Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 301 (634806)
09-24-2011 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:00 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:00 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 62 of 301 (634807)
09-24-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:04 AM


IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:04 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:18 AM Huntard has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 63 of 301 (634808)
09-24-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by frako
09-24-2011 5:56 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 5:56 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 6:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 301 (634809)
09-24-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:10 AM


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.
Yes so we need to lower our population first if we WANT TO GET OF THIS ROCK because it WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE IF EVERYONE IS STARVING!!!!
And it will be IMPOSSIBLE to send large numbers to colonise space at best we will send a few 10 000 at a time to colonise a planet.

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 63 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:23 AM frako has replied
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:25 AM frako has not replied
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2011 4:30 PM frako has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 301 (634810)
09-24-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:09 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:09 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 301 (634811)
09-24-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
09-24-2011 6:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 6:14 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:29 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 118 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 2:49 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 67 of 301 (634812)
09-24-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:18 AM


IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:18 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:30 AM Huntard has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 301 (634813)
09-24-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
09-24-2011 6:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 09-24-2011 6:14 AM frako has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 69 of 301 (634814)
09-24-2011 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:23 AM


IamJoseph writes:
We need to increase living space - more lands - to save the population...
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.
...else nothing matters and nothing makes sense.
Lowering the popualation by lessening birth does. At least to sane people, instead of crazies.
Lowering population, a heinous premise of losers, is antithetical to the pretense/insanity - of helping humanity.
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).
Bite the bullet and free yourself - Genesis is spot on.
Genesis hasn't been spot on since it was first conceived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:36 AM Huntard has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 70 of 301 (634815)
09-24-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:25 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:25 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 71 of 301 (634816)
09-24-2011 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:41 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 72 of 301 (634817)
09-24-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:30 AM


IamJoseph writes:
No sir. Life is first - food is secondary.
You need food to live. Without it, there won't even be life.
Its like your car - first the car, then the fuel.
Without fuel the car is worthless. Without food, there is no life.
Put another way, the fuel must be worked out for the car's sustainence - and sustainance is vital, but secondary.
How can something both be vital and secondary?
t is why we have vegetation, rain and a particular mix of atmosphere - to sustain life with anticipationary actions.
No, we have those because that's the way our planet works. Lucky for life, this lends itself to the production of food.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:44 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 73 of 301 (634818)
09-24-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:36 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Won't help eventually. Its still a guaranteed dead premise ahead.
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.
Your premise ends in humanity's death, boosted by a slower pace at best.
No it doesn't. as I just explained. There will be growth, but sensible growth.
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.
Again, Gensesis hasn't been spot on since it was first conceived. Bite the the bullet, no matter how much it hurts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:46 AM Huntard has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 74 of 301 (634819)
09-24-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:37 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:37 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:51 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 301 (634820)
09-24-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:41 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:41 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:55 AM IamJoseph 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