That was Louis XIV philosophy: “Aprés moi, le deluge”. Yes, it is an egotistic attitude, but it is human nature. Human nature includes people like Hitler and Stalin, Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer, Al Gore and Margaret Thatcher, Alexander Fleming and Jesus Christ – and all the gray tones in between. On the other hand, Rev. Martin Luther King was an exceptional man, but he didn’t go into history as a scientist, but as a politician – a good one. He was partly right, though, when said “the modern plague of overpopulation<b> is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we posses.</b>” He hit the bull’s eye when acknowledged that we have the means for giving a solution to possible problems –but he was wrong when categorized world population of those days as “overpopulation”. But politicians, no matter how good they are, sometimes will goof it. So are the rules of the game. ¿Don’t you like the game and its rules? Withdraw from society, become another Una-bomber and seclude yourself in the wilderness. The FBI will get you. Your graphs look impressive, quite neat. It’s a pity, though, but they are simple statistics, based on dubious data, and on an inexistent consensus. It is an ironclad rule in computing called <b>GIGO</b>, that is, “garbage in, garbage out”. If you have four variables you can get any result from any statistic. And as late mathematician Von Neuman said about statistical graphs, <b>“if you give me four variables, I can draw an elephant. And with five, I can make him wiggle his tail.”</b> And of course, there is the old famous and quite repeated saying: <b>“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics – in that order.”</b> Furthermore, you of course know, there is no consensus in science, <b>and there will never be</b>. Sometimes, there is consensus on some basic principles of the thermodynamics and physics, and chemistry, but even many of those basic principles have been falling down, as the “solar constant”, that is in fact, a “solar variable,” or the speed of light (as particle Omega-minus can travel faster than that). Go back in history and you will find that there was “consensus” in that the oil was going to be depleted in 30-50 year time. (Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, Alexander King, etc). That 50-year prediction still stands, even 50 years have elapsed and oil reserves have increased three fold. You must not talk about “prophecies” and give ominous dates for the time we will run out of oil. By the time that thing happens, mankind will have other ways of getting energy and different fuels for transportation, and other techniques replacing the petrochemical industry. For sure, we’ll have plastics, but they will come from different sources. You are leaving out of the picture, and have never considered in your apocalyptic analysis that “resources” become such thing when mankind has a need for them. Sand (silica) became a resource only when men started to make glass and later, a more important resource when began producing electronic chips. Oil was not a “resource” but a thick tar that used to spoil Oklahoma’s crop land in the 1840s. When someone developed the internal combustion engine (touted as a catastrophic world danger in 1856) and someone accidentally discovered the cracking technique of petroleum, then it became a resource, because society had a use for it, society wanted it, and went after it. The same applies to most raw materials as uranium, and all strategic minerals (molybdenum, titanium, chromium, cadmium, wolfram, tungsten, etc) that became resources when mankind found a use for them. Be assured there are resources down on Earth crust that presently are not resources, but they will be when we discover a use for them. Perhaps, when we run out of oil, “tree huggers” will become a valuable resource as fuel for heating hospitals and schools. They have a lot of condensed energy inside and will burn merrily giving warmth and happiness to sick people, children and elderly people. That way they will be really serving mankind. We’ll be needing lots of energy by the year 2030, when the solar Double Gleissberg minimum will occur and send Earth back to another Little Ice Age. All the signs are evident, solar physicists have been warning of such event, so go out and buy blankets while they are cheap. It’s not me who think in those terms, but a notorious tree hugger as B. Shaw, along with another hideous character named Sir Bertrand Russell (a Peace Nobel Award – after proposing his theory of “preemptive nuclear war” against Russia in 1947, urging Churchill to drop the Bomb on Moscow.) Which makes the Nobel Awards suspicious political tools. Remember F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen got a Nobel Award for their Ozone Hoax theory. Then the latest Nobel Peace prize in 2004 was Wangari Maathai, from Kenya, a recognized tree hugger, and the reason for awarding the prize was: "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". According to the Nobel Foundation, “She has taken a holistic approach to sustainable development that embraces democracy, <b>human rights and women's rights in particular</b>. She thinks globally and acts locally.” Indeed she does. She is a well educated person, (Firsts: first woman in central or eastern Africa to hold a Ph.D., first woman head of a university department in Kenya, first African woman to win the Nobel Prize in Peace), also a professor, has a bachelor in sciences, Master in sciences and a Ph.D. in anatomy. Her curriculum is outstanding, but all the résumés you see in the Internet will never say one terrible thing: As a member of the Tetu ethnic she practices and encourages their tribe’s traditional practice of mutilation of young girls: they cut young girl’s clitoris. And she has made clear she will encourage that practice (or “cultural” trait?) no matter that practice goes against all women's right, or human rioghts. Do you see any contradiction here? Fighting for "women's rignt" and cutting young girl's clitoris? Nobel Awards are weird. Of course, she has a personal website and founded the <b>Green Belt Movement</b>. In her webpage there is, of course, this invitation: <B>“Click here to donate to The Green Belt Movement “</b> Another interesting thing ting is that you make claims and assertions believing they are true. As the one above. You or nobody else doesn’t know if civilization will be able to sustain itself in the future. But if we look back and see how civilization has been performing during many centuries, we see that the trend is highly positive and looks bright for mankind: we have gained life expectancy from 25 years (Roman era) to more than 80 now; although population has nearly doubled in the last century, we are presently producing more than double the amount of food in about a third of the land used in 1900, and at cheaper prices. So, what’s wrong with that? Why are you so angry for humankind improvements? Or would you feel better if people had a life expectancy of 40 years (USA, 1900), we gave up antibiotics, homing, cars, comfort, and rushed to wilderness to live a “plentiful” life. That’s OK but -- live on what? You, tree huggers, will have banned tree cutting so we wouldn’t have wood for cooking meals and heating our caves in winter. We couldn’t hunt buffaloes or deer, rabbits, birds, etc, because you made it illegal. My opinion is that you, tree huggers, want mankind to disappear so all those beautiful creatures in the wild will be free to chase them down and eat each other at will.