742
Or Bob Gillespie, the Martin Luther King, Jr., of the compassionate population
stabilization front
11
. Yet, the computing of idealism in an eco-dynamic landscape
cannot be reliably correlated against actual individuals, populations, or biomes, not
unlike the ambiguities inherent, say, to the Fragile X (Stephanie) Sherman Paradox
12
.
“Thus, seemingly paradoxical results among studies of prevalence may reflect the
effects of selection bias, conflation and differing defining criteria for FXS across
studies”
13
. In other words, we are trapped in our very optimism by our optimism, a
perpetual and undeviating polysyllogism, or inflection point. When we do succeed
in saving the life of another, it is not so much a miracle that has transcended paradox, but a few good people with unconditional hearts.
But as with any epidemiology, human-modified ecosystem in which the dots,
pikes, daggers, and insults have all been connected, leaves no hint of widespread
recoveries. The words—widespread, recoveries—fall prey to the hazards of
Wittgenstein. But subjectivism aside, peer review by actors in the experiment
undermines the methodology. At meaningful statistical levels, everyone is essentially insane, which makes for continuous exhaustion and a discouraging framework
from the very instant of an inspiration. Both N and n = zero. This represents a substantial predicament at the population level, particularly for optimism and the multiplicity of attitude variables predictably at odds with its singular appeal.
The confusion of non-linear variables is without precedent, in the case of H. sapiens. There are too many subjective integers; the matrix lacks any but a narrow definition; there are no mathematical constants with a history of any certainty. The very
problems themselves have not been sufficiently circumscribed so as to offer basic
hypotheticals, models, let alone biological proxies for the individuals described.
First comes the crisis of gradualism. Demographers and conservationists keep
speaking of 2050 and 2100 as convenient thresholds. Yet, every ecological, demographic, consumption, energy, probability distribution, and stochastic (random sampling) modeling effort to date in each of those urgent arenas and time frames has
yielded constantly increasing numeric projections, or wobbly tables
14
. For many
years, world demographic statistics relied confidently upon United Nations mean
projections for countless sub-sets of population growth. Yet, within no more than a
decade, thresholds went from a global population projection of 7 to 7.5 million, up
to 9.5 million and beyond
15
. Today, we speak of a 2100 human population exceeding
11 See http://populationcommunication.com/
12 See “The fragile X prevalence paradox,” by Paul J Hagerman, J Med Genet. Author manuscript;
available in PMC 2009 Aug 18, J Med Genet. 2008 Aug; 45(8): 498–499.
Published online 2008 Apr 15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2008.059055,
PMCID: PMC2728763, NIHMSID: NIHMS120046, PMID: 18413371, US National Library of
Medicine National Institutes of Health.
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728763/. Accessed January 25, 2020.
14 See “Wobbly Tables - The Math,” By Martin Gardiner | April 26th 2012, Science 2.0, https://
www.science20.com/beachcombing_academia/wobbly_tables_math-89460, Accessed January 25,
2020.
15 See the Authors’ World War III – Population and the Biosphere at the End of the Millennium,
81 Biological Proxies for the Individual
Or Bob Gillespie, the Martin Luther King, Jr., of the compassionate population
stabilization front
11
. Yet, the computing of idealism in an eco-dynamic landscape
cannot be reliably correlated against actual individuals, populations, or biomes, not
unlike the ambiguities inherent, say, to the Fragile X (Stephanie) Sherman Paradox
12
.
“Thus, seemingly paradoxical results among studies of prevalence may reflect the
effects of selection bias, conflation and differing defining criteria for FXS across
studies”
13
. In other words, we are trapped in our very optimism by our optimism, a
perpetual and undeviating polysyllogism, or inflection point. When we do succeed
in saving the life of another, it is not so much a miracle that has transcended paradox, but a few good people with unconditional hearts.
But as with any epidemiology, human-modified ecosystem in which the dots,
pikes, daggers, and insults have all been connected, leaves no hint of widespread
recoveries. The words—widespread, recoveries—fall prey to the hazards of
Wittgenstein. But subjectivism aside, peer review by actors in the experiment
undermines the methodology. At meaningful statistical levels, everyone is essentially insane, which makes for continuous exhaustion and a discouraging framework
from the very instant of an inspiration. Both N and n = zero. This represents a substantial predicament at the population level, particularly for optimism and the multiplicity of attitude variables predictably at odds with its singular appeal.
The confusion of non-linear variables is without precedent, in the case of H. sapiens. There are too many subjective integers; the matrix lacks any but a narrow definition; there are no mathematical constants with a history of any certainty. The very
problems themselves have not been sufficiently circumscribed so as to offer basic
hypotheticals, models, let alone biological proxies for the individuals described.
First comes the crisis of gradualism. Demographers and conservationists keep
speaking of 2050 and 2100 as convenient thresholds. Yet, every ecological, demographic, consumption, energy, probability distribution, and stochastic (random sampling) modeling effort to date in each of those urgent arenas and time frames has
yielded constantly increasing numeric projections, or wobbly tables
14
. For many
years, world demographic statistics relied confidently upon United Nations mean
projections for countless sub-sets of population growth. Yet, within no more than a
decade, thresholds went from a global population projection of 7 to 7.5 million, up
to 9.5 million and beyond
15
. Today, we speak of a 2100 human population exceeding
11 See http://populationcommunication.com/
12 See “The fragile X prevalence paradox,” by Paul J Hagerman, J Med Genet. Author manuscript;
available in PMC 2009 Aug 18, J Med Genet. 2008 Aug; 45(8): 498–499.
Published online 2008 Apr 15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2008.059055,
PMCID: PMC2728763, NIHMSID: NIHMS120046, PMID: 18413371, US National Library of
Medicine National Institutes of Health.
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728763/. Accessed January 25, 2020.
14 See “Wobbly Tables - The Math,” By Martin Gardiner | April 26th 2012, Science 2.0, https://
www.science20.com/beachcombing_academia/wobbly_tables_math-89460, Accessed January 25,
2020.
15 See the Authors’ World War III – Population and the Biosphere at the End of the Millennium,
81 Biological Proxies for the Individual