Summations Only

Moose,This idea that we can continue to destroy the planet because in the future we can just go elsewhere is pretty common.It is most common coming from preople who have absolutely no idea how far away we are from having the technology to do this.and dont call me Shirley.

If there was a few tests involved before someone was allowed to go for this position, it might be a good idea.we would need to have -a complex reasoning test - you would pass
a sense of humour test - you would pass
a test of general intelligence test - you would pass
a test to see if the new ruler would be able to change policy when new or improved information comes in - you would passHow many current world leaders would pass these tests?What would some of your first world changes be?(that last question was actually a serious question)

IamJoseph,Making the world that we have a survivable, prosperous place happens to be my field.I based my degree on sustainable development. I am most likely going to do my Masters in sustainable development (depending on what contracts come up).Given that I know what I am talking about with regards to this subject, I feel confident in saying that your point of view is the exact opposite of a solution. Your statements lack any grounding in reality. Even for you they show a shocking level of ignorance. Bullshit. You will find that starvation is quite effective at limiting and even reducing population. You will also find that better education of women and better health care in regards to contraception also have a great effect on population. There are many nations where the population (without immigration) is either stable or actually declining. This shows that it is indeed possible to control population growth. Everyone needs to do it. Most of the countries with the greatest out of control population growth have poor education for women and poor access to birth control.Check out this map. If all of the countries had no more than 2 children per woman (one for the mother and one for the father), then the world population would no longer increase. It is actually happening in lots of nations. The average world fertility was 2.65 children per woman. This is about half what it was in the 1950s.During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China. So basically, if we can get these nations to play ball, we have the overpopulation issue on the ropes.The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.Sources:
Overpopulation - Wikipedia
Population and Sustainability
http://www.overpopulation.org/
Overpopulation: The Human Population Crisis This looks like you are suggesting that humanity needs more of a shake up in order to begin reacting. We have had sufficient warning to begin sustainable development practices in order to save the earth. Things like improved water usage practices, reduce/reuse/recycle programs, awareness and reduction of fossil fuel damage, seeking alternate energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal etc, energy efficient product usage, improved agricutural practices, banning significantly environmentally damaging products like chlorofluorocarbons to name a few. We have had the warning. Now we are doing something about it.Building a base on the moon will not save the Earth nor will five bases on Mars. 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? Thats just plain fucking stupidity. Get an agar plate, introduce a single bacteria and leave to incubate. Eventually, the population will increase to a point where waste begins to kill many in each generation and the food runs out. Then everything dies. Same goes for the Earth.Can you tell me why you think we would need more people to design space craft to colonise other worlds? You seem to think we need more people to do this. How about we stabalise the population, then get back to the spaceships huh? bullshit. We can and do control the population. And if we do not, nature will do it for us. If we can get humanity all working on a single aim, saving this planet will be an easy task. Then we can take our time colonising other planets. Most of the nations with the problem birth rates also have very poor education. How exactly is a whole heap more uneducated people going to improve your space race? A team of 10 dumb arses and a team of 1000 dumbarses are both unlikley to help colonise other worlds. Stores do not produce food. Opening more stores will not create more food. How do you think the food gets on the shelf? I dont know what history books you are reading but this is not how gold rushes work. People involved in the rushes were not working together. They were all working for themselves. And if noone found any gold, there was no destruction. They just went home. This would be fucking fantastic. Went off the deep end a bit here? Gravity controlling shoes? dome cities? Do you have any idea how far away from this technology we are (if it is even possible)? You are talking about interplanetary travel. We have not yet worked out a way to provide sufficient life support gasses for a manned trip to mars. What about the suns radiation? Outside our atmosphere, you need to wear a space suit and its not just to keep warm. Also, there is fuck all on the moon and mars for us to use. We would need to take things from the Earth to make these domes of yours survivable. If we have screwed up the Earth, where are we getting the resources from? Maybe you think that terraforming and atmosphere processing are technologies that are just around the corner. Bullshit. Multiplying exponentially increases many of the worlds greates problems.I will stick to real life solutions. Solutions that are currently being implemented globally.How about you do your bit and get a vasectomy. And dont forget to recycle.

IamJoseph, I can only assume that this message is in response to Message 320.It was not a message directed at you. It was directed to all of the other forum users. Because you are unwilling to provide any sources for any of your claims I had to try to search for them myself. I found that there are no other recordings of your claims other than those you had made. My purpose was to see if there was any meat to your arguments.Here are some quotes from that post -

quote:

---

Does anyone have any idea where IamJoseph gets his information from?

​

I have been looking for definitions and usage of his common phrases hoping I might be able to make sense of his arguements. I felt there was a possibility that he may be actually making sense but I was not getting understanding his usage of english.
...
Most of the phrases I searched for appeared multiple times in the same bunch of sites. I performed a fair few other phrase searches using quotes commonly used by IamJoseph. I came up with nothing. I was hoping that, as he wont supply his sources, maybe I could find them and this would help our debates.

​

What I found is that the only one saying these things is IamJoseph.

​

The only other possability is that he uses books. Maybe some of these phrases are just outdated and only appear in older books and have not migrated onto the internet.

​

Can anyone help me out? Anyone know of any uses of the common phrases IamJoseph anywhere other than his posts?

---

My intention was to discover if there was anything I had missed. It appears that there is not. Everything you post is your own insane ravings. No substance. I dont really care that you have been banned from various forums. The only reason I included it is to illustrate your general forum character and debating habits.As to prevailing in debates. Are you suggesting that I have lost a debate to you? You have done nothing but vomit your own personal brand of judaism onto the forum. As far as I can tell, you have offered nothing to any scientific discussion you have been involved in. Do you think that you have prevailed in the Great Debate I challenged you to? This one - Message 1. You wont even step up and defend your own claims. Your arguments are pointless. You are an intellectual coward. I have supplied the solution. It is called sustainable development.
Here are some sources for you to read to educate yourself to the solution that is currently in practise.
Sustainable development - Wikipedia
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/index.html
Sustainable Development | International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentThe human population will not be in the trillions in 500 years. the current population is near 7 billion. That is 7 000 000 000.
1 trillion is 1 000 000 000 000. The Earth cannot provide sufficient food to feed even 1 trillion people. The human population on this Earth will never reach this level. It is just not possible. Starvation will limit the population.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.

Hello IamJoseph, 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. Yes, it was a question. This is indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentence. 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. What the fuck does that even mean? Sustainance is not a word. Try rephrasing using actual, real words and you may improve your chances of your point getting accross. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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 52Quote chapter and verse where God commands humans to colonise other worlds. 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?

IamJoseph, Wrong. There are choices. One choice is living sustainably. The other alternative is to live in the physical space we currently have. This is the alternative that is currently being acted upon. This is actual reality. You are familiar with reality aren't you. In actual, real reality, in the real world, there is an alternative to your idea. It is currently occuring. By saying there is no alternative, you are denying something that is actually occuring in reality. You are denying something you can see and feel with your own hands. Are you so distanced from reality that you are able to reject it? Wrong. The other alternative is sustainable development. You really do have a problem with reality dont you. It is entirely possible, nearly guaranteed even that humans will colonise other worlds. But this expansion is a long way off. It is not a solution to the current world problems. The only way we will survive for long enough to colonise other worlds is to accept sustainable pactices on Earth. Mulitplying as you suggest guarantees the demise of humanity. Maybe not total extinction, but probably pretty close. There is an alternative. It is called sustainable development. Population estimates for 500 and 5000 years into the future? Do you think that these statistics actually exist? Are you just looking at the current population and popluation growth then multiplying it out?Are you taking the fact that global population growth is actually going down into your calculations? Are you taking into account the fact that the vast majority of population growth is occuring in developing nations? With the increase in education levels there, there is no reason to assume that their population growth will run parralel to the rest of the world. This is a known phenomenon. Population demographics follow patterns. Once education of women, equality of women, health care and birth control become common, populations stabilise. It happens everywhere.Population statistics for even the next 50 years vary greatly. No demographer anywhere would attempt to predict human population 5000 years into the future. It would be worthless.Even a prediction for 500 years into the future would be subject to huge amounts of error. What is your estimate for the Earth population in 500 years? When you are making this estimate, make sure you factor in the following -1. future fertility rates
2. future population age stuctures
3. future child and adult mortality rates
4. global socioeconomic trends
5. changes in population growth
6. new medical discoveries
7. disasters including asteroid impacts, ultra resistent diseases and viruses, wars
8. Malthusian catastrophy theory
9. increases in education and womens rights.Also keep in mind that around 15% of the nations of the world do not have population statistics. This will have a huge effect on population numbers over 500 years. You will need to find this data. This will be hard as it does not exist. You have still not illustrated that Genesis actually discusses God commanding humans to mulitply beyond the Earths carrying capacity and colonising other planets. Who cares what scripture says anyway. There is an enourmous volume of literature on this subject. Literature written by professional demographers and scientists. And it all disagrees with your personal interpretation of Genesis. I think it would be more prudent to listen to actual professionals rather than you. At the moment, we have the entire professional communities analysis of the reality of the situation verses IamJosephs personal interpretation of scripture
combines with his hope of the development of currently non existent (and some likely impossible) technology. This is quite simply wrong. Again, sustainence is not a word. Try using real words if you want your point to get across. With effective sustainable development practice, it is possible to avoid self destruction. I am sorry if I only keep reality on my radar. I know you have a big problem with reality that you cant seem to get over. You are just plain wrong. For you, reality is outside of your radar. The food and water that you suggest can be poured into the house, where do you think it will come from? Also, we dont need to keep increasing the population size. Destruction is not inevitable.I asked you to verify where in Genesis it shows God commanding humans to colonise other planets. You have replied with - Geo history? Does this mean geological history? Geographic history? WTF are you talking about? What fact are you talking about? How can I disregard a 'fact' that you have not yet presented let alone supported. Does this mean that you admit that Genesis does not show God commanding humans to colonise other planets? You go on to discuss terms and Genesis again but do not provide any scripture. Provide the chapoter and verse you are interpreting. No it isnt. If by conquering you mean visiting briefly then you are correct. We have briefly visited these places. We have visited them for long enough to be very aware of how far we are away from conquering them. Where is the error in my maths? 7 billion people, minus 6.5 to 7 billion people equals between 0 and .5 billion people. This is a disaster. Point out where the maths problem is there. Particularly in light of the fact that most of the people would die of starvation or dehydration. Thats pretty miserable. Wrong again. Humans cannot colonise other planets fast enough to deal with current population growth let alone and increase. The only way we will ever survive for long enough to colonise other planets is by accepting and implemeting sustainable devlopment practise. Not colonising other planets will not result in destrcuction. Again, sustainence is not a word. Try using real words. With sustainable development, humanity would be able to live on Earth indefinitely. Until our suns explodes anyway. This is wrong. You are wrong. Did you even read the sustainable development information I supplied you with? Why do you bother asking questions if you do not want to know the answers? Why start a thread asking to be educated if you have no desire to actually be educated?

IamJoseph,I chose to deal with this paragraph in a post all on its own. I dont think you really understand what you are saying. You think you are putting forward a valid solution. You need to provide some more information to back up your claim. Lets just look at a one of your claims - "If in 150 years we have a dome city base on the moon, 10 million humans can relieve earth's population and guarantee human surviva".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? Very few of the required resources are on the moon. You would need to transport them from Earth to the moon. So you would be taking resources for 10 million people from the Earth and taking it to the moon. This will supply exactly zero net gain for humanity. You will have actually taken humanity backwards as a huge amount of resources would be required to contruct a city for 10 million people on the moon and transport it all to the moon.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.
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?
3. Thus far there have been no successful trials of closed system dome cities. (more info below)
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?
5. How do you think we will be getting 10 million people to the moon.
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.
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.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.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.

Hello Xongsmith, Not necessarily. The average standard of living in the world will go up. There will be people whose standard of living goes down. But it will be an extremely small percentage of the worlds population.The questions I always ask people who are worried that their standard of living will go down are : Do you believe that you have the right to use the amount of resources you use to the detriment of other people? Do you have the right to take more than is your fair share? Why do you think you have this right? What do you contribute to the species that makes you think you deserve more than someone else?The answers people give often surprise me. I want to visit those galaxies. I would love it. This does not make it possible. The time may be now, but it is still impossible now. My desires do not change reality unfortunately.

IamJoseph, Incidental? The things I am focusing on are things like breathable air, drinkable water, the creation of food and materials to build a dome to keep out the vacuum of space. I would not consider these things incidental. If you do believe they are incidental try this - Hold your breath....see how long before it becomes a serious problem for you. This is all well and good. Apart from the fact that humanity is nowhere near coming even close to the technology you are talking about. Not even close. The technological advance you are talking about are way into our far distant future. We have not fully discovered or studied all the problems that interplanetary travel and colonisation will have let alone started to come up with solutions. Thi is incorrect. It may but does not need to happen. You cannot say with 100% certainty that humanity will colonise other planets. We may discover that space stations are a better bet. of we may discover alternate dimensions. We may do lots of things. Also, it is possible to live on this planet in a sustainable way. We know this because humanity did it for thousands of years. Are you contradicting yourself in one sentence? You cannot prove that humans are the only life in the universe. It is unlikely but possible that we are. Is this a serious answer? Really? Even in science fiction I dont think i have ever heard of gravity controlling shoes. Is this seriously your answer? If this is easy as pie, can you provide some information as to how you think that this idea is even possible? Your answer has about as much credibility as if you had said that everyone would get a magic wand that controlled gravity. This is not even close to a sensible, plausible solution to the problem of the lack of gravity. Radiation is not a disease. It cannot be cured or innoculated against. This is not even close to a sensible, plausible solution for the radiation problem. Do you even check the sources provided for you? The tests have all failed. The vacuum of space is very different to building a house in the jungle. So there will be millions of people who have a job, but nothing to eat. As they lay dying of starvation, they can be happy to know they died employed. I am sure this will be a comfort. The items you say were discovered by accident were not dicovered entirely by accident. Viagra for example was a designed drug. It was discovered that it had a beneficial side effect and is now marketed for this purpose. It was not some random guy mixing random items in his fridge up, then eating it and getting a raging boner. No one is going to accidentally invent and atmosphere processor. no one is going to accidentally discover a vehicle capable of interplanetary travel. Just so I have this right - You know something is going to happen. You have no idea how it will happen. You have no idea how it could happen. You actually have sensible arguements for why it would not happen. You have sensible arguements for why it could not happen. Yet you still know it is going to happen. Do you see anything wrong with this thinking? Your answer does not actually answer the question asked. It actually goes off onto a random tanget. Is this your way of saying that you cannot answer the question? The question was: Who is going to provise the resources (air, water, macro and micro nutrients) for these 10 million people to use. And where is it going to come from? Again, this is just plain wrong. Again I ask if you even read the sources provided to you. A small contained atmosphere is more fragile than the atmosphere on Earth. Here is an easy experiment for you to prove this. Open all of the doors and windows in your house. Now turn the oven on and leave the door open. After 8 hours, what is the temperature difference in your home? Now, close all of the dorrs and windows in your house. Turn you oven on and wait 8 hours. Now check the temperature difference in your home. Notice any differnce between a small contained area and a large contained area? You would undertstand this (if you had read the sources I provided) that the CO2 levels fluctuated wildly in the small enclose dome. The levels of O2, CO2 and water vapour fluctuated wildly between day and night because of the photosynthesis-respiration-transpiration cycle (read about it here: http://cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/141.pdf). This is a very serious problem in small contained spaces. In a space with 10 million people in it, it would be an even more serious problem.We also have very limited control over nature. (By the way, nice to see that you are finally using the word nature correctly and not telling everyone that it does not exist.) There are currently millions of people starving to death because of droughts. Solar radiation is coming into our atmosphere in increasingly high doses because we have no control over the ozone layer. Every year, huge bushfires roar through hige parts of Australia because we cant control nature. I have to put sun screen on my daughter every time we leave the house because we have no control over the suns strength. Ask the japanese if they believe that they have control over nature. A huge amount of my home town, Brisbane in Australia was underwater due to catastrophic flooding recently. I was bitten by a wasp the other day (and boy did that suck). I cant keep the bloody weeds from growing up through the pavers on the front drive. We eat what we eat and sleep when we sleep at the whim of the natural cycles of seasons and days. I dont really think we have much control over nature at all. 10 million people living underground on the moon. In 2010, the estimated population of New York City was 8,175,133
(source : Top 50 Cities in the U.S. by Population and Rank). If you add the population of Philidelphia (1,526,006) to that you get 9,701,139 people. That is still 300 000 people short of the number of people you believe can live underground on the Moon or Mars. The entire fucking population of NYC and Philidelphia combined. People already hate each other in New York. Try sticking them all in cramped quarters, underground, 230 000 kilometres away from their home planet and see how that goes. Do you see why this idea is implausible?'Who can tell' you say. Is this a way for you to say - I have no solution for this huge problem? Discussing creationism would mean that you are thinking bronze age in the digital era. I would go for analogue personally. Yeah, the dark ages did a lot for human advancement. Cheers for putting Galileo under house arrest for his discoveries. I cannot imagine where science would be without the oppresion of the church to support it (I have noticed that you sometimes miss sarcasm, in case you missed it this time, that was sarcasm). I also am happy that Islam is preventing the education of women, thus keeping roughly 50% of the populations of their countries out of the universities and labs where they could be making terrible humanaty improving discoveries (thats sarcasm again). I would also like to thank the monotheistic faiths for their active attempts to stop science and reason in its tracks by introducing wonderful things like intelligent design and the indoctrination of children into our lives (that one was sarcasm too). Creationism and monotheism, or the rejection of creationsim and monotheism have not lead us to the Theory of Evolution. Observation has brought us to this theory. Regardless of your faith or lack of faith, the Theory of Evolution would exist. It would take a towering arrogance for anyone to attempt to imply that without creationism or monotheism, we would not have come up with the ToE. Also, atheism is not a science. It also would exist without creationism and monotheism. Without these things, atheism would be the standard way of thinking. It is not neccesary to have religions to be an athiest. Atheism is how everyone starts. Every baby is born an athiest. Religion is taught.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,Is being consistantly, astoundingly ignorant to actual reality difficult to maintain? I do understand what non negotiable means. I have also provided you with an alternative to you 'solution'. Not only have I provided you with a solution, I have provided you with a viable solution. Not just a viable solution but a viable solution that is recognised by every developed nation in the world. Not only is it recognised by in the majority of nations on Earth, this solution is currently being put into place. Most of the nations on the Earth are currently using this solution as an alternative to your 'solution'. To say that this is non negotiable is to ignore actual reality.reality -
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being realSustainable development is the best solution for humanity. This is reality.here is some more reality for you...

quote:

---

UNDSD - United Nations Division of Sustainable Development (192 member nations)

​

Goals - Integration of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in policy-making at international, regional and national levels;
Wide-spread adoption of an integrated, cross-sectoral and broadly participatory approach to sustainable development.
(Source: Division For Sustainable Development :: About)

​

Here is some information on the United Nations International Conference on Sustainable Development - http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/

​

The World Bank - (Active in nearly every nation in the world)

​

Sustainable development featured prominently in the World Bank 2011 Annual Meetings, with several high profile events illustrating its key role in combating poverty and the global economic recovery.
Much of the World Bank’s work in sustainable development is piloted via an internal grouping of departments, the Sustainable Development Network. It focuses on supporting our clients, directly or via the Bank’s Regional units, on the complex agenda of sustainable development. This means incorporating the concept of sustainability into all of the work carried out under the auspices of the Network. This agenda embraces the triple bottom line of sustainability — economic, environmental and social — as well as anticipates and addresses major trends such as climate change, natural resource depletion, food scarcity, and urban expansion.

