Science Buffs

[dj_pnevans]

This one is for the science buffs out there. If we continual to use the earth resource’s like coal and oil, how much effect will this have on the earths weight. Will this have any effect on the earths distance away from the sun EG will we move away from the sun or get closer to it?<O:p</O:p
David<O:p</O:p

[HOOKED.UP]

Hi DJ.

A very interesting question indeed.
I don't know if anyone could calculate an answer for you, but it will be interesting to read the replies to your question.

However I think your question might be irrelevant in the long term, as the earth will die in a few million years, due to sun activity.
Check on line for the technical information of the above statement.

That is why I laugh at "Climate Change", our planet has been changing since day 1, whenever that was.

We are now, simply in a better, technological manner, able to record the daily events of earth and broadcast these events in real time around the planet.
Yes we have climate change, but earth always has.

Hope you get a good answer to your question.

Paul.

[mic-d]

With combustion and any other chemical reaction there must be conservation of mass, so whatever mass of reactants is consumed will produce exactly the same mass in products. Therefore there will be no change in mass as a result of these chemical reactions. In fact the earth is gradually putting on weight from the stuff it traps in its gravity field. I don't know the physical effect of this on the orbit but it is likely to be vanishingly small. The Earth will eventually be consumed by the sun as it grows and dies, a long way off and it is entirely likely that mankind will be wiped out even before then by an asteroid collision or some other natural cataclysm or by self-induced destruction.

[_fly_]

I had to check if this was in the jokes section first.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed (not totally true if you want to look up Pi and Mu Mesons).
Unless chuncks are flying off the earth or flying onto it it still has basically the same mass.
Your in more trouble from the poles shifting every squillion years or an Ice age.

[michael_m]

However I think your question might be irrelevant in the long term, as the earth will die in a few million years, due to sun activity.
Check on line for the technical information of the above statement.

I think you mean a few billion years? (approx. 5 billion or so, we are roughly half-way through the sun's lifespan)



That is why I laugh at "Climate Change", our planet has been changing since day 1, whenever that was. We are now, simply in a better, technological manner, able to record the daily events of earth and broadcast these events in real time around the planet.
Yes we have climate change, but earth always has.

Hope you get a good answer to your question.

Paul.
It is not so much the fact that the climate is changing, but the rate of change, which is unprecedented over the lifespan of our species. (not to mention it appears to be going in the "wrong" direction)

Back on the original question, as others have mentioned, the total mass of the earth won't change, but it will be getting redistributed. Whether or not that does anything to change local gravitational conditions, I don't know.

[dj_pnevans]

With combustion and any other chemical reaction there must be conservation of mass, so whatever mass of reactants is consumed will produce exactly the same mass in products. Therefore there will be no change in mass as a result of these chemical reactions. In fact the earth is gradually putting on weight from the stuff it traps in its gravity field. I don't know the physical effect of this on the orbit but it is likely to be vanishingly small. The Earth will eventually be consumed by the sun as it grows and dies, a long way off and it is entirely likely that mankind will be wiped out even before then by an asteroid collision or some other natural cataclysm or by self-induced destruction.
So if you have 50kg of oil then turn that into fuel and use the fuel. With the carbon tax sorry build up and the carbon gas and you were able to weigh all that, would it still weigh 50kg?
David

[AlexS]

... the earth will die in a few million years, due to sun activity.



I think you mean a few billion years? (approx. 5 billion or so, we are roughly half-way through the sun's lifespan)

Phew! Had me worried for a minute.

[petersemple]

Exactly (to 50kg of fuel burnt = 50kg of byproducts). From memory, the exception is with nuclear reactions. There is some mass lost with every nuclear reaction - that's essentially what gives the enormous amounts of energy released. The amounts involved though are vanishingly small compared to the mass of the Earth

[mic-d]

Exactly (to 50kg of fuel burnt = 50kg of byproducts). From memory, the exception is with nuclear reactions. There is some mass lost with every nuclear reaction - that's essentially what gives the enormous amounts of energy released. The amounts involved though are vanishingly small compared to the mass of the Earth

Not quite Peter, 50 kg of burnt fuel will give more than 50kg products because of the introduction of oxygen and a few other minor gaseous components, but the mass of reactants and products will be the same.

[Master Splinter]

The earth is actually getting heavier, at the rate of 3-7 tonnes a year due to dust and meteorites; however the sun is loosing mass - about four million tonnes per second - via heat/light radiation (not counting solar wind losses).

