Ah, that's where the confusion lay. (I know Bricsys is an ACAD clone)

Looking forward to the soon-to-be-announced Mac version.

Yes, you are right, but an lot of professionals still use ViaCAD. And I've seen the results in the shops. A designer who designed a series of chopping boards that Joseph-Joseph released, designed those in ViaCAD. Jol Yates is another designer who uses ViaCAD.

ViaCAD is based on the ACIS geometric kernel, but I don't think it is fair to call ViaCAD an ACAD clone. ViaCAD is actually a better, more refined version of the old Ashlar Vellum!

@unknownuser said:

I'm a big ctrl c/ctrl v fan

I'm just a big SketchUp fan!

There may be a TIG plugin for this (he seems to have it all covered ), but afaik, it's simply a case of doing it manually and then getting the tape measure out (or the scale tool).

Not according to here you didn't

@unknownuser said:

We should rather ask how WE can find new ways to let Earth thrive...

Brother, we're not going to thrive with David Icke! I'd rather go with the world according to Ned Flanders and have a total frontal lobotomy!!

Notice the great big Hollywood type production to that trailer? Are thrills and dark secrets the way to win arguments? And where is all this 'powerful technology beamed to us via UFO*****'? Conspiracy theories have so far proven nothing and are not the way forward.

*****U.F.O.= "United Fruitcake Outlet"

Mike, "the gift and human right to reproduction"? I don't really understand what you are angling at, apart from maybe perhaps playing the 'selfish' card? But then I suppose it boils down to how I'd define the term 'selfish', as selfish is another term that gets branded around a lot. Greedy is another one. And eventually it boils down to one thing alone, misanthropic thinking. This is why I conclude that people who believe what Malthus wrote in his paper; "An Essay on the Principle of Population" are simply misanthropic thinkers. Many of them it seems were also a product of the flower-power generation, and after several years of Thatcherism have never really been delivered into the "promised land" (whatever that was supposed to be?).

I would imagine that if I were living in pre-Victorian times, without contraception (probably because of religious order), I may have been born into a family with many brothers and sisters. There's a strong link that bonds that older period with the modern period- poverty, as well as the appliance of modern medicine. (I note that Bill Gates is really doing a good job in the Maleria department- a disease that we westerners don't really have to worry about). I've got two kids. I'd love to have more, but I don't really have the income to support them. But if I were 10 years younger and had a £70,000/year job i'd definitely have more! My friend Lawrence on the other hand is a Christian and he has 7 kids! So perhaps the religious thing goes out of the window?

We as a type of animal with a reproductive system breed (I know mice replicate in much higher numbers, but then mice don't develop drugs that help them have a far more satisfying and stable life), are able to reproduce and the result is very beautiful- out pops a child. You can prevent this, but then what's the point in living if you can't reproduce? I'd rather be dead.

@alan fraser said:

Which is exactly why I and others argue for at least starting to do something about the problem now...while we have the leeway to exercise compassion, rather than waiting until humanity has painted itself into a corner and we have to helplessly watch disease, hunger and war solve the problem for us.

There's an answer to that...

1. Disease;

We fight disease by getting behind pharmaceutical companies & development (and stop being afraid of them) and by introducing massive R&D back into British and worldwide industry- in the west at least. This for one would help boost our economy. The British are very advanced in the field of medicine. It would be a shame to export all that talent to countries like China- we should work together instead.

2. Hunger;

We do the same as above with GM. (I noticed that there was only one reference to GM in that report you uploaded Alan. And of course we forget about organic food- which after several independent studies, was shown to have no extra benefits to health than food grown in large scale industrialisation). This too (GM research), would also help boost our economy.

3. War;

We open all borders right across the globe allowing free movement of migration for everyone.

I know that the last point is controversial to many. But we kind of just had an open border right here in Britain! It would be interesting to know what the result of this has turned out to be.

http://noborders.org.uk/

http://www.newint.org/argument/2010/12/01/immigration-debate-open-borders-to-refugees-migrants/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15684849

Juan you are spot on. There's far too much hatred of fellow humans on this earth. Most of these haters have never heard of 'reason' (or at least they'd rather bury their head in the sand )

You know there is a website that rich westerners can go to and actually pay people to go and discourage others from having children!

@unknownuser said:

PopOffsets is unique –we give you the option of offsetting your carbon footprint by funding family planning

A way of saying, "we're (the affluent western whitey, are) going to stop you from having one of life's most amazing gifts; children". Nice. Where's that going to end, I wonder?

http://www.popoffsets.com/what_we_do.php

It wasn't so long ago that a certain Austrian fellow with a stupid moustache was branding similar ideas around- vis-a-vis the concept of 'eugenics' . The principles of eugenics are horrific. Eugenics once fell out of grace because of the 1940's nazi disposition with them, but I suppose because it's now been several years since the end of the second world war, people have largely forgotten the atrocities of the nazi's, and the essence of fascist/nazi principles are once again creeping back in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I agree with Norbert. You can do all of that (as a precision modeller) with ViaCAD 2D/3D.
ViaCAD's an often overlooked modeller. It has a history tree and is a lot easier to use than say Rhinoceros.
And its a bargain for what you get.

@mike lucey said:

I notice everyone is 'tip toeing' around my rant above!

I'm not tip-toeing around it- or I hope I'm not anyway? I've been reading the paper that Alan posted (which I found utterly miserable) and have been looking at many arguments for and against population growth.

@unknownuser said:

So we come to this inescapable conclusion when we try to answer the question of how many people the Earth can support--the answer can only be a counter question: "What kind of world do you want?" If you want a world where Americans can continue living pretty much as they are, then global human population is likely to be substantially less than it is now. If you wish to keep the current American standard of living where it is, while allowing the rest of the world to grow substantially in numbers, the consequence is to doom that "other world" to perpetual misery and lost expectations, while doggedly holding on to the American way of life as desperately as possible.