​

ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (70 member nations)

​

ICLEI's mission statement - To build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in global sustainability with special focus on environmental conditions through cumulative local actions
(Source : http://www.iclei-europe.org/...s/membership-EN-final-www.pdf)

​

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (34 member nations)

​

OECD statement regarding SD - Concern about sustainability underlies all OECD work. The Horizontal Programme on Sustainable Development promotes coordinated analyses on economic, environmental and social issues and long-term perspectives in the OECD work programme. It is overseen by the Annual Meeting of Sustainable Development Experts (AMSDE) who track progress in mainstreaming sustainable development perspectives in OECD country reviews, analyses, statistics and policy discussions.
(Source: )

​

WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(30 member nation)

​

Vision 2050 statement - 9 billion people living well, within the resource limits of the planet by 2050
(Source:http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?...)

​

EU - European Union (27 member nations)

​

Sustainability strategy - Sustainable development is unquestionably one of the overarching principles and top priorities of the EU. Some decisive measures have been taken in the last years such as the adoption in Gteborg of the strategy for sustainable development enabling an environmental dimension to be incorporated into the Lisbon strategy. Economic, social and environmental aspects must now be addressed on an equal footing.
(Source: http://www.ueapme.com/spip.php?rubrique87)

​

ECE - European Commission - Environment (27 nations)

​

Sustainable Development stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs — in other words, a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It offers a vision of progress that integrates immediate and longer-term objectives, local and global action, and regards social, economic and environmental issues as inseparable and interdependent components of human progress.
(Source:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/)

​

IISD - International Institute for Sustainable Development (active in 30 nations)

​

Goal - IISD promotes the transition toward a sustainable future; we seek to demonstrate how human ingenuity can be applied to improve the well-being of the environment, economy and society.
(Source : Mission and Goals | International Institute for Sustainable Development)

​

HREA - Human Rights Education Association (International)

​

The right to development implies the right to improvement and advancement of economic, social, cultural and political conditions. Improvement of global quality of life means the implementation of change that ensures every person a life of dignity; or life in a society that respects and helps realize all human rights. Sustainable development ensures the well-being of the human person by integrating social development, economic development, and environmental conservation and protection.
(Source: Home - Human Rights Education Associates)

​

We are currently in the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. here is the logo -

​

(Source : United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development - Wikipedia)

​

Recent comments regarding sustainable development -

​

...we still seem to find it hard to treat the future as if it really is as important as the present, and seek to tackle each problem separately from the others...Humanity can no longer simply think of existing from generation to generation, but must ensure that the world we leave behind is as good as, if not better than, the one we found - from closing statement 'What next for sustainable development'
Will Day & Andrew Lee, Sustainable Development Commission (March 2011)

​

"To change our national economic story from one of financial speculation to one of future growth, we need a third industrial revolution: a green revolution. It will transform our economy as surely as the shift from iron to steel, from steam to oil. It will lead us toward a low-carbon future, with cleaner energy and greener growth. With an economy that is built to last - on more sustainable, more stable foundations"
Chris Huhne, US Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (addressing the LSE, 2 November 2010)

​

We need to develop the new green industrial revolution that develops the new technologies that can confront and overcome the challenge of climate change; and that above all can show us not that we can avoid changing our behaviour but we can change it in a way that is environmentally sustainable - Tony Blair 2004

​

"Sustainable development is the peace policy of the future ."
Dr Klaus Topfer, UNEP Executive Director (2004)

---

Those are all examples of reality. Check again the definition of reality if you are not sure.Your solution - Massive increase in population to solve the problem of overpopulation, gravity controlling boots, interplanetary travel etc is not reality. Check again the definition of reality if you are not sure. The factors I mentioned included problems like the lack of gravity in space and the lack of breathable air. Just because you say the problems can and must be overcome does not mean it can happen. You are saying that the problem of us not having gravity controlling shoes can and must be overcome. I am sorry to say it IamJoseph but gravity controlling shoes are most likely totally impossible. Maybe if you keep saying that this problem of impossibility can and must be overcome, it will become possible. You keep saying it. Let me know if it changes anything. Sustainable development does not require killing anyone. Do you live under a rock? Do you watch TV or read newspapers? How about you read one of the many sources I have provided for you. You asked a question in your OP. I have answered this question. I have provided many links to extensive material to help support this position. Why dont you use them? Do you actually want to be educated? So far you have supplied a personal interpretation, a tentative one at best that could indicate, maybe, that God may have suggested that humans should colonise other planets. You have not provided any scripture at all that states that humans must colonise other planets. You have provided no answers from Genesis.I had a bit of a look around and found some interesting opposition to your point of view though.This is from a paper called "Respect for God’s World: The Biblical and Rabbinic Foundations of Environmentalism" by Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D. & Yehuda L. Klein, Ph.D. (Source:http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/environmentbible2.pdf)Also, check these Biblical sources for more support for environmental protection -
Bible Verses About Protecting the Environment
Animals, Religion and the Environment: 08 - Animals: Tradition - Philosophy - Religion Article
Nothing found forSustainable development is actual reality.I googled a bit and could not find one single reputable organisation actively working on interplanetary colonisation.I also could not find any organisation promoting huge population increases as a soultion to the problems created by overpopulation.It looks like you are on your own IamJoseph.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,still missing that all important grasp on reality i see. They do have an answer. It is called sustainable development. The information is all there. If you live in any developed nation in the world, you will be able to go out and see their actions. You will be able to touch them with your own hands. Also, not one of the organisations listed receives funding grants. One of them, the ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (70 member nations) is a not for profit organisation. Also, changing to sustainable development practices will actually COST money. None of these organisations will make any money from their work. If you had any idea what you are talking about, you would know this. but you would prefer to remain intentionally ignorant. Proving again that you are an intellectual coward. Also, can you tell me why you think that the Human rights Education Association would be in it for grant money. They support all of the people at the bottom. they support the POOREST people and nations int he world. That sure is a strange way to make money. This is wrong. I have shown you why it is wrong. I have supported my arguements with evidence. You have done nothing but make bare incorrect assertions with nothing to support them. I have supplied you with the alternative. Your desire to remain willfully ignorant does not change the facts. It just makes you look stupid. Total annahilation does not appear on the list because that is your position. I have refuted your position. Education and action will resolve the problem by applying sustainable development practices globally. this is what is actually being done. This is the reality of the situation. For some reason you have trouble with the fact that I have reality on my side. Again I will tell you that killing people is not part of sustainable development. your desire to remain willfully ignorant is staggering. you have been corrected on this twoce now. you have also been supplied with ample information to educate yourself. You are disagreeing with a position that you have clearly, intentionally prevented yourself from knowing anything about. You are being intentionally ignorant. intellectual cowardice is a very unpleasant trait. Why do you seem so intent to posses this trait.Also, Genesis does not advocate interplanetary colonisation.Repeating it does not prove it to be true. It just makes you look stupid. What you see does not make it true. What you see does not make it right. I am debating your point because people need to educated about sustainable development. You seem intent on remaining ignorant though. You wont even read enough about the topic to make a sensible reply. This clear advocation you mention does not exist. If Genesis did say what you think it says about interplanetary colonisation (it doesn't) then it would be wrong too. The last half of this does not even make sense. 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 rest of your post is just the usual irrlevant verbal diarrhea you are so fond of and deserves no real response.So far, your best alternate to sustainable development is the hope that someone is going to wave a magic wand and invent interplanetary travel, terraforming, gravity controlling boots, a method to prevent people from dying of radioation poisoning etc etc etc.What you are suggesting is that massive population increase will resolve the problems of overpopulation. All we need is the genie of the lamp to get us over all of the currently insummountable hurdles and we will be fine.How about, just in case this we dont find the magic lamp, we keep going with sustainable development. Would you at least go that for.How about this.We just keep sustainable development going in case we dont find a genie. That way, if we dont have a magical solution, we will all still live. With your 'solution' if we dont find a magic lamp, we all die. Its called the precautionary principle. read about it here Precautionary principle - Wikipedia

IamJoseph, I would like you to be honest in your reply to this message. You have absolutely no idea what sustainable development is do you? You have not actually read any of the information supplied to you have you? You are ranting against a position that you refuse to learn anything about aren't you? How can you oppose a position that you do not understand? It just makes you look stupid. Is your intent to look stupid? Are you trolling?In the OP Message 1, you asked the following questions - When you asked those questions, you had absolutely no intention of listening to any other point of view other than your own did you?This thread was designed for you to shout your brand of religiously motivated madness for your own satisfaction wasn't it? This is basically you stroking your own arguement. A sort of forum masturbation.If you really did honestly ask those questions, you would have at least made an attempt to listen to and understand other solutions.Sustainable development is not a contradiction in terms. You would understand this very simple idea if you had read any of the information supplied to you. You however are not interested in being educated. You are interested in remaining intentionally ignorant. You are an intellectual coward. You will not even look at any other information just in case it may damage your argument. Excuse me? I have not put forward, nor would I advocate any ideas of mass murder. This is not, has never been and will never be my position. You have made this up in your own head. Now you are resorting to imagining things in order to make rash accusations. I have shown you, even with pretty pictures how population can be and is being controlled. Hooah made reference to it in [mid631214]. Pressie elaborated on it in Message 10. Frako mentioned it in Message 33. I provided you with a larger description in Message 52 complete with a graphic, explanation, statistics and sources to back up the claims. Frako posted more information in Message 59 from his own home country showing that not only could it happen, it is happening. Huntard discussed the issue in several posts including Message 73. I discussed it agin in Message 80. Huntard mentioned it again in Message 81. Fearandloathing mentioned it in Message 88. Frako again mentions it in Message 118. I corrected you the last time you made the this same bullshit accusation in Message 143. In all of those comments regarding population contreol, not one mentions murdering or killing anyone. The only person making these claims is you. You are the only one saying it, and you are accusing others of saying it.I will provide you with some more information. By the way, how do you ignore the information supllied to you? Do you cover the graphs with your hand and pretend they are not there?Just to make it clear for you as you seem to repeatedly miss it I will put the following sentence in bold and CAPITAL LETTERS. POPULATION MANAGEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY KILLING OR MURDERINGNo one here has said it does except for you. It has been pointed out to you why you are wrong about this before. You are still wrong if you think that population control involves killing people.Clear enough? Probably not.I will now describe, in detail, with graphs and sources how population control works.To put it simply - 2 parents have two children. Then the two parents die (they are not murdered), leaving the net population increase as zero. See how maths works. 2 + 2 - 2 = 2.That is the premise behind population management. See, as discussed previously, no murdering involved.Is this happening? Yes, it is.Look at this image (source: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/.../20/top-5-demography-myths) All of the blue nations are having 2 or less children per couple. This means that population control measures are working in all of the blue countries on the map and many of the green ones also. It is actually happening out in the real world (with no killing). If you look at the nations where there is still a very high birth rate, you will find that the education and empowerment of women is very low. Educate these women, give them control of their own bodies by allowing them to use birth control and guess what? Total international population management has been achieved.I will also point out why you are wrong in thinking that it is just the births that are leading to the worlds current high population. Here is another handy graphic - (Source: World Total Fertility Rate Declines)This is the global fertility rate. It is the global average number of children women are having. Notice how in the 1950's women globally were having around 5 children each. Remember the equation I showed you before? 2 + 2 - 2 + 2. This equation has no net growth. Using the same equation in the 1950's you would get : 2 + 5 - 2 = 3. This is a net growth of 3 people, per woman on average globally. See the differnce? Now look at the current time period. It is sitting at 2.9. So, the equation would be 2 + 2.9 - 2 + .9. So a net growth of .9. About 1. See the differnce. See how this is going down. Can you see how population control works without anyone having to be murdered?allong with that graph is this - (Source:World Total Fertility Rate Declines)For more information that you wont read because it refutes your position try this paper called "The Fertility Transition Around the World -
1950-2005" at Page not found | Program on the Global Demography of Aging at Harvard University | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthI am sure you are wondering why the population is still increasing. Here is another neat graph to show you. Notice how the blue bars are still higher than the red bars. The red bars show death rate. The blue is birth rate. While the vlue bars are higher than the red bars, there are more people being born than are dying. Also, take this into account - (Source: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/.../20/top-5-demography-myths)The average life expectancy is increasing steadily. Check out this handy graph. (Source : http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/hc434/couplings.html/)This is the global average average life expectency.Here is another one showing more recent history - (Source :WordPress.com )There are more people around because every human being on the planet is living longer. This does not mean that overpopulation is not a problem. Births are still too high (this does not mean that anyone is going to go out and start killing people).I know you will tell me that none of this is real and it cannot happen. Once again I am going to have to rely on reality to prove that it can and is happening. (Source: World Total Fertility Rate Declines)Remember how we discussed the red bar being lower than the blue bar meaning popluation growth because there are more births than deaths. Well, in Russia, the opposite is happening. otice the red bar is higher than the blue bar. This shows that there are more people dying in Russia than being born. Keep in mind that no one is mudering these people to control the population. The following information accompanies the graph - Is that sufficient reality to refute your statement that population control cannot happen. Is the plain and simple fact that it is actually happening in many nations of the world not sufficient evidence. Is reality not enough evidence for you?And remember, noone is murdering anyone to manage the population. It does not use those words but that is exactly what it says??? If it was exactly what it says, it would use those words. If it does not say anything about interplanetary colonisation, then you have no basis for your lunacy. This ones all you. 'Out of Africa' means 'out of Africa'. You cannot read 'out of Africa' to mean leaving the Earth. You are so ignorant you cannot even get the phrase right. It is called SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. It is not a death wih chant. It is the solution. You are advocating slow death by starvation. I am advocating prosperity and security for all. I have reality on my side. You are standing by yourself with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut ranting, hoping that if you ignore reality for long enough it will go away. Your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty is staggering. What madness are you suggesting? The madness of ensuring that all future generations of children have a world with breathable air, drinkable water, food to eat etc. Is that the madness you are accusing me of? Your premise is a promise of starvation. Nothing more. Again with the controlled mass murder. This is something that you are making up in your own head. Might want to see someone about that. Your suggestion shows that you believe that you are fine with the near complete destruction of our planet and the extinction of nealry every animal, including humans. Most of the plants will go too. The wholesale destruction of human civilisation. That is your solution. How does that show that life is sacred?I bet that you illustrate very quickly in your next post that you still have not read any of the sustainable development information provided to you. I bet that you will quickly show that you are knowingly debating from a self imposed position of ignorance. You have the information. All you need to do to be intellectually honest is to read it. I bet you dont because you are an intellectual coward. You refuse to learn because you are afraid it may shake the foundations you stand upon.Remember now - population management does not mean killing people. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

IamJoseph,This is the last paragraph of that post. The first line in your post is this - there was hope, for a brief moment...until you wrote this - This clearly illustrates that you do not understand sustainable development. It clearly illustrates intellectual dishonesty and cowardice on your part. You have no desire to learn. You activelly work to remain ignorant. I dont know if it would be possible to prove those points more completely and totally than you have done. Congratulations. Refer to my signature.

No you dont. You are making it very that you dont understand the situation. I dont believe I have ever met anyone who understands the situation less than you obviously do. I know I have never discussed the issue with someone who is so intent on being ignorant of the facts and so resistant to reality as you are. No. I am not. I have spent years studying this issue. I based my degree on it. I am well versed in regards to this subject. You on the other hand do not have the slightest grasp on the basics. And you continually refuse to attempt to learn in order to provide a valid, sensible post. There is an alternate point of view. There is reality. Also, Genesis does not support your point of view. You hae no arguement from either direction. Genesis does not support you and reality does not support you. This shows how little you know. It also shows that you dont read or understand the information provided to you. The UN is not making a profit from this. The UN is not earning anything. This is costing the UN money. Again, reality does not support your position. What controlled killing of students? What the fuck are you talking about you crazy little man? I am always willing to learn. Please enlighten me. What, in your opinion is sustained mass murder? Where is it occuring? How is it occuring?You must really hate reality. It is terribly damaging to all of your arguements.

Hello Dogmafood, Thanks for the compliment. On reflection, it probably could have done without the tone of condescension given that other people would be reading it. It is remarkable. There are many factors that have lead to this increase. Things as simple as knowledge of human dietary requirements to advances in medical technology have contributed. Better access to general health care has also had a huge effect. Just having access to a doctor to get a checkup and the increase in the speed and effectiveness of pathology tests has changed. Today, I could book an appointment at the local medical centre, usually have an appointment within 3 days, have blood and urine samples taken, be directed to any specialist required for further testing and have the results of the path tests inside a week. This sort of preventative medicine has been very important. We are more aware of ways to prevent ourselves from getting sick, can get checkups to detect illness in the early stages, have better testing methods to find out more in less time and are better at treating illness when it is dicovered. All it takes is health care and education. One of the things I am noticing in the current global financial times is that health care and education are moving down the priority list (in Australia anyway). I would have put health care and education as the top issues for every general election.I am guilty of taking this for granted.It is a sobering thought to know that I would be well past middle age if I was in the 1950's. Now, I am still short of half way. That is what seems to be happening. Surprisingly enough, most women dont actually want to be housebound baby making machines. They have the same sort of career plans, desire to travel, dreams and goals as men do. It is pretty hard to get these things done while pumping out babies. Having 5 children occupies a huge amount of time. In the 1950's, generally, between 20 and 30 years could be taken up by a woman having the average 5 children. Giving a woman the right to decide when she has children and how many children she has seems like such a simple idea. Africa is currently suffering because they lack education and womens right. The two biggest causes of this are tradition and religion. Church groups (particularly the Roman Catholic Church) believe that aids, HIV and starvation are acceptable as long as no one is using condoms. This is an easy position to take, comfortable in a Western nation, sitting back with a glass of clean, drinkable water and a fridge filled with food in the next room.Here is an article by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discussing the issue and Obama's changes - Page not found | IPPFIt begins with this - Islam in the middle east also plays its part. Clerics in Pakistan are probably the worst. Here are some quotes to give you the general idea. (Source:http://www.overpopulation.org/Africa.html)The issue is at its worst where there is a lack of education and poor womens rights. It is still a big problem. However it is less of a problem than it could have been. The big changes are not being made by governments or nations. Ordinary women are making the changes. Ordinary women who now have the power to live their lives how they want to live them. My partner wants to go back to work. So no more children for us. The idea of having 5 children in the western world is not common anymore. I just asked my partner if she would like to have another 3 children, her reply was "are you out of your fucking mind". Most women will just tell you they wont be doing it. Quality over quantity seems to be the better way to go.To use my family as a case study -We are both professionals on good incomes. We have access to excellent health care and education. We would like to provide the best opportunities for the two children we have rather than dividing our resources (and public access resources) further by having more children. The maths is quite simple for us.In developing nations it is even more simple. 1 or 2 children in a family is often a burden, dividing the same amount of resources among 8 children means that there are 8 suffering children.We can beat the curve. Many nations are doing it. One of the biggest battles is with religion. See IamJosephs comments for and example. In areas where birth control is a sin and women are not equal the battle is far from won. Thats what the goal of sustainable development is all about. Less people means that everyone can have a greater share. If people can be made to understand the moral responsibility they have to future generations, they would be more inclined to accept this. It is not just economic costs that need to be taken into account.