Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's The Best Solution For Humanity?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(2)
Message 76 of 301 (634821)
09-24-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:44 AM


IamJoseph writes:
You are still affirming Genesis by default or exposing some form of denial.
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.
You are saying when we have food - we must follow Genesis.
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.
Its like saying we need clothes - then we look for other lands outside the earth.
No, since clothes aren't vital for our survival. Sure they help conquer certain climates, but they are of far less importance than food.
Food gives us the mind to think further ahead - no one said we must not worry about food - this is a deflection.
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?
Man does not live by bread alone.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:44 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


(1)
Message 77 of 301 (634822)
09-24-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 6:46 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 6:46 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 7:12 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 7:17 AM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 78 of 301 (634824)
09-24-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:55 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 7:38 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2011 10:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 79 of 301 (634825)
09-24-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Huntard
09-24-2011 6:55 AM


quote:
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.
GO FORTH refers to going forward forthrightly - in the correct manner.
MULTIPLY refers to reproduction and elevation of thought - its called prowess.
DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLD = responsibly acquire and control. As in stewardship.
There is no alternative to Genesis' premise - it is far reaching and transcending to today's loosing doctrines of demise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 6:55 AM Huntard has not replied

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


(1)
Message 80 of 301 (634826)
09-24-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 2:45 AM


