speeding
up the time line somewhat. But I'm sure it's misleading to suggest
that we can stop Climate Change by changing the type of car we drive.

The reality of it is that nature has all the time in the world and
it tends to move slowly so, if the current change is anything like
the last one, maybe we are speeding up things by 50 or 75 years
but it is coming regardless and the last time it lasted for 3000
years, so changing your habits to benefit your grand children may
not be a reality and, again, that slow part, if we totally stopped
creating carbon, it would probably take 100 years to even start to
see any difference, if it actually made any, that assuming that it's
all our fault.

That said, anything that cuts down on pollution is a good thing
which may bring more of us better health even if it doesn't do
much to affect Climate Change.

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Those that want it to be "us" cannot stand the idea that nature might also
be causing some of the issues, just as much as those who want it to be "nature" cannot stand the idea that we might also be a cause.

True. Look at all the "animal lovers" who think nature would be so peaceful without man. Holding on the the image that those lions, tigers, and bears are
as huggable as the plushies on thier bookshelves.. (Nothing against plushies mind you <Nervously glancing at the plush bat beside him.>.

So many people have litterly been bitten in the butt on that incorrect assumption.

Indeed. One needs to look no farther than the social media influencers and other tourists who are getting chased/attacked/gored by bison that they
thought they could get right up next to.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * Life after death - is that Terminate and Stay Resident?
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

That said, anything that cuts down on pollution is a good thing
which may bring more of us better health even if it doesn't do
much to affect Climate Change.

Agreed.

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

Also agreed! I am doing my part in that regard. ;)

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Rob Mccart!

** On Monday 25.08.25 - 07:42, Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL:

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

There are reports that populations are already on the decline.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: (1:396/45.29)

Adding water vapour to the atmosphere shouldn't much affect the

>> climate in the amounts that would be in play there. It's not like
>> adding Carbon to the air..

While it is not like adding carbon to the air, it does add fuel for clouds.

> Immediately after 9/11, there was a study done on the affect of not having
>any airplanes in the sky creating cloud fuel (i.e. their contrails). It
>had a greater affect than one would imagine.

I remember hearing about that, but I'm thinking that was a different
affect than just water vapour would produce.

I wouldn't have thought a power plant would introduce enough water to
the atmosphere to make a noticable difference but...

Looking online there are a wide range of estimates for that, some
saying that plants with cooling towers release almost nothing, not
what someone said the other day. Another site said the ones that
use the water and then dump it are usually set up near the ocean
and use salt water with little affect other than right near the
exhaust pipes (warm water).

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim
all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable
difference to the weather or climate ?

---
* SLMR Rob * Never do card tricks for the group you play poker with
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

It's like the news.. mostly only bad news hits the front page.. B)

Or Facebook feed anlytics, you are only shown content that gets you upset, so

>u react and post more. Is that done intentionally OR is it simply that we te
>to only put forth the effort to reply to posts that get our dander up?

Yes, it's like product reviews. Likely the popular ones are planted by
the manufacturer because people very rarely comment on something they
bought that's working well, they only post complaints about problems.

---
* SLMR Rob * No one is listening until you make a mistake
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim
all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable
difference to the weather or climate ?

If those are the real numbers, I would say probably not!

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at

>> what number of people the whole world could support at a level
>> where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
>> could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so

>> maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

Also agreed! I am doing my part in that regard. ;)

Yes, my family as well. My parents had 8 siblings, but I have only 2,
and between the 3 of us there is only one child, now grown with 2
children of her own.

This is more typical of rich countries though. Poor countries tend
to have more children so there's a better chance some of them will
survive the poverty and still be around to help feed their parents
in their later years.

Okay, checking that online, apparently i.e. India only averages
1 or 2 children per family. Maybe it's reached a saturation point.

That said, in Canada only 58.2% of families have Any children.

I couldn't find an exact comparison for the USA but several
sites mentioned the typical family size in the USA is 3.13
people, suggesting an average of one child per family.

Not to go too far with this but Germany has about 50% more
children (half a child?) than the USA.

Looking at a list of countries with the Most children, a lot
of countries in Africa and the Middle East have 5 to 7 children
in a family on average.. This was more what I was thinking about.
India was for some reason a poor choice for that.

---
* SLMR Rob * You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Years ago I saw a study where environmental scientists looked at
what number of people the whole world could support at a level
where nature would totally be unharmed by humans, a number that
could survive easily and do no damage.

The number they came up with was about 50 million people, so
maybe what we need to fix things is better birth control.. B)

There are reports that populations are already on the decline.

Yes, mostly in the wealthier countries though, as I mentioned in
the previous message to Mike.

Better off people don't seem to have more than 1 or 2 children
at the most these days and it looks like some of the overcrowded
poorer countries are starting to see that it costs so much to
raise kids that they have fewer now to give them a better chance
of survival, finding enough food and getting a job and an
education at some level.

They say that the cost to raise a child in Canada to age 17
ranges from $238,000 for low income families to over $400,000
in better off families so having 4 or 5 kids can really cut
into your retirement funds... B)

But there are still a lot of countries where birth control is
either unavailable or illegal and some religious orders trying
to keep the population growing to add to their supporters.

---
* SLMR Rob * The sooner you fall behind, the more time to catch up
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

One site said that a large Nuclear plant attempting to reclaim

>> all the water it uses would Lose about 30 million litres per day
>> to evaporation, a tiny perscentage (1% to 2%) of the total water
>> it uses for cooling. But that number is still quite a bit higher
>> than I would have guessed.

It also begs the question, is that enough to make a noticable

>> difference to the weather or climate ?

If those are the real numbers, I would say probably not!

I suppose it may depend on where it is. In some places that much
water would be nothing and in others it would be a lot more than
usual going into the air, although I suppose those very dry areas
might welcome any added moisture they could get..

---
* SLMR Rob * If it weren't for STRESS I'd have no energy at all
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)