Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby pup55 » Fri 23 Dec 2011, 18:02:23

'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

To interject one last bit of frivolity into what was once an interesting, thoughtful conversation, consider the following scenario:

Through the generosity of that fat turkey miraculously provided by Scrooge which plucks him from the jaws of death, Tiny Tim survives to reproductive age, and, like his father, Bob Cratchit, is able to reproduce and have 6 offspring. The offspring, on average, have 6 kids each per generation until 1943, when they get the message and start cutting back on the birth rate, 4 kids each in 1943 and 1963, and 2 kids each after that. This assumes all of the kids make it to reproductive age (including surviving WWI and the blitz) and no intermarrying.

By 2003, Tiny Tim would have 151,891 descendants. Alarmingly, 95% of them, or 145952, would be still alive at the present day, having been born in the last 3 generations.

So would the story have been more or less interesting if Scrooge had said, "Tiny Tim, I'm giving you this turkey so you will pull through this winter, but you have to agree to have a vasectomy so as to keep 143,000 energy-consuming people out of the population by 2003"?

Second question: would Bob, a mathematician by trade, have gone along with the plan?

Code: Select all
Year Offspring Population
1843 -- 1
1863 6 6
1883 6 36
1903 6 216
1923 6 1296
1943 4 5184
1963 4 20736
1983 2 41472
2003 2 82944
151891


original thread:

was-scrooge-right-t3421.html

I vow to only repost this every five years or so, when a new generation of forum dwellers can reflect on it.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby KingM » Fri 23 Dec 2011, 20:46:09

Wrong. The population of England in 1845 was 15,000,000. It is now 51,000,000. That means that Tiny Tim would be responsible for 3.4 living English today. Taking into account emigration to Canada, Australia, etc., this number might possibly rise as high as 4 or 5.

Tiny Tim would, of course, have many more descendants, but these would be increasingly diluted fractions of Tiny Tim's genetic material with each passing generation.
User avatar
KingM
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Second Vermont Republic

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 09:56:20

pup55 wrote: Tiny Tim survives to reproductive age, and, like his father, Bob Cratchit, is able to reproduce and have 6 offspring. The offspring, on average, have 6 kids each per generation until 1943, when they get the message and start cutting back on the birth rate, 4 kids each in 1943 and 1963, and 2 kids each after that. This assumes all of the kids make it to reproductive age (including surviving WWI and the blitz) and no intermarrying.
Except child mortality in the Victorian cities was brutal. The chances of 6 kids reaching reproductive ages is slim.

With healthcare and social welfare the population increase slowed to the point the UKs population is reliant on inward migration to remain stable.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby basil_hayden » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 10:24:08

dorlomin wrote:
pup55 wrote: Tiny Tim survives to reproductive age, and, like his father, Bob Cratchit, is able to reproduce and have 6 offspring. The offspring, on average, have 6 kids each per generation until 1943, when they get the message and start cutting back on the birth rate, 4 kids each in 1943 and 1963, and 2 kids each after that. This assumes all of the kids make it to reproductive age (including surviving WWI and the blitz) and no intermarrying.
Except child mortality in the Victorian cities was brutal. The chances of 6 kids reaching reproductive ages is slim.

With healthcare and social welfare the population increase slowed to the point the UKs population is reliant on inward migration to remain stable.


So if the world remained brutal it would all work out, but since it's mellowed and Tiny Tim has way more than 151,000 descendants (taking into account the migrated offspring mated with the natives) a vasectomy would be the ultimate Xmas gift for Scrooge?
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 10:37:36

basil_hayden wrote:So if the world remained brutal it would all work out, but since it's mellowed and Tiny Tim has way more than 151,000 descendants
Just explained that that number is wrong.
Infant mortality in the 1840s in industrial cities would have been near 50%. Outbreaks of cholera were still comon and I have seen numbers for Glasgow giving life expectancy of about 43. The current UK population is around 62 million but that includes several million inward migrants. We have not experianced the kind of exponential growth your 151 000 predicts. When peoples health and wealth improved, fertility rates slowed.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Cloud9 » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 11:46:59

In the long view we are all dead anyway nothing matters. Such is the view of the cynic. I for one enjoy doing random acts of kindness. It simply feels good. The rest of you may do what you will.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Heineken » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 19:19:44

Cloud9 wrote:In the long view we are all dead anyway nothing matters.


Not even in a very long view. Almost every human being alive today will be dead in less than a century.

That thought always gets me.

I like to look at 19th century photographs of crowds, and early motion pictures of bustling cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's fascinating to me that all those people are dead. Every last one of them.

We speak of our population of 7 billion as if it were a monolith, solid and eternal like the Sphinx. It is more like an ordinary moth.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby KingM » Sat 24 Dec 2011, 22:11:36

Heineken wrote:
Cloud9 wrote:I like to look at 19th century photographs of crowds, and early motion pictures of bustling cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's fascinating to me that all those people are dead. Every last one of them.


I do the same thing. It's weird, though, that you can go back to the same street, with the same buildings, and see civilization bustling about just the same even though the population on that street has been completely replaced again and again with new people.
User avatar
KingM
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Second Vermont Republic

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby pup55 » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 09:06:35

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4932.pdf

Here it is. We're talking about 170 per thousand births in the beginning of that period to 20 in the 1950's. Maybe some of the further generations had 7 kids to make up for it.

The population of England in 1845 was 15,000,000. It is now 51,000,000.