Re: Sustainable development
Hello IamJoseph,
my comment - It was not a message directed at you. It was directed to all of the other forum users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your reply - False. You posted examples of how I was banned - whatever that infers.
The message was not directed at you. Here is the first two lines of that message.
quote:
I know IamJoseph is currently suspended but this is a question that I need to ask.
Does anyone have any idea where IamJoseph gets his information from?
here is the last part of that post -
quote:
Can anyone help me out? Anyone know of any uses of the common phrases IamJoseph anywhere other than his posts?
You will notice that I have advised that you are suspended. ALso notice that I am referring to you in the third person. In standard English, this means that I am talking about you, not too you. Notice when I ask a question, the second line that says "does anyone know where IamJospeh gets his information from". Again, I am reffering to you in the third person. Talking about you, not too you. If I was talking to you, the sentence would be something like this : "IamJoseph, where do you get your information from?" I have also used the word anyone. This suggests that I was talking to any and everyone. If I was talking to you, I would not use the word anyone, I would directly refer to you.
Yes, I did post examples of where you were banned. I have told you why I did this also. No need for inference. I have told you why.
my comment - As to prevailing in debates. Are you suggesting that I have lost a debate to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your reply - Is that a question!?
Yes, it was a question. This is indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentence.
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.
Your posts are not supported in any way. I challenged you to a great debate with regards to your claims re the Hebrew Bible. You turned tail.
Sustainable development based on the negation of reproduction is guaranteed destruction.
What the fuck does that even mean?
It is hardly a sustainance for the future.
Sustainance is not a word. Try rephrasing using actual, real words and you may improve your chances of your point getting accross.
If you keep multiplying in the same house - even if you keep extending the size of that house - it will eventually become un-sustainable.
1. You cant extend the size of the Earth (house)
2. Population control is one of the measures that is currently working quite effectively. I have provided you with links and a handy graphic to help you understand this.
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?!
This is fucking stupidity. For a start, killing humans and stopping them from reproducing would change the equation. Overpopulation will not sustain humanity. It will do the exact opposite. Why do you think that increasing the usage of all resources will sustain humanity? It will actually do the exact opposite of what you are saying. If you have 1 weeks groceries and just yourself at home, it will last 1 week. If you have the same amount of groceries and have 7 people, it will last 1 day. Why do you think that you 1 weeks groceries will actually last longer than 1 week if you have more people consuming them?
There is no alternative to seeking and acquiring new homes in new lands. Period.
This is incorrect. Colonising other planets is not an option. I have provided you with numerous resons why this is so. You have yet to respond to any of these reasons. There is an alternative. It is called sustainable development. Not only is it a viable alternative. It is the alternative that is currently in practice. By not recognising sustainable development, you are denying reality.
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.
I have a deep rooted problem with stupidity. I am opposed to Judaism in the same way I am opposed to all religions. If you believe that my arguements regarding sustainable development are senseless, you had better let every government in every developed nation int he world know. Just to show you that the Jews and I are on the same side -
From Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development in Israel, 2003 -
quote:
The policy of the Government of Israel shall be based on the principles of sustainable development practice, that combine a dynamic economy, wise use of natural resources, protection of ecosystems, and the granting of equality of opportunity to all, in order to respond to the needs of the present and future generations
(Source: http://www.un.org/...tlinfo/countr/israel/strategic_plan.pdf)
From State of Israel - Ministry of Environmental protection, 2008
quote:
Sustainable Policy
As sustainability becomes a well accepted goal on the international agenda and is increasingly integrated in the strategic aims of the business sector, the public sector is seeking economic instruments for effective and efficient implementation of environmental and social goals.
(Source : http://www.sviva.gov.il/...Binaries/ModulKvatzim/p0463_2.pdf)
From Israel Minister for Environment - THE PATH TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ISRAEL 2011.
quote:
The challenge is to minimize the generation of waste and change the careless consumption and production processes which rob our common earth of vital natural resources, pollute our environment, mar our landscape, and damage
our health.
So how can we overcome these challenges? I firmly believe that green growth is the answer. My vision for a sustainable Israel is based on a transition to a closed materials loop economy, a circular economy, based on eco-efficiency,
dematerialization and eco-innovation.
(Source: http://www.sviva.gov.il/..._Development_in_Israel_2011_1.pdf)
Is the Israeli government a Jewish enough source for you? Better jump on the phone to the Israeli government and let them know that their sustainability goals are senseless and they should start building spaceships.
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
Do you believe that food is a fundamental issue that needs to be taken into account. If you do, then you know that what you are saying is bullshit. The amount of food and drinkable water is a fundamental issue. You are ignoring this issue. The amount of food and drinkable water will put a stop to population growth.
my comment - 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your reply - 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.
There is a choice. The best option is sustainable development. It is the option we are currently employing. It is not a fact that we must colonise other planets. It is your personal misguided, uneducated opinion. You keep telling us to hail Genesis for this revelation. I have been asking yopu to verify this for a while now.
here it is from Message 52
your comment - 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!
my reply - 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?
Quote chapter and verse where God commands humans to colonise other worlds.
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.
If your rantings are indeed in Genesis, then the Bible has actually given instructions for the certain destruction of humanity. It would be another reason to be repulsed by the Bible. Why would anyone hail a book that if its suggestions are followed, near unimaginable misery, suffering and death would result? If we were to follow your path, it would lead to the greatest human catastrophy ever. Why are you happy about that?
Your OP included a question - "What's your solution?"
I have provided you with the current solution. It is the only real solution.
I have asked you several times now but I will ask again. Would you care to discuss the technology that you believe will overcome the issues I have put forward?

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 57 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 2:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 10:22 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

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


(1)
Message 81 of 301 (634827)
09-24-2011 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 7:12 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 7:12 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 8:59 AM Huntard has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 301 (634830)
09-24-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 7:39 PM


Tried And Failed
IAJ writes:
Humanity must be based on laws, equally applicable to all, and those laws must be enshrined and mandated by representatives selected by humanity.
That's been tried and failed every time with oppression, persecution and eventual tyranny. The popes and bishops of Rome imposed it, Hitler tried it. Stalin, et al tried to mandate his humanistic version of it. Finally, Mohammet has imposed/is imposing it in the ever growing number of fundamentalist Islamic regimes; declaring that it will eventually encompass the planet.
The problem is two-fold; the depravity of humanity, as per the original sin of the first man, Adam and the existence of a powerful working evil entity and his demonic realm.
The most blessed, prosperous, productive culture ever has been the Constitutional republic of the US of A. This worked, by and large quite well with NT Biblical principles underpinning it.
Alas, constitutional republics, of the people and by the people work only so long as the greater majority of the people espouse the principles, (I say principles) of the NT, as per Jesus and his apostles, being essentially fear Jehovah, god, love/do to your neighbor as you would have them do to you, etc.
Bottom line: LoL on any lasting, desirable or workable human culture. The perfect global culture requires a perfect alien, if you will, messiah/king coming down from Jehovah, creator/manager of the Universe who will, indeed, impose upon mankind (Jehovah's created being) his precepts. Satan's evil regime will be removed.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 7:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 9:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 83 of 301 (634833)
09-24-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Huntard
09-24-2011 7:38 AM


It would be silly to deny sustainence factors, however this is not the issue impacting the fundamental goal which humanity must embrace: ultimately, with all the sustainence at hand, we still must seek and acquire habitations outside the earth; the sustainence issue becomes part of the process here and is obviously factored in.
The more intersting issue is the preparation for this inevitable future destiny for humanity and other life forms here. This brings up issues such as we must also elevate technological factors such as travel time, mass transportation of humans and cargo, erecting controlled cities, agricultural improvisings, employment for millions of people on earth and beyond, space laws, who owns space and land outside earth, etc. This merits a thread of its own, if the deflections are not refrained from and it gets stuck in Genesis cannot be allowed to be correct, as opposed the singular greatest sustainence advocation to humanty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 7:38 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 9:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 84 of 301 (634834)
09-24-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
09-24-2011 8:20 AM


Re: Tried And Failed
Agreed its failed. It would be offensive to say here that the failure is exclusively due to two of the biggest religions, but it is substantially true and correct - they not only flaunted the law - they also distorted it and made new obscene and racist laws. Thus I say, all of humanity must decide which laws are acceptable - without resorting to any theology, and without subjecting humanity to preferred names. A law must be seen as a sacred and magestic thing by all humans, regardless of their beliefs, and must stand on its own - without theology. Don't you think so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2011 8:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2011 3:50 PM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 85 of 301 (634835)
09-24-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 8:59 AM


IamJoseph writes:
It would be silly to deny sustainence factors, however this is not the issue impacting the fundamental goal which humanity must embrace: ultimately, with all the sustainence at hand, we still must seek and acquire habitations outside the earth; the sustainence issue becomes part of the process here and is obviously factored in.
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.
The more intersting issue is the preparation for this inevitable future destiny for humanity and other life forms here. This brings up issues such as we must also elevate technological factors such as travel time, mass transportation of humans and cargo, erecting controlled cities, agricultural improvisings, employment for millions of people on earth and beyond, space laws, who owns space and land outside earth, etc. This merits a thread of its own...
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).
...if the deflections are not refrained from and it gets stuck in Genesis cannot be allowed to be correct, as opposed the singular greatest sustainence advocation to humanty.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 8:59 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:32 PM Huntard has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 301 (634838)
09-24-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by IamJoseph
09-24-2011 7:12 AM


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.
We should conquer the known universe for parking space?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 7:12 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 87 of 301 (634841)
09-24-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Butterflytyrant
09-24-2011 7:23 AM


