Summations Only

The issue of all the last debates centred around one issue: does humanity have to seek and acquire new habitations outside earth eventually - or perish?A; Absolutely.The rest is irrelevant.

quote:

---

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

---

Yes, 2B from $1 in a month is a surprising result and not first expected, yet this is a slow accleration relative to the compounded expansion in all areas of the universe.

quote:

---

So a dome city on the moon with 10 million people in it in 150 years. Do you have any idea of the volume of resources that 10 million people consume? Where are you going to get these resources from?

---

You are focusing on the incidental instead of the fundamental factor here. Firstly, when a new discovery occurs, it is surrounded by millions of aligning new connective discoveries. Electricity is one example - it produced millions of new products in far less than 50 years. If humanity becomes impressed with a new discovery, and the 50 year period starts from that point - humanity's role in the universe can change dramatically. Travel to any of the far planets can become akin to Newark to Sydney, housing can be erected using chemicals found in strange planetary environments and a rush will result for an unstoppable exodus to Jupiter. This is the vision incumbent on humanity and it will be enforced upon us situationally. The future is always beyond our mind's wiring, else it is not futuristic. This occured in the Industrail revolution.It does not matter if this occurs in 25, 50 or 200 years - the point is it will and must happen, and there is no one else out there but humans who will have dominion of the universe. We are it - to the extent it is a greater shock to realize there is no one else out there - than meeting aliens. We are it and we are a lone entity in this regard. The earth is only the womb of the universe and we are still in an embryotic stage just popping our head out. Whatever do you think it means when one Abraham was told to look now at the stars and if you can count them - thy seed shall be greater? Whether it was writen of man's imagination or not, it is a most profound thought not seen elsewhere and with far reaching consequences - it did change humanity and the universe.

quote:

---

There are some things I would like your opinion on.

​

1. What about gravity? Space stations and the moon do not have the same gravity. How are you planning on resolving this issue.

---

Easy as pie: hi-tech shoes will control our gravity and body temperatures.

quote:

---

2. Solar radiation. Outside Earths atmosphere, the solar radiation is lethal in a very short period of time. How do you plan on resolving this issue?

---

Look at this as with an incurable desease - a simple antibiotic fixed it via virus control. Similarly, we will learn how to control quarks as we did virus. There is no choice to humanity controlling the atmosphere it lives in - even on this planet. We cannot survive on earth much longer unless we can control and program weather patterns, earthquakes and typhoons.

quote:

---

3. Thus far there have been no successful trials of closed system dome cities. (more info below)

---

It is clear we were thinking correctly here and with far reaching consequences of the future. It is akin to a house we live built in jungles of wild animals.

quote:

---

4. what volume of raw materials do you think will be needed to construct a city for 10 million people? Where do you think we will be getting this raw material from?

---

It will give work to millions and this will be hi-tech with hitherto unimagined processes. These are miniscule bumps resolved with new technology targeting survival. I believe knowledge is involuntary - we do not know how it descends into human minds but we know it comes only in its due time. Pinicilin, Nukes and viagra were discovered by accident; the eureka chant confirms this sudden phenomena, aka a light bulb suddenly lighting up in the brain: a new idea uses the least amount of energy input with the greatest consequences.

quote:

---

5. How do you think we will be getting 10 million people to the moon.

---

I don't know how, but I know it will happen as surely as the sun rises.

quote:

---

6. Who on Earth and where on Earth will the resources to support a population of 10 million people? These resources include clean water, clean air with the correct composition, all of the nutrients and elements required to grow plants to eat and to create O2. Those are just some of the basic chemical requirements. You will need to take these things away from people, to give them to other people.

---

Oxygen is a new product on earth. H2O can be harnessed with other gas mixes - such discoveries can come upon us by accident or when we are ready for it. It is an error to think we only use 10% of our brains - we use all of it to the hilt by the sweat of our brows; if we are pushed harder our brains will breakdown, as seen in people having breakdowns or becoming insane. This is also why knowledge comes in its due time - an act of forebearence, consideration and mercy.

quote:

---

7. The atmosphere inside a dome is much more fragile than the atmosphere on Earth. Considering this fact, how do you plan on dealing with standard gaseous wastes created by a population of 10 million people.