It is possible to see shifts in the earth's gravitational field due to mass redistribution after major earthquakes - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21250-japan-megaquake-shifted-gravity-satellite-orbits.html

[rwbuild]

.......um......what about the increasing population, doesnt that add anything......

[BobL]

The numbers being quoted are on the "small side" but this explains it far better than I could.

BBC recently asked physicist and Cambridge University professor Dave Ansell to draw up a balance sheet of the mass that's coming in to the earth, and the mass going out to find out if the earth is gaining or losing mass. By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth every year. 'The Earth is acting like a giant vacuum cleaner powered by gravity in space, pulling in particles of dust,' says Dr. Chris Smith. Another factor increasing the earth's mass is global warming which adds about 160 tonnes a year because as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up. On the minus side, at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year."

Pickens continues: "What about launching rockets and satellites into space, like Phobos-Grunt? Smith discounts this as the mass is negligible and most of it will fall back down to Earth again anyway. But by far the biggest factor in earth's weight loss are the 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen that escape from the atmosphere every year. 'The other very light gas this is happening to is helium and there is much less of that around, so it's about 1,600 tonnes a year of helium that we lose.' Taking all the factors into account, Smith reckons the Earth is getting about 50,000 tonnes lighter a year, which is just less than half the gross weight of the Costa Concordia, the Italian cruise liner that recently ran aground."

[underfoot]

.......um......what about the increasing population, doesnt that add anything......
Yep..sure does...overcrowding, overuse of resources, destruction of the natural environment, poverty, famine etc etc...it's a weighty problem...but won't add weight.

[MICKYG]

Its a bit hard to get your head around the Global Warming theory when its currently Minus 6 at the moment outside.

Regards Mike:2tsup:

[Sebastiaan56]

Well the Higgs bosun has been found. July 3 and the world still hasnt ended :rolleyes:

God particle is 'found': Scientists at Cern expected to announce Higgs boson particle has been discovered on Wednesday | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167188/God-particle-Scientists-Cern-expected-announce-Higgs-boson-particle-discovered-Wednesday.html)

[Toymaker Len]

Quote; (That is why I laugh at "Climate Change", our planet has been changing since day 1, whenever that was. We are now, simply in a better, technological manner, able to record the daily events of earth and broadcast these events in real time around the planet.
Yes we have climate change, but earth always has.

Hope you get a good answer to your question.)

Laugh away Paul. Welcome to the anthropocene - the age of man. Not only is the climate of the planet changing several thousand times faster than ever before but the sixth great extinction event is well under way. Half a century of study and data collection by several million of the best educated and trained human beings the world has ever produced (scientists) has left absolutely no doubt that our burning of fossil fuels has increased the co2 in the atmosphere thus causing global warming and climate change.
The good news for you is that you might just be dead before the full horror dawns on the mass of the human race. That will be when the collapse of agriculture worldwide runs into the unsustainable human population and literally billions will die.
I am predicting extreme militarism, state fascism and probably a resort to cannibalism. It will be like a cross between the collapse of the Maoris and the siege of Leningrad.
The bad news will be that your grandkids will be stuck right in the thick of it and the peace and prosperity of the twentieth century will seem like a far-off fairy tale to them. Hope you get a chuckle out of this.

[RETIRED]

Climate change has been done to death on this and numerous other Forums.

Please keep to the topic in hand.

[rwbuild]

Yep..sure does...overcrowding, overuse of resources, destruction of the natural environment, poverty, famine etc etc...it's a weighty problem...but won't add weight.

why not?

[Toymaker Len]

Won,t add weight because the earth is a contained system. Things leaving like say spacecraft detract weight. Things coming in like cosmic dust, asteroids will add weight.

[_fly_]

why not?
Your right, stop breathing, your using up valuable resources.:D

[BobL]

Won,t add weight because the earth is a contained system. Things leaving like say spacecraft detract weight. Things coming in like cosmic dust, asteroids will add weight.

The earth is far from a contained system. It leaks like a sieve as it hurtles through space leaving behind a trail of debris mainly gasses and some dust. As the quote in my previous post says it loses 90 odd thousand tons of Hydrogen alone each year.

Global warming increases mass because it reduces the amount of energy radiating off into space. Just raising the worlds ocean temp by 1ºC effectively will add ~65,000 tons to the mass of the earth.

Despite this, overall it loses about 50,000 tons a year.