This is not a world I want for my children and grandchildren, nor is it one I think anyone else would care to see. The only response can be to drop all these time and energy-wasting lost-cause efforts to keep both freedoms of fertility, immigration, and affluence while continuing to grow world human population. Instead we should work to reduce the number of humans living on Earth. This can be done peacefully by conscious action, or it can be done coercively, or involuntarily--as is happening currently in Zimbabwe, with its 30% level of AIDS infection.

Grim.

But I know what kind of world I want. The problem is it seems, is that the world I want seems to be the unpopular vote- or at least many don't want to talk about it. (4 pages of debate, yet less than 700 views for this thread).

As for too much plastic? We could of course ban plastic bags, but then if we did, however would we have been able to come up with that brilliant idea about making batteries from those very bags, in the link that Pete posted earlier?

I think this is the classic trick Malthusian thinkers keep missing- the classic old schoolboy mistake, is that man has always learnt to adapt and be creative with his surroundings. We're not the only ones who are moving and developing- the rest of the world is too. During Roman times the ladies would hand bits of black rock around the necks as jewellery, knowing very little that one day we would be heating our homes or powering entire cities with. Or the strange yellowish element that made glass windows a nice colour could actually be used to generate electricity. Today we are only beginning to understand what an abundant rock we now know as Thorium, can be used again to generate almost limitless quantities of electricity, thus replacing coal.

What I am saying is never underestimate the power of the human mind and the power of human ingenuity.

@solo said:

Plastic bags to batteries.

What a brilliant example of how resourceful humans can be!

Thanks for showing as that Pete.

It's diet Pepsi for me. I'm on a high protein/ low carb Atkins-based diet.

I far prefer 7-up though. Or even Iron-Bru! Liquid bubblegum!!!

@alan fraser said:

Do you have any idea how long it takes to filter a mass of 5000 lego pieces, a similar number of statically-charged, clingy fragments of supermarket bag and a healthy coating of loft dust?

Yes I do. I did that as part of my degree in product design engineering.

UV is an excellent source to break down plastics too. Plastics manufacturers constantly strive to introduce chemicals that slow this process.

@alan fraser said:

I came across this interesting table. It assumes a time when oil has effectively gone (at least as a fuel) and what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production. Obviously, alternate energy sources have been developed, otherwise the more technologically advanced options wouldn't be possible at all.
It also assumes that each such population would have an effective zero effect upon the biosphere.

Yes, you are right. It is only a hypothesis. But say the demographic starts to take GM more seriously rather than just passing it off as a 'frankenstein' product, we could in theory grow plants that are much higher in oil content than before. Hemp or rape for example. I'm sure there are others which could be found, plants that could be processed to create a generation of new polymers?

I'm not at all against GM, but I don't approve of companies such as Monsanto owning all the patents. But perhaps that's something I'll/we'll just have to live with unless there is a complete overhaul of our present global capitalist system?

@mike lucey said:

Have you noticed how a lot of products we buy have a huge amount of plastic wrapping. In a lot of cases the wrapping is more valuable than the actual product that is being wrapped!

Oh here we go again......

What's wrong with wrapping?! It's how you dispose of if that is important. Throwing it out of your car window does not impress!

This is an interesting article;

Carrier bags, 'not eco-villains after all'!

I'm sorry Mike, but I'm on Alan's side this time. Pepsi is definitely better than Coca-Cola!

The only thing that's wrong with KFC, is that there is not enough meat on the thing!

And recently I have become a convert to MacDonalds, moving away from Burger King. "It's just nicer"!

Starbucks coffee? Can't get enough of it! And my daughter is fast becoming addicted to frappachino's

Pete, I've got two Lumix G1 bodies. The last one I picked up on eBay for £100. The joy of these cameras is that they are semi SLR, and take interchangeable lenses- in particular lenses made by other manufacturers. For eg I've got a Canon 50mm f1.4 lens that I picked up for £30 (being mft, you do have to deal with focal length 'doubling' ie a 50mm becomes a 100mm), a MFT adaptor that cost £15 from Hong Kong. It makes for a brilliant little setup for for only £165.

Hope that suggestion helps.

Tom

@alan fraser said:

I'm simply not willing to enter into any further dialogue with someone who continually dives into strawman arguments, questioning the credentials of someone who disagrees with his viewpoint rather than putting forward a coherent counter argument.

What a shame. Actually I'm really not that surprised (and I'm not surprised either that after all the time I've tried to make a point, it is actually you Alan, who is making the derogatory personal remarks at me; "Strawman arguments"??? Thanks a lot! ). It seems that time after time I come across people just like yourself, and there are hundreds, who simply don't want a debate about this. These people are always more prepared to claim "the earth is finite and there are too many people". But they never back it up consistently (despite evidence proving past predictions wrong time and time again). And then when the subject gets too awkward, or it doesn't fit in with their vision, they bow out. Why? I think I've put a very coherent argument across? Why don't you? I may not have a PhD in the English language, but I think I've tried to put my reasoning for reasonable debate across at least in "layman's terms"?

'Personal remarks'? I was referring to my father, not you! My father is a mathematician. Being at Cambridge is just an indication that it's something real, rather than simply boasting about something that may or may not be true.

And why do you continually belittle my efforts for debate? I didn't go to Cambridge, and my father almost didn't either- because he failed his 11+, in Maths!. Personally I think that alone speaks volumes about just how much the majority of the demographic don't really know much about maths- or maybe I should say 'economics'? (And I still believe that using uppercase letters is shouting, whereas italics is merely to emphasise a point- which is what my english teacher always told me... but then again perhaps she was wrong too?)