---

Not so. It is more fastedious and dependable with no surprise factors. Its like a log fire compared to an electrically controlled heating device. Humans must control nature, not the other way around - else we are dead sooner rather than later. We controlled nature ever since agriculture and fire was discovered.

quote:

---

the surface area of the moon is 37.9 million square kilometres. The Biosphere projects (Biosphere 2 - Wikipedia), currently the most comprehensive dome project in the world (others include MeliSSa -MELiSSA - Wikipedia and BIOS-3 BIOS-3 - Wikipedia) have a dome where they have been performing experiments. The area of this dome is 12 700 metres. 12 700 metres required to keep 8 people alive. Using this information, the moon would be able to support 2984 people. The biosphere tests all failed. O2 and CO2 levels fluctuated wildly. There was extinctions and misshaps all over the place. And this was an extremely tightly controlled environment with 8 dedicated scientists in it. Imagine putting 10 million random people in a dome city.

---

We may live underground on the moon and mars - who can tell.

quote:

---

If you believe that your position is any sort of solution, you would have considered these problems and have some idea of a solution to them. Keep in mind that your solutions will have to be better than the currently accepted solution that is currently in practise. So not only does your solution need to be proven feasible, but it needs to be proven to be more effective than the current model that is in practise.

---

You are thinking analogue in a digital era. IMHO, the greatest discovery or thought of humanity is creationism and monotheism. This does NOT mean these are confirmed realities or provable by science - the thought factor of such a direction is its greaest merit. It made us think, more than its acceptance or rejection, to the extent even its rejection is a result of higher thinking and resultant from the first thought of such a paradigm, producing such sciences as evolution and atheism.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

BTW, if you want to visit those distant galaxies? - the time is NOW. They are moving away from you even as I type.

---

Why not consider using the moving space itself to be a transporting vehicle? We know that space can bend and is thus manipulatable.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As Mark Twain (very bad stockmarket player in the name of Samuel Clemens) once said: Buy land - they aren't making anymore of that.

---

That is also why we need lands outside earth - or we perish. We've been doing this since day #1.

Do you understand the concept of non-negotiable? The factors you mention can and must be prevailed upon, and the sooner the better. We won't fit back into Africa and planet earth is creaking, with the insane agenda of killing off a growing % of humanity. That is not a solution. The answer to humanity has been pointed to in Genesis - as always.

Instead of quoting so many agenda based institutions which have no answer at all to the real future impactations hurtling towards earth and humanity, the only reality which matters is absent from the list. Guess why applies - grants of funding transcends all other realities.The only reality is this:The human and other life form populations will absolutely increase no matter what measures are taken.Ditto for pollution.The reality is, if we keep on the same road we will end up where it is pointing. Total anihilation.Yet this is nowhere in your list! Your glorified list of institutions is saying nothing - in fact less than that: if the sign outside the cinema house says HOUSE FUL - then let's kill off half the audience and make more room. Genesis says: get yourself another cinema house - now before the HOUSE FULL sign appears? House fool aplies.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I see Genesis is correct about humanity's future - else I would not debate the point. Aside from the clear advocation to prepare for a future outside this planet, Genesis is also correct of the way humanity will operate in the future: when all the wars have been exhausted, and all the revered and ever competing names have been worn out - only magestic laws will be left for humanity to turn to. Freedom without laws is chaos; freedom with laws is liberty.Belief, no matter how genuine and inspired, won't cut it: belief is an inherent trait embedded in all life forms and the most easily exploited. If we were inculcated to believe in pink zebras, that is what we would believe is the ultimate path to salvation and paradise. The proof of belief not being viable is blatant when we consider how the two biggest belief systems have cornered themselves into a corner: both would die and kill for their 'beliefs' - and both are in total contradiction of each other. Which one is right - or why both cannot be right gives the answer how humanity must go forward. We deny this truth because we are insecure without our cozy blanket of belief.

quote:

---

They do have an answer. It is called sustainable development.

---

Its a contradiction of terms. Focus on 'development' instead of the candy coated 'sustained.' Reproduction cannot be sustained, proven by your own premise of mass murder and depletion of species from encroachments - the term sustained is exposed when one removes the rose tinted specs. Sustained development is in reality a slower death.

quote:

---

Also, Genesis does not advocate interplanetary colonisation.

