|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's The Best Solution For Humanity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Iamjoseph writes:
No we won't, because of the simple fact that we can't feed that many people.
Come 500 years and the human population will be in the trillions - even when limiting repro like does China.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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.
We need to increase living space - more lands - to save the population... ...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
You need food to live. Without it, there won't even be life.
No sir. Life is first - food is secondary. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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.
Won't help eventually. Its still a guaranteed dead premise ahead. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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 still affirming Genesis by default or exposing some form of denial. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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.
Ok, I grant you this position. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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...
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
fearandloathing writes:
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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Which is why you first advocated unlimited population growth, instead of management? And now that you've been shown to be wrong, are advocating that you actually meant population management all along?
Sustainence is generic and this is never negated by the pivotal factor of life. The context in which reproduction is given in Genesis can only refer to growth in the correct way, evidenced in a host of follow-up laws of advocation which call for stewardship and responsibility.The issue of sustainenece, growth vs management is a fillerbuster because it ignores the laws and hypes up a false charge. We can vary on the 'when' which is a margin of small time period...
No it isn't, it'll be a long while before we have enough technology to terraform other planets, let alone travel outside our solar system.
but we cannot argue of the destruction which is inevitable if humanity fails to expand outside earth.
A destruction still some 4.5 billion years in the future. Plenty of time, I'd say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
No we won't, can't you even do simple arithmetic? if you take 1 cent and double it dailyfor 31 days (the maximum days in a month), you will end with 2.147.483.648 cents, or $ 21.474.836,48 (rounded to $21.5 million). Nowhere near the 11 billion you proposed.
If we take a one cent coin and double it daily, we will end up with $11 Billion in one month.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes:
With one dollar you'll have 2.147.483.648 dollars, which is still nowhere near 11 billion.
Hm. I erred. Maybe I should begin with $1 not 1 c.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
By my calculations, you'll need a bit more than 5.12 dollars to start with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024