Re: Sustainable development
quote:
1. You cant extend the size of the Earth (house)
Congrats! That is why there is no alternative to extending beyond the earth's horizon. Its not a choice factor.
quote:
2. Population control is one of the measures that is currently working quite effectively. I have provided you with links and a handy graphic to help you understand this.
Never was the word 'control' been more abused. Humanity can be saved by acquiring other space bodies - or become historical dust. It is dubtful whether the first amebae cells knew where they were going to end up.
quote:
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?!
This is fucking stupidity. For a start, killing humans and stopping them from reproducing would change the equation.
For 200 years - if your able to. Then what? Half sentences are suspicious things.
quote:
Overpopulation will not sustain humanity. It will do the exact opposite. Why do you think that increasing the usage of all resources will sustain humanity? It will actually do the exact opposite of what you are saying. If you have 1 weeks groceries and just yourself at home, it will last 1 week. If you have the same amount of groceries and have 7 people, it will last 1 day. Why do you think that you 1 weeks groceries will actually last longer than 1 week if you have more people consuming them?
Look at it another way. There is no over population, there is only a shortage of land to park. If in 150 years we have a dome city base on the moon, 10 million humans can relieve earth's population and guarantee human survival; in 500 years 50 billion humans will do the same, and dome cities will prevail on Mars - the atmosphear being un-habitable will be reversed with controlled environments. Humanity was and is now born in water - environments are adaptable and controllable. This future is not a multi-choice item.
quote:
There is no alternative to seeking and acquiring new homes in new lands. Period.
This is incorrect. Colonising other planets is not an option. I have provided you with numerous resons why this is so. You have yet to respond to any of these reasons. There is an alternative. It is called sustainable development. Not only is it a viable alternative. It is the alternative that is currently in practice. By not recognising sustainable development, you are denying reality.
No out of Africa in your future? You are embracing non-negotiable demise of humanity and all other life forms; killing 90% of life will not solve the problem - it will only delay the period of destruction a trifle. There is no alternative solution here.
quote:
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.
I have a deep rooted problem with stupidity. I am opposed to Judaism in the same way I am opposed to all religions. If you believe that my arguements regarding sustainable development are senseless, you had better let every government in every developed nation int he world know. Just to show you that the Jews and I are on the same side -
They are totally senseless for the future. Better that you make credible math and give some figures estimating human populations in 500 years and 5000 years, factoring all measures to like to include. Till then, Genesis is not stupidity. Further, the equivalence is ineffective - no other scripture than Genesis discusses topics such as is being debated in this thread.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policy of the Government of Israel shall be based on the principles of sustainable development practice, that combine a dynamic economy, wise use of natural resources, protection of ecosystems, and the granting of equality of opportunity to all, in order to respond to the needs of the present and future generations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: http://www.un.org/...tlinfo/countr/israel/strategic_plan.pdf)
From State of Israel - Ministry of Environmental protection, 2008
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable Policy
As sustainability becomes a well accepted goal on the international agenda and is increasingly integrated in the strategic aims of the business sector, the public sector is seeking economic instruments for effective and efficient implementation of environmental and social goals.
Since when is it not about sustainability to think of the future? The math says even if yhumanuty has all the sustainence and population control it can muster - it will still self destruct without habitations outside the earth. This is the fundamental issue in the default setting, yet outside your radar completely.
quote:
Do you believe that food is a fundamental issue that needs to be taken into account. If you do, then you know that what you are saying is bullshit. The amount of food and drinkable water is a fundamental issue. You are ignoring this issue. The amount of food and drinkable water will put a stop to population growth.
I am not ignoring them at all. I am saying these are secondary from the POV it will not save humanity. One can keep pouring food into a house and keep shrinking that house and increasing the occupants also - eventual destruction still becomes inevitable.
quote:
There is a choice. The best option is sustainable development. It is the option we are currently employing. It is not a fact that we must colonise other planets. It is your personal misguided, uneducated opinion. You keep telling us to hail Genesis for this revelation. I have been asking yopu to verify this for a while now.
It is not my message but a blatant fact of geo-history. You are disregarding this fact.
quote:
your comment - 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!
my reply - 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.
It is true that Genesis advocates humans to have dominion of the earth and all life forms. This is also the mode of what humanity must do eventually, namely to continue beyond the moon. This is seen in the pledge given to Abraham that humanity's seed shall be greater in number than the stars and grains of sand. This is the future of humanity; its rejection is a destruction of humanity. The term used is a word translated as earth - but this can also apply to physicality [all space bodies] in the context of the oppositte of spirituality [heavenly] listed in the opening verse of Genesis. We have already begun conquering sectors outside earth, such as the moon and via space stations.
quote:
If your rantings are indeed in Genesis, then the Bible has actually given instructions for the certain destruction of humanity. It would be another reason to be repulsed by the Bible. Why would anyone hail a book that if its suggestions are followed, near unimaginable misery, suffering and death would result? If we were to follow your path, it would lead to the greatest human catastrophy ever. Why are you happy about that?
You may call it destruction, but this is poor maths.
quote:
Your OP included a question - "What's your solution?"
I have provided you with the current solution. It is the only real solution.
I have asked you several times now but I will ask again. Would you care to discuss the technology that you believe will overcome the issues I have put forward?
I have given my solution - we must acquire habitations outside of the earth eventually. Technological advancement is assured - check some history. Its absence is destruction - no matter how much sustainence is on the table.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-24-2011 7:23 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-24-2011 9:37 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 88 of 301 (634852)
09-24-2011 11:35 AM


