Summations Only

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

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.

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!?

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.

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.

Correction. We can't stop reproduction of humans or other life forms. In any case it would be a loosing case if we could, contradicting the very notion of saving humanity.

quote:

---

Nope because our polanet does not have the resources to sustain trillions of us.

---

I rest my case - you said it. We must have more of 'our planets' or become historical artifacts. Fact; math; science - and worst of all it comes from Genesis. It has to be hard to swallow.We see why today's neo science is substantially bogus and agenda based; scientific truths have become bad career moves.

You affirm my case by default. Food is secondary to existence, which in this case refers to not having room to turn one's nose in the future - regardless of how much food is on the table.

quote:

---

Yes so we need to lower our population first

---

We need to increase living space - more lands - to save the population - else nothing matters and nothing makes sense. Lowering population, a heinous premise of losers, is antithetical to the pretense/insanity - of helping humanity. Bite the bullet and free yourself - Genesis is spot on.

quote:

---

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

---

Better, you are saying the Jews were right. The fundsamental things apply.

No sir. Life is first - food is secondary. Its like your car - first the car, then the fuel. Put another way, the fuel must be worked out for the car's sustainence - and sustainance is vital, but secondary. t is why we have vegetation, rain and a particular mix of atmosphere - to sustain life with anticipationary actions. The latter foruma for life is given and known - we have to elevate other planets to sustain life in accordance with earth's formula - this is doable.

quote:

---

Lowering the popualation by lessening birth does. At least to sane people, instead of crazies.

---

Won't help eventually. Its still a guaranteed dead premise ahead.

quote:

---

Genesis hasn't been spot on since it was first conceived.

---

Your premise ends in humanity's death, boosted by a slower pace at best. Genesis is spot on here wth its logic and anticipation of how to proceed in the future. Bite the bullet no matter how much it hurts.

quote:

---

You need food to live. Without it, there won't even be life.

---

You are still affirming Genesis by default or exposing some form of denial. You are saying when we have food - we must follow Genesis. Its like saying we need clothes - then we look for other lands outside the earth. Food gives us the mind to think further ahead - no one said we must not worry about food - this is a deflection.Man does not live by bread alone.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, I grant you this position. You are still affirming Genesis, the only document which makes this provision.

No, you are agreeing with me. Humanity has no options but to seek, acquire, control and have dominion of all the known universe. Food, clothing and the correct mix of air supply are vital items which humanity will cater to in this quest. But food does not matter if we have no place to park tomorrow. Understand what Genesis is saying instead of making such irrational deflections as the contention.