Summations Only

IamJoseph, This has been covered extensively. Read this message -Message 127 and this message - Message 151.From all of the current data, the total human population should be less than it is now. All of the data points to this result. All of the current data shows the trend. I have provided you with evidence of this and my sources for you to check.Current world population is about 7 billion (Source:World Population Clock: 7.97 Billion People (2022) - Worldometer)Estimated human population in 500 years is less than 7 billion.That is not a particularly accurate estimate. I have outlined why the task is not really possible in Message 127.I dont have an estimate for rabbits. Why would that be relevant?Do you have an estimate?

By nature I mean as per historical precedence. Afer all things are factored, the population will increase, unless a mass killing is instituted for humanity. Pther life forms are impacted differently.I do believe I have gone as far as needed with this thread, convinced that a deeply rooted fire wall exists whch negates any objectivity. I am witnessing a brand new religion emergent.

What happens to sustainable development if the population follows historical precedence rather than some nutty professors and doubles or trebles in 500 years? Why is there more confidence in your accepted predictions than what history says?

This is not a Plan B.Argument: According to United Nations' World Population Prospects 2004 Revision, the world's population will reach 9.1 billion by 2050, with India as the most populous nation, with a projected decline in fertility to slightly over 2 children per woman in 2050 (from 2.6 children in 2004). Even though the administrative system will be more efficient in the developing parts of the world by then, it will still be difficult to determine the exact number of people in the world.Questions: What affects on the world will the increase of the world?s population with almost 50% until 2050 have, which of course will be unprecedented in human history in number of people? Are there necessary steps that have to be taken to make sure that we for instance produce enough food for such a huge population?
http://www.newsoffuture.com/...illion_future_population.htmlThe total size of the world population is likely to increase from its current 7 billion to 8—10 billion by 2050. This uncertainty is because of unknown future fertility and mortality trends in different parts of the world. But the young age structure of the population and the fact that in much of Africa and Western Asia, fertility is still very high makes an increase by at least one more billion almost certain. Virtually, all the increase will happen in the developing world. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/...365/1554/2779.full

IamJoseph, No I am not. I said your 'solution' is unproven. As opposed to sustainable development. Sustainable practices are proven to work. There are things stopping us.1. Insufficient technology to perform task.
2. Insufficient funding to research or develop technology to perfrom the task.
3. Insufficient public support for the task.
4. Insufficient need to perform the task.
5. A better, currently succeeding alternate option that does not suffer from the first 4 problems on the list.Those things are stopping us from using your solution. I am not saying that humanity wont at some stage colonise other planets. I am saying that it will not solve the current problems. Since when is pointing out that something is likley to be impossible (your gravity controlling shoes idea) a bogus reason for rejecting it? I would say that this is a pretty sound reason for rejecting something. I have also not said that interplanetary colonisation will serve no purpose. This is you making things up again. My rejection of your solution is based on several key things.1. Some elements of your solution are currently impossible.
2. All of the vital parts of your solution will require enormous technological advancements in areas that currently not being studied or researched by any credible organisation. It would require miraculous discoveries in a dozen different fields simultaneously in the very near furture to begin even testing your solution for viability.
3. There is currently no public support, government support, financial support or need for your solution.
4. There is already a viable solution succeeding in resolving the problem.
5. Your solution gaurantees great human suffering through poverty and most likely war.
6. Your solution is inhumane because it will lead to the death by starvation of nearly every human being on Earth.
7. Your solution is not based on knowledge or common sense.Those are the reasons I reject your 'solution'. No it is not. I have explained why this is several times now. What the fuck are you talking about here? What interim measures are you talking about? What tsunami? Are you talking about Ground Zero in NYC? This is another of your ridiculous claims that you cannot substantiate and does not even make sense. More than 5% of the worlds population would never have been exposed to the Hebrew Bible to reject it. Do you even think before you type this crap? Do you think the popluations of Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Jordon, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc have a problem witnh the Hebrew Bible because "they fall into an abyss when they are exposed as wrong in their claims". No, this is not why they have a problem with the Hebrew Bible. Try stopping and thinking for a second before you post things. It will help you look less like an idiot. No it doesn't. nope. Wrong again. Thats three strikes. I believe you are out. How does that piece of scripture resolve any of the worlds problems? Are you suggesting that the majority of the Earths populations who are living in nations where sustainable development practices are being enacted are the corrupt multitude?Does this mean that you, who are not making an educated decision but a decision based on intentional ignorance are not corrupted?As far as I am aware, you are on your own. This means that you will have to develop the required technology to colonise the moon on your own.Lucky for you, the rest of us will be continuing sustainable development and you will still have a world to live in.by the way, I saw this on another blog, is this you?

quote:

---

You are asking that I must 'PROVE' how man can land on the moon before it happened.

