The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Thommo · **#221** by **Thommo** » Jun 12, 2019 11:32 am

tuco wrote:The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And then, having made clear that you think it a pointless discussion, you decided to try to persuade me to discuss the subject with you. And that was despite the fact I was talking about something else entirely and had no interest in that discussion.

I question that choice. :scratch:

Spearthrower · **#222** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 12, 2019 11:33 am

Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And then, having made clear that you think it a pointless discussion, you decided to try to persuade me to discuss the subject with you. And that was despite the fact I was talking about something else entirely and had no interest in that discussion.

I question that choice.

Careful Thommo, there's a list with a space waiting for your name, and an email already written detailing what kind of fish-kisser you are.

newolder · **#223** by **newolder** » Jun 12, 2019 11:37 am

tuco wrote:...

The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And no, I am aware of population prediction models. Perhaps you want to edit the wiki entry with your Lyapunov-fractal.png and Mandelbrot set and let's see how it goes. That would actually make me happy. Seriously.

You stated that you were unaware of something in particular and would be happy otherwise. You were then made aware.

I have no interest to edit wikipedia on this subject. A simple search of fractal population dynamics returns many scholarly articles and other web links. One of those other web links is indeed to wikipedia:

Chaos theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that ..... Both strange attractors and Julia sets typically have a fractal structure, and the fractal dimension can be calculated ..... For example, a study on models of Canadian lynx showed there was chaotic behavior in the population growth.

tuco · **#224** by **tuco** » Jun 12, 2019 11:42 am

Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And then, having made clear that you think it a pointless discussion, you decided to try to persuade me to discuss the subject with you. And that was despite the fact I was talking about something else entirely and had no interest in that discussion.

I question that choice. :scratch:

You still have not explained how 2B doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to you. Scratch over this. Unless you are in the Lyapunov-Mandelbro boat, in which case don't bother to even scratch.

I asked you if you were not sad about 2B population scenarios, and predictions to 2200 made in this thread, since you were allegedly sad that nobody commented about the methodology that was used to generate the graphic beacuse you found it to be yet another cautionary tale about results from the social sciences, even when they get widely reported in the media.

If you refuse to cooperate, to understand what I am saying, well, my list has infinite fractal pages.

Spearthrower · **#225** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 12, 2019 11:49 am

tuco wrote:
You still have not explained how 2B doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to you.

See how uninterested tuco is in discussing this? :grin:

Now we're going to talk about how something does or doesn't sound unreasonable, not whether or not it actually is.

tuco wrote:
I asked you if you were not sad about 2B population scenarios, and predictions to 2200 made in this thread, since you were allegedly sad that nobody commented about the methodology that was used to generate the graphic beacuse you found it to be yet another cautionary tale about results from the social sciences, even when they get widely reported in the media.

Population dynamics isn't part of the social sciences, tuco... which is a little awkward for someone who has claimed to know all about it!

tuco wrote:If you refuse to cooperate, to understand what I am saying, well, my list has infinite fractal pages.

Told you Thommo! The childish list is always waiting for when tuco's nonsensical hoops aren't jumped on command.

Personally, I think this is a good example of trolling. Perhaps I could ask the moderators what they think?

tuco · **#226** by **tuco** » Jun 12, 2019 11:52 am

newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:...

The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And no, I am aware of population prediction models. Perhaps you want to edit the wiki entry with your Lyapunov-fractal.png and Mandelbrot set and let's see how it goes. That would actually make me happy. Seriously.

You stated that you were unaware of something in particular and would be happy otherwise. You were then made aware.

I have no interest to edit wikipedia on this subject. A simple search of fractal population dynamics returns many scholarly articles and other web links. One of those other web links is indeed to wikipedia:
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that ..... Both strange attractors and Julia sets typically have a fractal structure, and the fractal dimension can be calculated ..... For example, a study on models of Canadian lynx showed there was chaotic behavior in the population growth.

You have not produced such a model, you did not make me happy. Produce such a model for the human population, a scholarly article, and I will be happy. We both know you cannot. So what is your problem? That I said .. I am not aware of any model that predicts 2B .. but you know math and there are infinite models? Well, yes I know you know math. Do you think I care? It does not get you laid with me. I care for a realistic model of the human population. Make me happy.

Cito di Pense · **#227** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 12, 2019 11:54 am

tuco wrote:well, my list has infinite fractal pages.

Lots of fractals involve bifurcations. In other words, growing a pair.

Spearthrower · **#228** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 12, 2019 11:54 am

tuco wrote:
You have not produced such model, you did not make me happy. Produce such model for human population, a scholary article, and I will be happy. We both know you cannot. So what is your problem? That I said .. I am now aware of any model that predicts 2B .. but you know math and there are infinite models? Well, yes I know you know math. Do you think I care? It does not get you laid with me. I care for realitic model of human population. Make me happy.

Spearthrower · **#229** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 12, 2019 11:56 am

tuco wrote:I am not aware...

That does appear to be the major conclusion that can be drawn from this.

Thommo · **#230** by **Thommo** » Jun 12, 2019 11:58 am

Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:
You still have not explained how 2B doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to you.

See how uninterested tuco is in discussing this?

2B or not 2B? That is the question.

Cito di Pense · **#231** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 12, 2019 11:59 am

Thommo wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:
You still have not explained how 2B doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to you.

See how uninterested tuco is in discussing this?

2B or not 2B? That is the question.

Billllllions and billlllllions!

tuco · **#232** by **tuco** » Jun 12, 2019 12:01 pm

Thommo wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
tuco wrote:
You still have not explained how 2B doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to you.

See how uninterested tuco is in discussing this? :grin:

2B or not 2B? That is the question.

I got you.

newolder · **#233** by **newolder** » Jun 12, 2019 12:16 pm

tuco wrote:...

You have not produced such model, you did not make me happy. Produce such model for human population, a scholary article, and I will be happy. We both know you cannot. So what is your problem? That I said .. I am not aware of any model that predicts 2B .. but you know math and there are infinite models? Well, yes I know you know math. Do you think I care? It does not get you laid with me. I care for realitic model of human population. Make me happy.

The model of Lyapunov coefficients, shown earlier as an image, can be labelled easily to model the population of humans, or ants, or jellyfish, or ... A simple example: each vertical line of coloured pixels may be mapped to "population count" at time, t, up the ordinate axis. The image encapsulates a snapshot of all such models (the complete set goes to infinity along the abscissa), realistic, fantastic or otherwise. I care not for what you care but what can be demonstrated. As a whole, the Lyapunov set may not be the "best" way to model "population" but, nevertheless, it does.

tuco · **#234** by **tuco** » Jun 12, 2019 12:29 pm

Actually, you are correct. How did I not notice the similarity before ... If someone would model population in 10000 BC using Lyapunov, today s/he be like: Yeah, that worked out alright, see one of the infinites going up there, right? Right :)

newolder · **#235** by **newolder** » Jun 12, 2019 12:45 pm

Lookin' good. Now, repeat across the infinite set and stop when you find one to your satisfaction...

For example, here's a set of Lyapunov coefficients from a study with no obvious relation to population growth that, nevertheless, shows a good few features of models of biological population statistics. There's an early period with cycles of growth and decline followed by a period of near exponential growth and a sudden fall back to low numbers...

"All models are wrong but some are useful." E.P.Box

ETA Search results & quote.

tuco · **#236** by **tuco** » Jun 12, 2019 12:46 pm

Predictions to 2200 are so unreliable that nobody even does them. Well, nobody who has any idea about predictions.

I am looking for realistic one, not one supporting my idiotic argument.

---
edit: wow newolder, I did not know you were one of those who like to type stuff just for the sake of typing because we are on discussion board and who under any circumstances dont accept their argument is idiotic. suit yourself, however, infinite models, all are wrong, some are useful wow. Now since you obviously not giving up, show the one for 2B which is useful.

Spearthrower · **#237** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 12, 2019 12:55 pm

tuco wrote:Predictions to 2200 are so unreliable that nobody even does them. Well, nobody who has any idea about predictions.

I am looking for realistic one, not one supporting my idiotic argument.

It must be hard when you're looking for something you think is a paradox.

laklak · **#238** by **laklak** » Jun 14, 2019 2:16 am

I can make an accurate prediction for 2200. It's going to be vewy, vewy diffewent.

newolder · **#239** by **newolder** » Jun 14, 2019 7:29 am

tuco wrote:Predictions to 2200 are so unreliable that nobody even does them. Well, nobody who has any idea about predictions.

I am looking for realistic one, not one supporting my idiotic argument.

---
edit: wow newolder, I did not know you were one of those who like to type stuff just for the sake of typing because we are on discussion board and who under any circumstances dont accept their argument is idiotic. suit yourself, however, infinite models, all are wrong, some are useful wow. Now since you obviously not giving up, show the one for 2B which is useful.

If I had an argument it may fall into a category labelled, "Idiotic", like yours is, apparently. I have no argument and supplied coefficients (data) to show that future population numbers to a given value can be modelled. Given that any model posted here is attempting to provide predictions about a result for a system undergoing dynamical chaos, they should be treated as such - small changes now, to any of the system's variables, may have large consequences later. Neils Bohr made a useful observation when he noted that, "Prediction is hard, especially about the future."

tuco · **#240** by **tuco** » Jun 14, 2019 10:16 am

lol being funny without even trying, thanks bro. So I guess I will thank you for your hmm educational input here despite it was fuck all useful to the issue at hand. Undergoing dynamic chaos .. :) Yeah that is what Earth population going through right now. Outside of mathematics its called growth but that is just a technicality. There are infinite futures, surely one of them is 2B population. Even 2 million population and maybe even 2 thousand population.

The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Who is online