Oh, thank goodness the most fit managed to survive so that they could populate Montana.

I think it is still more fun to think about the fact that 95% of Tiny Tim's descendants are alive today.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 11:34:56

I watched 'A Christmas carol' on TV last night before bed. I woke up to find that despite my frantic Xmas shopping to make sure 'everyone' had something, I didn't find a present for myself under the tree.

My birthday is 6 days before Xmas and everyone who cared gave me a combined birthday/Xmas gift. Still I'm usually disapointed not to even having a bag of black socks to open, that would have been nice!

I would imagine if/when the economy truly tanks, Christmas will have to be downsized. Where a bag of black socks will truly be a gift to look forwards to. I've talked to elderly relatives who lived through the great depression in the 1930's, they said they always had Christmas; but the presents would always be real things of value; clothes, tools, food for the family or for Christmas dinner. I can see society going back to something like that real soon.

I went to bed last night with the Christmas wish that Christanity actually was real, that I would get a 'life review' like Scrooge and a chance to 'Repent' the errors of my ways down the line. Somehow I've read one too many Richard Dawkins books on evolution to accept the socially deluded myths about virgin births, supernova's over a barn, with wise men traveling at night to find the new messiah anymore.

I hope there's a God and and an afterlife; there's not much more to look forward to in life, especially life during/ after a collapse.
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Pretorian » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 19:57:02

Cloud9 wrote:In the long view we are all dead anyway nothing matters. Such is the view of the cynic. I for one enjoy doing random acts of kindness. It simply feels good. The rest of you may do what you will.

Would you be doing any of that if there were no euphoria for you through this?
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Pretorian » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 20:00:15

KingM wrote:
Heineken wrote:
Cloud9 wrote:I like to look at 19th century photographs of crowds, and early motion pictures of bustling cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's fascinating to me that all those people are dead. Every last one of them.


I do the same thing. It's weird, though, that you can go back to the same street, with the same buildings, and see civilization bustling about just the same even though the population on that street has been completely replaced again and again with new people.



And so do I ..
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Pretorian » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 20:20:27

Repent wrote:I hope there's a God and and an afterlife; there's not much more to look forward to in life, especially life during/ after a collapse.


Do you really? What if you will find yourself boiling in molten lead because you didn't fast properly in 1985 ?
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Sun 25 Dec 2011, 22:25:25

Do you really? What if you will find yourself boiling in molten lead because you didn't fast properly in 1985 ?


Good point, I'm okay with evolutionary free will as well, no one wants to roast!
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Narz » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 02:23:48

I'm not sure how much reproductive success a guy named Tiny Tim would have. :lol:
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 12:38:35

Heineken wrote:
Cloud9 wrote:In the long view we are all dead anyway nothing matters.


Not even in a very long view. Almost every human being alive today will be dead in less than a century.

That thought always gets me.

I like to look at 19th century photographs of crowds, and early motion pictures of bustling cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's fascinating to me that all those people are dead. Every last one of them.

We speak of our population of 7 billion as if it were a monolith, solid and eternal like the Sphinx. It is more like an ordinary moth.


That is a beautiful way to put it. Thank you for that.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 12:48:37

Pretorian wrote:
Repent wrote:I hope there's a God and and an afterlife; there's not much more to look forward to in life, especially life during/ after a collapse.


Do you really? What if you will find yourself boiling in molten lead because you didn't fast properly in 1985 ?


You bring up an interesting point. I think there are two threads running through history concerning God and Man. One seems to be from God himself and appears to be entirely benevolent. The other appears to be from Man and depicts God as Man needs him to be, vile, mean, judgmental. If God makes any demands at all, such as that people love themselves, Man will pervert that and turn it into a reason to impose an exclusive cult or impose a set of rules which no one can follow. It's not really very much different from when I go out back and feed the squirrels. Even now if I make a move they distrust me. They are animals, so is Man.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby davep » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 12:54:21

evilgenius wrote:
Pretorian wrote:
Repent wrote:I hope there's a God and and an afterlife; there's not much more to look forward to in life, especially life during/ after a collapse.


Do you really? What if you will find yourself boiling in molten lead because you didn't fast properly in 1985 ?


You bring up an interesting point. I think there are two threads running through history concerning God and Man. One seems to be from God himself and appears to be entirely benevolent. The other appears to be from Man and depicts God as Man needs him to be, vile, mean, judgmental. If God makes any demands at all, such as that people love themselves, Man will pervert that and turn it into a reason to impose an exclusive cult or impose a set of rules which no one can follow. It's not really very much different from when I go out back and feed the squirrels. Even now if I make a move they distrust me. They are animals, so is Man.


If He is all-powerful then He certainly isn't entirely benevolent.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby Pretorian » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 13:34:39

Well what if he is not all-powerful, what if he is not a he but a she, it or they, what what if it's one of those 30-40 000 deities that didn't get to be worshiped much and is /are pissed as hell. You might be willing to reconsider the molten lead option I'd say.
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Was Scrooge Right (Revisited)?

Unread postby davep » Wed 28 Dec 2011, 13:38:16

Pretorian wrote:Well what if he is not all-powerful, what if he is not a he but a she, it or they, what what if it's one of those 30-40 000 deities that didn't get to be worshiped much and is /are pissed as hell. You might be willing to reconsider the molten lead option I'd say.


Why refer to her as a God if she's not all-powerful? Just because she created this mess doesn't mean we have to worship her.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Next

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests