Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 301 (634648)
09-23-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 7:17 AM


Quite the closet Imperialists, aren't you?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 7:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 9:37 AM Larni has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 47 of 301 (634655)
09-23-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by frako
09-23-2011 8:40 AM


No - we die only if we do not 'MULTIPLY [in population and mental prowess] AND HAVE DOMINION OF OTHER WORLDS'. The ratio is, the worse the polution the sooner we start saving humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by frako, posted 09-23-2011 8:40 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by frako, posted 09-23-2011 10:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 48 of 301 (634656)
09-23-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Larni
09-23-2011 9:09 AM


Do you understand it is not a choice factor but an absolute? Do the math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 09-23-2011 9:09 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Larni, posted 09-23-2011 9:49 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 49 of 301 (634659)
09-23-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 9:37 AM


Do the maths
I can't. I don't know how.
Please show me.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 9:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 9:54 AM Larni has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 50 of 301 (634661)
09-23-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Larni
09-23-2011 9:49 AM


Don't look just at the next 100 years. Look instead 1000 years ahead - how can the population of humans and other life forms be stemmed - and at what cost? That too will not save down the track. 100% anihilation of life is guaranteed. Genesis is right and has well anticipated this issue with good advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Larni, posted 09-23-2011 9:49 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 09-23-2011 2:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(5)
Message 51 of 301 (634665)
09-23-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 9:36 AM


your insane
we dont have enogh food to feed everyone and you want us to multiply further so we all become as poor as 3d world countries and incapable of producing anything that can take us off of our planet
If we dont stop multiplying the food shortage wil cause all of our kids to look like this tell me how can we build something that can take us out of this rock if we dont have the food to support the workers to build it?
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 9:36 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 52 of 301 (634680)
09-23-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 8:06 AM


Sustainable development
IamJoseph,
Making the world that we have a survivable, prosperous place happens to be my field.
I based my degree on sustainable development. I am most likely going to do my Masters in sustainable development (depending on what contracts come up).
Given that I know what I am talking about with regards to this subject, I feel confident in saying that your point of view is the exact opposite of a solution. Your statements lack any grounding in reality. Even for you they show a shocking level of ignorance.
I'm saying that the population will increase no matter what we do
Bullshit. You will find that starvation is quite effective at limiting and even reducing population. You will also find that better education of women and better health care in regards to contraception also have a great effect on population. There are many nations where the population (without immigration) is either stable or actually declining. This shows that it is indeed possible to control population growth. Everyone needs to do it. Most of the countries with the greatest out of control population growth have poor education for women and poor access to birth control.
Check out this map. If all of the countries had no more than 2 children per woman (one for the mother and one for the father), then the world population would no longer increase. It is actually happening in lots of nations.
The average world fertility was 2.65 children per woman. This is about half what it was in the 1950s.
During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China. So basically, if we can get these nations to play ball, we have the overpopulation issue on the ropes.
The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.
Sources:
Overpopulation - Wikipedia
Population and Sustainability
http://www.overpopulation.org/
Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis
This says the worse the climate the better; the greater the population increase - even better. This and no other factor will propel humanity in the right direction: a dome city on the moon in 50 years; five bases on Mars.
