Summations Only

No we won't, because of the simple fact that we can't feed that many people.

The ability of humans to reproduce isn't the issue here, the amount of food we have to feed those humans with is. Even if we were to unlimitedly reproduce, the born babies will die simply because there is nothing for them to eat. So no, we will not reach trillions of people in 500 years, we're about at the limit we can sustain at this very instant, and even now vast numbers of people haven't got enough to eat.

Food is primary to existence, without food, there is no existence. You try going a few days without food, see how good you feel then. We can barely feed the 7 billion people that are around today, there's no way we can feed trillions, not in 500 years, at least. We probably won't even be outside our own solar system by then, and there aren't that many planets we could potentially terraform within our solar system. Basically just Mars. So unless you can think of a way to feed trillions of people, your earlier remark was just dumb.

There isn't any more land to colonize, it's all occupied, or used for agriculture. You, know, producing the food to sustain the people that are already here. If we occupy more land for more people, this means less food, which means we can feed even less people, which means the population will decline all by itself. Lowering the popualation by lessening birth does. At least to sane people, instead of crazies. If we continue along your selected path, populations will diminish regardless. So it's a reduction of humans one way or the other, the sensible way (stop making that many children), or the insane way (keep on making as many as possible). Genesis hasn't been spot on since it was first conceived.

You need food to live. Without it, there won't even be life. Without fuel the car is worthless. Without food, there is no life. How can something both be vital and secondary? No, we have those because that's the way our planet works. Lucky for life, this lends itself to the production of food. Not at present it isn't. And it probably won't be for a long time. Look, it's all fine and dandy if our potential were unlimited, if we could just go to another planet and terraform it. But at present, and for some while to come, we can't, and to reproduce like crazy before we have a way to sustain that life, is just insane, not to mention cruel. Look, I'm all for "humanity, ruler of the milky way", but at present, that's simply not possible.

I'm not saying lowering it to zero, I'm saying lowering iot to a level where we can ensure that there is enough food for everybody, then working from there to colonize other planets, and populate them accordingly as well. So, in the ling run, we will have growth, just not the irresponsible kind you seem to be promoting. No it doesn't. as I just explained. There will be growth, but sensible growth. Again, Gensesis hasn't been spot on since it was first conceived. Bite the the bullet, no matter how much it hurts.

I am using simple logic, logic known for a long time before Genesis. If you don't eat, you die. We didn't need Genesis to see that truth. No I'm not. I'm saying you are wrong in thinking we can reproduce without the food to feed those new lives. First we need the food, then we can colonize other planets, and only then can we let our population grow. Not before, but after. Unlike what you're proposing. No, since clothes aren't vital for our survival. Sure they help conquer certain climates, but they are of far less importance than food. Of course we must worry about food. If we don't have food it won't matter how many new babies are born, they'll all die. What's so hard to understand about that? Quite, he needs water as well. And neither will be provided by unlimited population growth. It will be provided by keeping the population at a sustainable level with the resources available to us, and working from there to further mankind's goals. The only sensible route to take.

So, you're agreeing with me then that we should first seek to have a population we can feed reliably, and only then expanding? Well, thanks for admitting to being wrong I guess. Genesis says no such thing. Genesis says what you were saying (and are now admitting you were wrong about), that we should just multiply. There are no set of conditions in Genesis for this multiplying, as I have just given, and with which you now seem to agree.

They do have a choice, like not doing that. But that's irrelevant right now. What we were disagreeing on, Joseph, was the means best suited to reach this goal. You contended that it was unlimited population growth. I contended that it was better population management. It seems you now agree with me on this issue. And therefore, the debate really is over, I'd say. Let's first make sure we can cater to those needs, ok? I'd rather have food than a parking space. But again, that's not the point. Following your earlier suggested route, we would've had neither parking nor food. Following mine (the one you now seem to agree with me on), we will have both parking and food. So, Genesis is saying: "manage your population to sustainable levels, and only if the resources allow it grow your population"? Must've missed that part, care to point it out to me?In any case, since you now agree with me (and others, it seems), that population management, not growth, is the way forward, I think this thread can be closed.Edited by Huntard, : added some italics

It wasn't factored into your "solution" before. Before it was just "multiply away". Now you seem to be agreeing with me that unless we have the resources, simply multiplying won't do us any good. Agreed. Of course these are all issues we have to deal with. With the current state of technology, however, this i a long ways off. Well, at least we agree now that we should manage our population to within sustainable levels and only then invent more technologies to colonize the milky way (I don't think we can ever get any further than that, really. Even the entire milky way is going to be be a challenge, I think). It's not the "greatest sustainence advocation to humanty". Like I said before, Genesis doesn't mention population management, it mentions population growth. Which is why your first argument was just population growth, and not population management. Now that you've seen you were wrong about it, you are trying to get Genesis to say things it doesn't, because in your view, it can't possibly be wrong.

I don't think maintaining the speed is a problem, I think the acceleration is. Think of it this way, when you are in a train, and it starts to accelerate, you feel the g-forces. The same when it is slowing down. However, during the journey, you feel perfectly normal. So the solution should be not accelerating too hard and you can get to tremendous speeds, without much strain on the human body. Or am I mising something here, physics guys?

Which is why you first advocated unlimited population growth, instead of management? And now that you've been shown to be wrong, are advocating that you actually meant population management all along? No it isn't, it'll be a long while before we have enough technology to terraform other planets, let alone travel outside our solar system. A destruction still some 4.5 billion years in the future. Plenty of time, I'd say.

No we won't, can't you even do simple arithmetic? if you take 1 cent and double it dailyfor 31 days (the maximum days in a month), you will end with 2.147.483.648 cents, or $ 21.474.836,48 (rounded to $21.5 million). Nowhere near the 11 billion you proposed.

With one dollar you'll have 2.147.483.648 dollars, which is still nowhere near 11 billion.

By my calculations, you'll need a bit more than 5.12 dollars to start with.