<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How you think is more important than how you breed</title>
	<link>http://ceilingsunlimited.tv/blog/?p=32</link>
	<description>See climate change as an opportunity for enhancing national security and economic vitality</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: sustainelaine</title>
		<link>http://ceilingsunlimited.tv/blog/?p=32#comment-7306</link>
		<author>sustainelaine</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:16:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ceilingsunlimited.tv/blog/?p=32#comment-7306</guid>
		<description>Patrick,

Is population growth a geometric function, that is doubling (2+2=4, 4+4=8, 8+8=16) to a quick rise OR exponential as in a number squared or to the third power?  I usually hear population growth described as exponential growth but once read in Alan AtKisson's Believing Cassandra that population growth is geometric.  Either way, it's scary.

Werner Fournos suggests that if 350 million women worldwide who want to be able to plan their family size could, the world could stabilize its population at 8 billion. 

-Justine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrick,</p>
<p>Is population growth a geometric function, that is doubling (2+2=4, 4+4=8, 8+8=16) to a quick rise OR exponential as in a number squared or to the third power?  I usually hear population growth described as exponential growth but once read in Alan AtKisson&#8217;s Believing Cassandra that population growth is geometric.  Either way, it&#8217;s scary.</p>
<p>Werner Fournos suggests that if 350 million women worldwide who want to be able to plan their family size could, the world could stabilize its population at 8 billion. </p>
<p>-Justine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