[rwbuild]

Your right, stop breathing, your using up valuable resources.:D

The context behind my reply is as follows:

As the population of the world grows, it does use resources but as previously stated, the consumption of resources still produces waste / bi products equal to the original resource.
However, by the creation of new life, there is actually an increase in mass as a total entity of the world.

However, I do try to keep chivalry alive, so, lead on McDuff and after you good sir.......

[BobL]

However, by the creation of new life, there is actually an increase in mass as a total entity of the world.

The creation of increased amounts of life has not of itself directly added mass. e.g. when the worlds uninhabited lands were first covered by massive forests it would not have significantly changed the mass of the earth. All that happens is some of the carbon in the CO2 and carbonates moved into cellulose in the wood. However, going from a few hundred million to billions of people (all expecting to all live a first world lifestyle) appears to have caused changes in the atmosphere which disturbs the energy balance of the planet reducing the energy loss into outer space. The increase in the total energy content of the planet means it indirectly adds weight. But overall there are significant losses of gas from the planet that means we are still losing mass.

[_fly_]

The context behind my reply is as follows:

As the population of the world grows, it does use resources but as previously stated, the consumption of resources still produces waste / bi products equal to the original resource.
However, by the creation of new life, there is actually an increase in mass as a total entity of the world.

However, I do try to keep chivalry alive, so, lead on McDuff and after you good sir.......

And every new life is being made from the resources available. Resources are being used in the form of a life, we are 70% water that comes from water, the calcium comes from calcium etc etc. Its is being taken from somewhere else on the earth. It does not magically appear.
And from my point of view, god didn't do it either.

[Sebastiaan56]

Further to Fly's comment, you are aware that you breathe the air Jesus, Mohamed, Hitler etc breathed? The Odds That You'll Breathe a Single Molecule of Air That Once Traveled Through the Lungs of Jesus. - Rees Sloan's column on Newsvine (http://rsloan.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/03/2768580-the-odds-that-youll-breathe-a-single-molecule-of-air-that-once-traveled-through-the-lungs-of-jesus)

The earth is primarily a closed system and apart from leakage and dust arriving from space the mass doesnt change that much. Hence my interest in the Higgs bosun. If this announcement is for real all we need to know is if it bounces in and out of reality as do other particles. This may affect the theoretical mass.

[_fly_]

Further to Fly's comment, you are aware that you breathe the air Jesus, Mohamed, Hitler etc breathed? The Odds That You'll Breathe a Single Molecule of Air That Once Traveled Through the Lungs of Jesus. - Rees Sloan's column on Newsvine (http://rsloan.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/03/2768580-the-odds-that-youll-breathe-a-single-molecule-of-air-that-once-traveled-through-the-lungs-of-jesus)

The earth is primarily a closed system and apart from leakage and dust arriving from space the mass doesnt change that much. Hence my interest in the Higgs bosun. If this announcement is for real all we need to know is if it bounces in and out of reality as do other particles. This may affect the theoretical mass.
Does that mean there's a chance that I breathed something that came from the other end as well??
I know its a much smaller chance but maybe one of them???

[BobL]

Does that mean there's a chance that I breathed something that came from the other end as well??
I know its a much smaller chance but maybe one of them???

Not only their other end but from their decayed bodies as well.

[_fly_]

Not only their other end but from their decayed bodies as well.
Terrific, I can now say I'm part Vampire......
Kids will be thrilled cos they are as well..

[Twisted Tenon]

Wot Toymaker Len said. each day the earth is bombarded by space dust or really small meteorites. This must add to the earths' weight.

TT

[Bushmiller]

Wot Toymaker Len said. each day the earth is bombarded by space dust or really small meteorites. This must add to the earths' weight.

TT

It does add weight, but from what BobL said it is not enough to compensate for the "leakage' of low density gases. 40,000t in; 90,000t out.

Fundamentally the earth's system is contained (apart from the aforementioned leaks) so the creation of a child, a plant or a tree does not add weight as each of them has to consume earthly ingredients to grow.

Regards
Paul

[Twisted Tenon]

Fundamentally the earth's system is contained (apart from the aforementioned leaks) so the creation of a child, a plant or a tree does not add weight as each of them has to consume earthly ingredients to grow.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul I have been having trouble getting my head around this topic. This thread has been a useful thought provoker for me.