Food For Thought
Even if we develop nuclear powered engines, which Russia and the US are looking into again, we still have psychical limitations to take into account. What kind of acceleration could be maintained? Anything over 22Mph(35kph), which produces the stress forces of 1g, seems impractical. The human body wouldn't like a 2g environment for an extended period. These same limitations also apply to slowing down. This seems like a rather large problem to overcome even if we are capable of reaching high speeds. If we could achieve .5c how long would it take to get there with the physical limits of the human body.
Human tolerances depend on the magnitude of the g-force, the length of time it is applied, the direction it acts, the location of application, and the posture of the body.
For example: An acceleration of 1 g equates to a rate of change in velocity of approximately 35 kilometres per hour (22 mph) for each second that elapses.
Reaching Mars will be a monumental step, but that's all it will be til we have the technology to build self-sustaining outpost that requires no Earth resources.
I think this planet, if left unchecked as it is now, will be in a bad way long before we have the technology to colonize the moon or mars. If we do not become better stewards of our own world then this will probably be the only one we ever inhabit. As has been said many times in this thread, Earth cannot support un-cheked growth but for so long. we are at the point now that we can no longer ignore this simple fact. A 1 acre garden wont support but so many people, the earth is no different. The population has doubled in my lifetime if I read the figures presented earlier. These are facts that can not be ignored.
Going to the stars is currently the stuff of sci-fi, not an answer to our problems we currently face.
Thanks for the graph I stole from your post Frako.
Edited by fearandloathing, : Added source and fixed a error in speed.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 12:14 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2011 12:31 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 95 by IamJoseph, posted 09-24-2011 1:40 PM fearandloathing has replied

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


Message 89 of 301 (634855)
09-24-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by fearandloathing
09-24-2011 11:35 AM


Re: Food For Thought
fearandloathing writes:
Even if we develop nuclear powered engines, which Russia and the US are looking into again, we still have psychical limitations to take into account. What kind of acceleration could be maintained? Anything over 22Mph(35kph), which produces the stress forces of 1g, seems impractical. The human body wouldn't like a 2g environment for an extended period. These same limitations also apply to slowing down. This seems like a rather large problem to overcome even if we are capable of reaching high speeds. If we could achieve .5c how long would it take to get there with the physical limits of the human body.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 11:35 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by fearandloathing, posted 09-24-2011 12:30 PM Huntard has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 90 of 301 (634857)
09-24-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Huntard
09-24-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Food For Thought
I don't think maintaining the speed is a problem, I think the acceleration is
Of course the acceleration is the problem, that was my point. Once you achieve top speed you would be in free-fall til it was time to slow. My point was that in order to reach speeds necessary to achieve anything but a one way trip, out of our solar-system, would take a long time, around 5 months, at 1g equivalent rate of acceleration, to get to .5c. That is a long time, lots of fuel ect... Reaching that speed faster would be beyond what would be good for the human body.
I should have been more clear, I was just thinking primarily about problems of going to the stars.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2011 12:14 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024