rationalskepticism.org

tuco wrote:

Thommo wrote:

tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.

I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.

I don't know what "appropriately qualified" means but alright.

That might well be the trouble!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700174

Spearthrower wrote:

tuco wrote:There will not be 2B people, stop dreaming

tuco wrote:lol there will not be 2B people. Period. Babble all you want.

I'm not convinced you understand the concept of hypothetical scenarios.

I tried to help you here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700239

Spearthrower wrote:Perhaps it's cultural. In the English language, we use either 'if' or 2nd Conditional to enter into a notional scenario where we can think about the world being different than it is.

I don't think you want to be helped to understand what it is that causes no one else any trouble.

tuco wrote: I guess you missed the part with the claim that the current level of consumption would be sustainable if the population were 2B people, leaving alone where the 2B came from.

That's not quite an accurate rendition, is it? Shame you're taking on Rainbow's mantle now.