This looks like you are suggesting that humanity needs more of a shake up in order to begin reacting. We have had sufficient warning to begin sustainable development practices in order to save the earth. Things like improved water usage practices, reduce/reuse/recycle programs, awareness and reduction of fossil fuel damage, seeking alternate energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal etc, energy efficient product usage, improved agricutural practices, banning significantly environmentally damaging products like chlorofluorocarbons to name a few. We have had the warning. Now we are doing something about it.
Building a base on the moon will not save the Earth nor will five bases on Mars.
GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS.
Its not a choice factor and how freeky this situation was anticipated by Genesis!
Where does this appear in Genesis? From a few searches on the net, I cannot find the word worlds in any version of the Bible. I can find world's. With the addition of that apostrophe, the word is not a pluralisation, it is referring to the world, as in Earth.
This is as close as I can find to anything in Genesis that discusses going forth and multiplying. However, both of them specifically discuss the Earth. Not other planets or moons.
quote:
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (KJV)
quote:
Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (KJV)
Can you quote the scripture that states that God commands we colonise other planets?
Humanity is doomed if we restrict population; only its reverse can save.
Thats just plain fucking stupidity. Get an agar plate, introduce a single bacteria and leave to incubate. Eventually, the population will increase to a point where waste begins to kill many in each generation and the food runs out. Then everything dies. Same goes for the Earth.
Can you tell me why you think we would need more people to design space craft to colonise other worlds? You seem to think we need more people to do this. How about we stabalise the population, then get back to the spaceships huh?
you cannot control the population - eventually it will catch up with you. Its not a choice factor.
bullshit. We can and do control the population. And if we do not, nature will do it for us.
The quest of humanity with a single aim to acquire new habitations will not have any problems with unemployed or food shortages.
If we can get humanity all working on a single aim, saving this planet will be an easy task. Then we can take our time colonising other planets. Most of the nations with the problem birth rates also have very poor education. How exactly is a whole heap more uneducated people going to improve your space race? A team of 10 dumb arses and a team of 1000 dumbarses are both unlikley to help colonise other worlds.
Food chain stores will become very important providers and processors of food for the masses.
Stores do not produce food. Opening more stores will not create more food. How do you think the food gets on the shelf?
It will be like the gold rush days, everyone and every nation working towards one goal - with guaranteed destruction if the quest fails.
I dont know what history books you are reading but this is not how gold rushes work. People involved in the rushes were not working together. They were all working for themselves. And if noone found any gold, there was no destruction. They just went home.
Religions will become superfluous.
This would be fucking fantastic.
Rockets will be the least important factor. Many new industries will have to be evelated. Every country will work for and donate what is needed, from scientificallt designed fabrics, shoes which control gravity and temperatures, face mics which give the correct oxygen mix, new materials for dome cities created by chemicals on other planets, agricultural controlled areas, new chemical forms of producing water, greatly reducing time travels, offering modern housing for humans and other life forms, etc, etc. No unemplyment will be seen for the next 1000 years and no shortage of lands.
Went off the deep end a bit here? Gravity controlling shoes? dome cities? Do you have any idea how far away from this technology we are (if it is even possible)? You are talking about interplanetary travel. We have not yet worked out a way to provide sufficient life support gasses for a manned trip to mars. What about the suns radiation? Outside our atmosphere, you need to wear a space suit and its not just to keep warm. Also, there is fuck all on the moon and mars for us to use. We would need to take things from the Earth to make these domes of yours survivable. If we have screwed up the Earth, where are we getting the resources from? Maybe you think that terraforming and atmosphere processing are technologies that are just around the corner.
we die only if we do not 'MULTIPLY [in population and mental prowess] AND HAVE DOMINION OF OTHER WORLDS'. The ratio is, the worse the polution the sooner we start saving humanity.
Bullshit. Multiplying exponentially increases many of the worlds greates problems.
I will stick to real life solutions. Solutions that are currently being implemented globally.
How about you do your bit and get a vasectomy. And dont forget to recycle.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 8:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 10:54 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 53 of 301 (634720)
09-23-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 9:54 AM