​

No I am not. I said your 'solution' is unproven. As opposed to sustainable development. Sustainable practices are proven to work.

---

The only thing proven is what we see throughout history: population increase, sustaining asset and land depletion. Your sustainence factor is a contradiction, relying upon novel imaginative insanity with no exit clause or plan B.

quote:

---

My response is there is nothing stopping us from formulating a plan how a dome city can be established on the Lunar soil, and further this is incumbent for humanity.

​

There are things stopping us.

---

There are things challenging us togo forth and have dominion of all the worlds - or perish. Yet humans climb mountain tops which have never been conquered before. I honor the Hebrew bible because it remains the most honorable, truthful and wisest document humanity possesses - none have ever successfully challenged it and proven right - this despite being the most disdained writings of all. You prove this in every post.

I provided you with the information you requested regarding sustainable development and future popluation estimates.From your reply, you have obviously not read any of the information.Without reading the information, you are replying with nonsense and making yourself look stupid.Refer to the video of the monkey clapping his cymbals.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Sustainable development projects are currently working effectively on every habitable continet on Earth. Popluation management is also working in many nations. This information has been upplied for your benefit. You not reading it does not change reality. Your replies, that clearly show that you have no idea what you are talking about, do not support your position or refute mine. They just make you look stupid. Population increase is not universal. Many parts of the world have reducing or stable populations. This is proven reality. what does this mean? Land depletion is also being reversed. Regeneration projects and revegetaion projects are very common. Also, there are measures in place to prevent or reduce land depletion so it does not become a problem. Sustainable forestry, improved agriculture methods etc I think this might be the third, maybe the forth time I have told you that sustainence is not a word. Why are you so intent on making yourself look like an idiot? Sustainable development does rely on some novel ideas. Most of the principles are decades, even hundreds of years old. There is also no imaginative insanity. It is reality. You must at least remember what reality was when you used to exist in it. Sustainable development is not just one plan. It is a huge amount of unified plans. So there are many plan A's, many plan B's, many plan C's and so on. With continued sustainable development, humanity will survive long enough to develop the technology to colonise other planets. So, your plan will eventually be a possability but we will only get there by utalising sustainable development practices.May I ask what your plan B is? This is not true. You have all of the reasons why. Just becasue you wont read them does not mean they dont exist. Can you see any difference between climbing a mountain and interplanetary colonisation? It is not any of those things. You faith does not change reality. This is your opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one (Larry Flynt). except for these bits... Are you planning on actually reading the information that stands against your position or are you going to keep pretending it does not exist?

sustenance is a word.

quote:

---

Population increase is not universal.

---

Error # 2 of the same post. The population increase is global from the overiding historical premise.

quote:

---

except for these bits...

---

EWrror # 3. Genesis says the universe and the earth are billions of years old [the text]. This is the first document which said so.Error # 4. Your textual comprehension is equally eronous in subscribing 24 hour creation days. These are obvious Christian lift offs, who, unintentionally and sincerely, have made embarrassing interpretations of a text they at no time followed or understood. Have you not wondered why the Hebrew calendar, the most accurate one we have, begins 'AFTER' the creational days!?The only thing the Jews have not yet been accused of is ignorance. Mess with the Hebrew bible at your own risk - none have ever succeeded here.

O grate messias the enlightened one tell us more of what you know to be true because your god told you so

AKA Check Mate. Its usually how it ends up when all defenses are exhausted. Of note you had no response to the fact Genesis is the first document which says the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Even before the term BILLIONS was coined. Make sure your other intellectual pursuits are not full of such runaway omissions.

you remind me of this guyEccept he preforms sattire and you are yust insane Edited by frako, : No reason given.

There you go again, confirming yourself when all defense is exhausted.

Population control works take a look at my country we have a negative population gorwth (when you excloude imigration). And it works simply by education there are no laws of how many children you can have or anything simmilar. So all we have to do is educate peple like you and youl find it in your own intrest to not have 10 kids but a normal number and so we could easely decreese the worlds population to a sustainable number. After that we would have a few billion years to figure out how to colonise other planets.If we go by your idea and multiply like rabbits everyone having 10 children or more well then we get screwed in a few decades before we even come close to the technology needed to terraform and colonise mars and nowhere near colonising anything outside our solar system.