My original thoughts were that the Earth in its pristine state (before humans) maintained a balance with the elements lost to space by creating new gases to replace those lost. While not attempting to introduce Climate Change into the topic, I wonder if humans have caused an imbalance and therefore altered this balance preventing the earth from replacing these gases. Which when you come to think of it supports BobL's argument that the earth is getting lighter.

TT

[Bushmiller]

My original thoughts were that the Earth in its pristine state (before humans) maintained a balance with the elements lost to space by creating new gases to replace those lost. While not attempting to introduce Climate Change into the topic, I wonder if humans have caused an imbalance and therefore altered this balance preventing the earth from replacing these gases. Which when you come to think of it supports BobL's argument that the earth is getting lighter.

TT

I have to be careful not to go down the climate change path and incur the wrath of , but the earth's balance is dynamic in that there is constant change. There is still no significant alteration in the earth's weight, but the nature of the change may be different.

I think this is the issue that is so controversial. The products of our existence may inhibit or change the manner in which we live. Very, very few people dispute that the earth is changing, but the controversy revolves around whether mankind can continue to exist under these conditions and how significantly makind is to blame. The fact remains that, in principle, the earth's mass is to all intent and purpose constant.

Small amounts of weight are indeed lost, but not enough to make a difference. I think somebody else pointed out that the sun, too, is losing miroscopic amounts of mass related to it's enormous size.

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

Small amounts of weight are indeed lost, but not enough to make a difference. I think somebody else pointed out that the sun, too, is losing miroscopic amounts of mass related to it's enormous size.


The earth loses 0.00000000000000000001% of it's mass every year

The sun loses about 0.000000000001 % of it's mass every year.

In relative terms, the sun is losing mass 10,000,000 times faster than the earth.

Despite this the sun will only lose about 0.1% of its mass during it's whole lifetime.

Another way of putting this is the sun loses the equivalent mass of the earth about every 4 years.

[swk]

Twisted Tenon,
it's a problem humans have coping with non human sizes, either much bigger or much smaller.

I was going to do the % thing with lots of zeros but I'll do it a different way.
The earth weight changes in the order of 10's of thousands of tons a year according to BobL. And we can all sort of understand that, maybe compare it to 500 or 1000 semi trailer loads. That seems a lot, we can still grasp the size of a large number of semi traillers.
But the earth weighs (in Tonnes) 6 with _21_ zeroes after it. Our brains just can't compare that number with anything in our normal experience.

The earth is so much bigger than the semi trailers (which we know are heavy) that the semis really might as well not be there at all.

The sun (in tonnes) is 2 with _27_ zeroes after it. That is almost a million times heavier than the earth.

And this gets back to the original question...
With all these extra people it seems logical that it should make a difference to the weight of the earth. But fly and BobL are right the extra people come from the resources that are already on earth and we (in fact all the living things on the earth) make up only a tiny amount of the chemicals which the earth contains.

For instance if an average person weighs 70kg and are 70% water (so the story goes!) each person must be equivalent to about 49litres of water. With 7 Billion people in the world that's a total of 343 billion litres of water, which is a lot! (about 3 with 11 zeroes). It's really getting in to that unimaginable realm.
But the oceans contain about (1 with 21 zeroes) litres so people are about 0.0000000003% of the water in the world. (I might have got one zero extra or less here!)
Anyway, we can see 7 billion people and the effect they have and we might think that is big because we can sort of imagine it as say, 1600 Sydneys. But we don't (can't) notice the amount of water that has been taken out of the worlds water cycle to become us humans because the amount of water in the world is so much bigger.

Hope this helps (and doesn't make it worse)! :oo:

Regards

[_fly_]

Now we need to factor in the fact that 20 years ago we contained 49 cents of chemicals RRP.

[Twisted Tenon]

Hi Paul
I too don't want to bring Climate Change into this thread as it gets too emotional. My thoughts were that CC may be affecting the Earth's' mass. It is probably a simplistic view.

The way you and swk put it makes sense. All life on earth is simply re using existing water.

TT

[BobL]

Hi Paul
I too don't want to bring Climate Change into this thread as it gets too emotional. My thoughts were that CC may be affecting the Earth's' mass. It is probably a simplistic view.