Oh kaaaaay.
This is me stepping back and moving slowly away from the crazy person.
This is me getting far enough away to feel safe to turn my back on the crazy person and legging it.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 9:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:39 AM Larni has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 54 of 301 (634781)
09-23-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Butterflytyrant
09-23-2011 11:29 AM


Re: Sustainable development
Sorry t say you have never prevailed in any debate thus far. You have also reduced yourself by stooping instead to boast how I was banned from other forums: since when is being banned 3 times in the past 5 years a bad thing!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-23-2011 11:29 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-24-2011 2:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 55 of 301 (634791)
09-24-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Larni
09-23-2011 2:23 PM


Better that you give your solution how humanity can survive without seeking and acquiring habitations outside earth in the near future. Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 09-23-2011 2:23 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 09-24-2011 5:03 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 59 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 5:56 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 56 of 301 (634793)
09-24-2011 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by IamJoseph
09-23-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Sustainable development
IamJoseph,
Sorry t say you have never prevailed in any debate thus far. You have also reduced yourself by stooping instead to boast how I was banned from other forums: since when is being banned 3 times in the past 5 years a bad thing!?
I can only assume that this message is in response to Message 320.
It was not a message directed at you. It was directed to all of the other forum users. Because you are unwilling to provide any sources for any of your claims I had to try to search for them myself. I found that there are no other recordings of your claims other than those you had made. My purpose was to see if there was any meat to your arguments.
Here are some quotes from that post -
quote:
Does anyone have any idea where IamJoseph gets his information from?
I have been looking for definitions and usage of his common phrases hoping I might be able to make sense of his arguements. I felt there was a possibility that he may be actually making sense but I was not getting understanding his usage of english.
...
Most of the phrases I searched for appeared multiple times in the same bunch of sites. I performed a fair few other phrase searches using quotes commonly used by IamJoseph. I came up with nothing. I was hoping that, as he wont supply his sources, maybe I could find them and this would help our debates.
What I found is that the only one saying these things is IamJoseph.
The only other possability is that he uses books. Maybe some of these phrases are just outdated and only appear in older books and have not migrated onto the internet.
Can anyone help me out? Anyone know of any uses of the common phrases IamJoseph anywhere other than his posts?
My intention was to discover if there was anything I had missed. It appears that there is not. Everything you post is your own insane ravings. No substance. I dont really care that you have been banned from various forums. The only reason I included it is to illustrate your general forum character and debating habits.
As to prevailing in debates. Are you suggesting that I have lost a debate to you? You have done nothing but vomit your own personal brand of judaism onto the forum. As far as I can tell, you have offered nothing to any scientific discussion you have been involved in. Do you think that you have prevailed in the Great Debate I challenged you to? This one - Message 1. You wont even step up and defend your own claims. Your arguments are pointless. You are an intellectual coward.
Better that you give your solution how humanity can survive without seeking and acquiring habitations outside earth in the near future. Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China.
I have supplied the solution. It is called sustainable development.
Here are some sources for you to read to educate yourself to the solution that is currently in practise.
Sustainable development - Wikipedia
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/index.html
Sustainable Development | International Institute for Sustainable Development
The human population will not be in the trillions in 500 years. the current population is near 7 billion. That is 7 000 000 000.
1 trillion is 1 000 000 000 000. The Earth cannot provide sufficient food to feed even 1 trillion people. The human population on this Earth will never reach this level. It is just not possible. Starvation will limit the population.
Colonising other planets is not a solution. I have outlined why this is a fantasy in my last post. You have yet to discuss any of the obstacles I pointed out. You have just asked me to repeat the same answer I gave the first time.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2011 10:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 2:45 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 57 of 301 (634797)
09-24-2011 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Butterflytyrant
09-24-2011 2:22 AM


Re: Sustainable development
quote:
It was not a message directed at you. It was directed to all of the other forum users.
False. You posted examples of how I was banned - whatever that infers.
quote:
As to prevailing in debates. Are you suggesting that I have lost a debate to you?
Is that a question!?
quote:
You have done nothing but vomit your own personal brand of judaism onto the forum.
My posts are backed by history and science. Not that Judaism is a lesser factor - the Hebrew writings are without equal and cannot be ridiculed by your kind.
quote:
Better that you give your solution how humanity can survive without seeking and acquiring habitations outside earth in the near future. Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China.
I have supplied the solution. It is called sustainable development.
Sustainable development based on the negation of reproduction is guaranteed destruction. It is hardly a sustainance for the future. If you keep multiplying in the same house - even if you keep extending the size of that house - it will eventually become un-sustainable. Killing off humans and stopping them from repro - a human thing - won't change the equation; the trick is to encourage repro and sustain humanity - hello?! There is no alternative to seeking and acquiring new homes in new lands. Period. You seem to have a deep rooted probem accepting anything from Judaism, Jews or the Hebrew wiritings - this makes all your arguements exposed as senseless when examined.
quote:
The human population will not be in the trillions in 500 years. the current population is near 7 billion. That is 7 000 000 000.
1 trillion is 1 000 000 000 000. The Earth cannot provide sufficient food to feed even 1 trillion people. The human population on this Earth will never reach this level. It is just not possible. Starvation will limit the population.
That is not a response. The figures I gave are metaphoric. The point says the population will increase by a compounding ratio and require more lands than what is on this planet. You omit the fundamentals.
quote:
Colonising other planets is not a solution. I have outlined why this is a fantasy in my last post. You have yet to discuss any of the obstacles I pointed out. You have just asked me to repeat the same answer I gave the first time.
It is not subject to a choice factor. Out of earth follows out of Africa, or total destruction results. This is not an opinion but a fact, without any grey areas. Bite the bullet and hail Genesis for its great anticipation and also to pointing humanity in a saving path. All of humanity owes thanks to Genesis here.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-24-2011 2:22 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-24-2011 7:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 301 (634802)
09-24-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 1:39 AM


I deride you prognosticatory abilities.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 59 of 301 (634803)
09-24-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 1:39 AM


Better that you give your solution how humanity can survive without seeking and acquiring habitations outside earth in the near future. Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China
Nope because our polanet does not have the resources to sustain trillions of us.
Um if everyone would follow slovenias example there would be lees uf us in 500 years we only have a population growth of 0.1% per year but that grwth is not because we have as many births but because of imigration since 1997 our population gorwth from birth has ben constntly negative.
If every country followed this example the world population would drop to a managable number and we would have a chance to populate the stars one day.
Oh an chinas population is anticipated to peak at arround 2030 then slowly start droping.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:10 AM frako has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 60 of 301 (634805)
09-24-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 1:39 AM


Iamjoseph writes:
Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China.
No we won't, because of the simple fact that we can't feed that many people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:04 AM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024