Not really statistics. Muddled thought, terrible writing, and bad math hoping to make sense.

By 2019, I had said a couple of times "It's the new Dark Ages!" The level of half-assed thinking and extreme argument, rejection of science, gullible agreement with various insane statements and general stupidity had made me think repeatedly of the fall of educated society and logical inquiry, in some parts of Europe, into which void flooded Roman Catholicism and a whole bunch of trouble.

I keep hoping to see evidence that I was wrong. Still looking.

Some gems came up on facebook:

There's where I put it on facebook, to comment and gather the responses of my incredulous friends.

So many questions...

Then there is this one, which is more about the bad math than terrible writing:

Someone in Santa Fe named John Stephenson did some military analysis (though some of the readers here might have already pictured every bit of this). I donated some capitalization and paragraphs:
So based on the persons math of each Irish citizen having to fight off 3.18 Million penguins each, it would mean there are 21 TRILLION penguins.

If each person was able to kill 1 penguin a second, The slaughter would last 37 days roughly nonstop. -- Let's assume a stockpile of 1 trillion rounds of ammunition currently in the world. The annual production rate of ammunition is 12 billion rounds per year. We would run out of ammunition within the first week reducing the fighters to hand to hand combat and more primitive weaponry and thus reducing the kill rate significantly.

Now we're looking at least towards a 6 month time line. This doesn't take into effect human casualties which, unless the penguins organized into anything other than a zergling waddle rush, should be minor while we do not have to engage in close quarters combat, and even then would still be minor, serving only to extend the end of the slaughter.

Chilling wave of tuxedo terror...

Another reader double-checked the math:

LOL 3.18 penguins per person.... But it's that .18 penguin that's a scary mofo [—Earl Billick, same link]
There are other good comments there, and I didn't follow the penguins back to their source to read others; just read at my own friend's page.

But Back to Alaska...

Which is it—as crowded as NYC, or an acre per person?

Some of these comments were mine, there, lifted, but Jenny Cyphers had a good question:

Is Alaska really 7.8 billion acres?
I looked that up. Africa, the entire continent, is 7.505 billion acres.

What I noticed at first:

Grammar matters. This lost meaning at "over the masses," and then failed to explain who is "lowering" the population, and how.

"The population" will be living on the edges of mountains when we're all moved to our own acres in Alaska. Some will be on Juneau's old dump, right? Who gets the acres the hospitals are on?

If a fraction of lawns were turned into gardens, who's going to carry that magically-produced food where food is scarce? I think all that transportation will cancel out the vegetables grown where grass used to grow.

We have a lawn in front. It's bermuda grass that spreads its own self, and doesn't die easily in Albuquerque. It's somewhere between not easy and impossible to grow food in New Mexico, away from the irrigation along the river.

But back to Alaska...

I don't think most of Alaska has water- and sewer hook-ups, or electricity.

Statistics don't solve human problems.

But if everything is a lie, statistically, it 100% doesn't matter.

But I thought about it some more. I probably shouldn't have. smiley face

[ALSO, if everyone's in Alaska, who will take care of those gardens. WHAT A MESS.]

Ooh! if we could be transported to our marked squares (acres) magically all at once, no sharing, no backsies, no helpsies... we could ALL "live" but then the contest would be... how long? Some will be in deep water (literally). Some high and dry. Someone (let's say just one) will be dropped between a grizzly bear and a wolf, I suppose (or step into the trap someone left for them, and the screaming will let them know it's safer to come out to eat.)

Well fun thoughts. Worthless, but amusing.

Meanwhile, back in New York, with everyone magically gone, how long will the elevators work? How would one know? Will they leave at least one statistician over there for scientific purposes?

Really, I was having fun. I wonder whether the person who wrote that was really just making a big joke. It wasn't a very good joke, but still...
The second sentence there was in the shadow of "Overpopulation is a lie just like everything else."

It [the post] starts four times.

"...give them all an acre of land..."

WAIT!!!! He/she/it meant give EACH of them an acre, right? Not all on one acre...

That's why it wasn't signed. Someone could lose a job, or have a college degree rescinded or something over that botch job of skittery scattery....

Maybe it was written by someone on drugs.

Last thought, as I'm creating this page: Is it a myth? Or is it a lie?

Is "over-population" a legitimate concern? "Over-" what? It depends on the area of discussion or inquiry.

Science, including the scientific inquiry answering whether Kansas is flatter than a pancake