---

It does not use those words, but that is exactly what it says. Look closer and you will see where the 'out of Africa' advocation comes from; the go forth was numerously exemplified including in the Babel story. I would say the Jews survived where a host of older and mightier nations did not - only because of the exile factor; what else can save them this time from the surrounding death wish chants - sustained development?

quote:

---

Then how the hell do you get by? All you have is belief. Most of what you say is totally wrong, without any factual basis, unsupportable, unverified nonsense.

---

The Hebrew bible is not belief based but law based. Go and check - only laws tumbled down from a mount, to the utter chagrin of slaves freed - and no names were attached to any of those thou slall/thou shall not laws. There is no alternative to humanity's future from laws - it is the only savior from deciding which belief system is the best.

quote:

---

What you are suggesting is that massive population increase will resolve the problems of overpopulation.

---

Why blame me of your own madness. My premise relieves the slaughter of life, unites a single agenda, with all people and nations serving a single purpose. I am advocating the negation of your controlled mass murder, which you are positing as population decrease. Reduce your premise to a scholl for children and the reality is exposed. If every life is not sacred - no life is.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Wrong preamble. Let's first ask how long will it take for life to end on this planet? So called sustained development has a use-by date; then what - scramble to leave home?

The premise to have dominion in other lands than earth is not in compitition with on-going human development; it is its only outcome and future. It is on alignment with the out of Africa premise. And the signs and omens are before us - we have to move forward not backward. Sustained ["mass murder"] refers to a backward move from going forth. Ask not how - ask how not.

Let's be honest; the agenda to think of the future is not even on the radar, and we are quagmired in the oppositte premise. At the very least, it should be up in the preamble as a first choice, with each nation having to contribute. In the interim we can only manage in ratio to how fast we can move. If this was done 50 years ago - we would have had some foundation how to proceed in the future.

To be honest I did not read it with deep focus or thoroughly, just glimpsed at it. This is because I understand your arguement and do not accept it. The point is that even if zero growth is achieved, in all levels and sectors, for an infinite amount of time, if such is even remotely possible, it will do what has never been done in the universe. It is not just the space which is expanding [going forth]; it is the entire universe expanding, wth all its traits, attributes and inherent programs. It is expanding. A decrease is its antithesis and never seen.Your task is far more improbable than Genesis. You think by using the PC friendly term of sustainable, you can alter the natural metabolism of the planet's ecosytem. That you can control rabbits and fish growth, then compensate for the loss of foods for higher primates by also 'sustaining' their growth, then by adjusting the energy used, reducing the virus elevations and every other sector there is. Can you first try to 'sustain' the intake f tobcco and drugs first - just for one species on the planet? I see your premises become exposed on closer examination and become only examples of desperation and escapism. Its also very PC to use mass murder as a sustaining strategy.

quote:

---

Umm what murder so ontop of spilling your seed and abortion, not having kids is also murder ????????????????

---

Umm yes. Its not pro-choice or pro-life anymore; its pro-decrease like it or not. That is murder, devoid of any choice factor. Imagine being judged that way with the clear evidence of obsesively denying and rejecting a way out for life.

quote:

---

The solution is simple

​

there are 7 billion of us the planet can only sustain so many if we dont have as many kids as some stupid folks do the population number will drop enabeling prosparity and further advances for human kind, if we have to many kids the population number wil go up the planet will not
be able to sustain us we will die out and never reach another planet.

---

It means we have to go forth and find more places to park. Actually.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Your problem is I understand the situation very well and you are in denial. There is no alternative to the Genesis provision from any POV. It is not humanity's last hope - it is the only hope for survival. This should be your preamble when you cease being in denial. Some views accept we are already late, the past 50 years being wasted via terrorism and climate corruption issues which deflected humanity's future provision, else we would have had a global mandate secured at the UN. Instead, the corrupt UN is working out ways to earn more money by taxing humanity to clean the air. As if.When the classroom is chock block full of students, we need another classroom: controlled killings of students is proof we are already on the wrong path. It is clear you do not understand what sustained mass murder is.