Whenever something has more energy like heat it also has more mass. On the scale of a cup of tea this is minuscule but on the scale of the earth it works out to be tons (but of course is still relatively minuscule)

Whether the CC is man made or not doesn't matter, if CC makes the earth hotter it also makes the earth heavier

[swk]

... All life on earth is simply re using existing water.


and of course all the existing carbon, sulphur, sodium, iron ... well you probably get the picture now :)

Regards
SWK

[cava]

Yep..sure does...overcrowding, overuse of resources, destruction of the natural environment, poverty, famine etc etc...it's a weighty problem...but won't add weight.
Whilst I stand to be corrected with my mathematics, if every one of the 7 billion residents of the earth were to have 0.4 km2 to live on, and grow food etc - they would ALL fit into Queensland. Doesn't sound like too much over population to me.

[Master Splinter]

Just to put things into scale for you...

Star Size Comparison HD - YouTube

I just love how much zoom out is needed to fit the hypergiant stars in...

[dabbler]

Whilst I stand to be corrected with my mathematics, if every one of the 7 billion residents of the earth were to have 0.4 km2 to live on, and grow food etc - they would ALL fit into Queensland. Doesn't sound like too much over population to me.

Check your maths. Seven billion is a biiggg number. Queensland already has a population density around 0.4km2 per person (approx 4.5mill in 1.75mill km2). Perhaps Vic will have to take a few too.

[Twisted Tenon]

Check your maths. Seven billion is a biiggg number. Queensland already has a population density around 0.4km2 per person (approx 4.5mill in 1.75mill km2). Perhaps Vic will have to take a few too.


Come State of Origin time, QLD gets as big as it wants and takes any one who can play a bit :D

TT

[dabbler]

Come State of Origin time, QLD gets as big as it wants and takes any one who can play a bit :D

TT

Read the scoreboard TT.

[BobL]

. . .The way you and swk put it makes sense. All life on earth is simply re using existing water.


That is also not quite correct. The meteorites and cosmic dust that add to the mass of the earth contains hydrogen and oxygen. At some stage some of this combines into the existing water on earth. At the outer edge of the atmosphere a small amount of water vapour dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen. Quite a bit of the hydrogen escapes into space and a very small amount of oxygen does as well. So it's not a totally closed system

[swk]

Whilst I stand to be corrected with my mathematics, if every one of the 7 billion residents of the earth were to have 0.4 km2 to live on, and grow food etc - they would ALL fit into Queensland. Doesn't sound like too much over population to me.

well thats a bit of a challenge! So I went and did a bit of googling and some maths.

Here's some rough numbers:

Queensland area = 1.7 million Sq km
So 7 billion people = a shade over 4000 people per sq km or about 250sq m each.
Thats about the size of a modern house.

So plenty of room for all the people of the world to _fit_ in QLD.
BUT 250 sq m is not enough area to grow food.
I found some data that said _for a western lifestyle_ about 7000 sq m is need.
SO...
About 142 people to a sq km is what we need for food, which is about 28 times more area than above. To feed everyone of the 7 billion at a level of the western world will take about 28 Queenslands in area...

and the continent sizes in "Queensland"s are:
Africa 17.8
Europe 6
North America 14.5
South America 10.5
Asia 26.2
Australia 4.5

So Asia almost will do it (and Asia actually includes India and the middle east) but no other continent by itself would come close to holding the worlds current population.

AND this doesn't include the land needed for mining and any other non farming needs and assumes all land everywhere is arable.

(all the above subject to having "deliberate" errors pointed out!) :D

Regards
SWK

[BobL]

To feed everyone of the 7 billion at a level of the western world will take about 28 Queenslands in area...

Errrr . . .the worlds total arable area is only 8 Qlds in area - I see a problem here?

[Twisted Tenon]

Read the scoreboard TT.


I have 7 @#$% times :p
TT

[cava]

Check your maths. Seven billion is a biiggg number. Queensland already has a population density around 0.4km2 per person (approx 4.5mill in 1.75mill km2). Perhaps Vic will have to take a few too.
:doh: Bows very low, and backs out slowly. Good thing we have Mensa candidates on this forum.

[cava]

Whilst not as large as I originally thought, at 250 m2 per person and having a typical 4 person family, that is 1000 m2.

As a comparator we are currently feeding (mostly) and supplementing our family of 5 adults + extended family/friends from 300 m2 vegie garden and 970 m2 orchard. Dry/canned foods, grains and condiments, we have to buy.

[swk]

Errrr . . .the worlds total arable area is only 8 Qlds in area - I see a problem here?

Problem with my maths or the situation in the world (or both) :-

Doing a reality check: as "arable land" is land with annual crops on it (I just found that out from Wiki!) I would assume that the cropped area of the world feeds the people of the world (on average), so the 13.8 million sq km Wiki quotes is about 8 Qlds as Bob noted.
Wiki also notes another 35 million sq km as "agricultural" land, which includes permanent crops like orchards and pastures for livestock. And blow me down if total 48.8 million sq km isn't just a shade over 28 Queenslands!

I am not getting in to the argument about efficiency of using pasture for meat production instead of crop for human consumption, but it seems as though my rough as guts numbers were reasonably close for the situation we are in now. BUT that doesn't show if the "28 Queenslands" is a real limit because we have no more land available or an artificial limit because we only just grow what is required for the worlds population or is it some third type of stable situation due to conditions which I have no idea about(!)

PS I'm not denying BobL's comments there may be a problem here (apart from my maths). There very well could be if, for instance, the worlds agricultural areas are not expandable any further and we can't get a more efficient mix of staples and meat production.

Regards
SWK

[swk]

As a comparator we are currently feeding (mostly) and supplementing our family of 5 adults + extended family/friends from 300 m2 vegie garden and 970 m2 orchard. Dry/canned foods, grains and condiments, we have to buy.

Any meat?
Any wood* for fuel or building?
Any beer? :oo:

Regards
SWK

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!

[Bushmiller]

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!

Umm... Just a small point, but this thread is in the section "nothing at all to do with woodwork" and the original subject matter related to the weight of the earth and whether mankind's actions could or do vary that mass.:D

However, as I am one of the worst offenders for digression I am not going to push the point:rolleyes:.

Regards
Paul

[AlexS]

if every one of the 7 billion residents of the earth were to have 0.4 km2 to live on, and grow food etc - they would ALL fit into Queensland. Doesn't sound like too much over population to me.
Sounds like a good place to put them.:D

[BobL]

Doing a reality check: as "arable land" is land with annual crops on it (I just found that out from Wiki!) I would assume that the cropped area of the world feeds the people of the world (on average), so the 13.8 million sq km Wiki quotes is about 8 Qlds as Bob noted.
Wiki also notes another 35 million sq km as "agricultural" land, which includes permanent crops like orchards and pastures for livestock. And blow me down if total 48.8 million sq km isn't just a shade over 28 Queenslands!


Sure, but we can't live on peaches and mince. Arable land is crucial to our survival and the reality is we have essentially run out of it now, yet certain "mind sets" still avidly promote population growth. What's happening is we are riding on the skill of AG Science to increase soil productivity but that also cannot go on forever. I guess there is always "soilent green"? :rolleyes:

[cava]

Any meat?
Any wood* for fuel or building?
Any beer? :oo:

Regards
SWK

*almost got the thread back to woodworking!
Soon to have chickens! And we do have a small woodlot. :D

[swk]

Sure, but we can't live on peaches and mince. Arable land is crucial to our survival and the reality is we have essentially run out of it now, yet certain "mind sets" still avidly promote population growth. What's happening is we are riding on the skill of AG Science to increase soil productivity but that also cannot go on forever. I guess there is always "soilent green"? :rolleyes:

Absolutely agree Bob. Though some of us have been living on peaches and mince and we might squeeze a few more in if we try real hard. But absolutely correct IMHO it must stop somewhere. And if we don't do it voluntarily, nature will do it for us...

Brings to mind the Arthur Upfield book "Death of a Lake (http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/book-review-death-of-a-lake-arthur-w-upfield/)" where the drought and a rabbit plague forms the background to the murder which is the subject of the story.
We are now the rabbits...

Regards
SWK

[BobL]

Absolutely agree Bob. Though some of us have been living on peaches and mince and we might squeeze a few more in if we try real hard. But absolutely correct IMHO it must stop somewhere. And if we don't do it voluntarily, nature will do it for us... A rather odd fellow I worked about 30 years ago lived on tinned sardines and tinned peaches. The odd bit was he ate them together. He would open a can of peaches, eat about 1/3rd of the can and the add the tin of sardines. For added flavour he would top this off with half a can of baked beans. For breakfast he would eat half a kg of yoghurt. He had no furniture in his house but he did have a wall of empty yoghurt containers!


Brings to mind the Arthur Upfield book "Death of a Lake (http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/book-review-death-of-a-lake-arthur-w-upfield/)" where the drought and a rabbit plague forms the background to the murder which is the subject of the story.
We are now the rabbits...

we sure are.