My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Darin C. Brown: Five More Nails in the Rodriguez Coffin | Main | Richard Strohman: Maneuvering in the Complex Path from Genotype to Phenotype »

October 29, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I always get a kick out of statements like "rising population growth could create additional demands on water and food supplies". The implication is that it (rising population growth, not to be confused with simple population growth, or regular rising populations) might *not* "create additional demands on water and food supplies". When was the last time any population managed to grow without consuming more food and water??

I also have to laugh at statements like "is expected [to] reach 120m by 2050", according to the "experts". Presumably these experts are using population growth models that assume the presence of an infinite supply of energy, food, and water. Under these assumptions, yes, the population of Uganda could hit 120 million in 40 years. Since none of those resources is in fact infinite, I am very skeptical that any African nation could quadruple its current population.

And of course that's to say nothing of the "AIDS epidemic", which was always supposed to be decimating the population of Africa "any year now". It's a "ticking time bomb", isn't it? But wait - how can a nation with a "moderately severe" AIDS epidemic be expecting to quadruple its population in two generations or so? I thought that wasn't supposed to be possible, according to the AIDS "experts".



Come on, you know that according to these experts anything is possible.

Look what those Harvard goons said in the NY Times just yesterday (that we had the scoop on Saturday, natch.)

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad