|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's The Best Solution For Humanity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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 2321 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I rest my case - you said it. We must have more of 'our planets' or become historical artifacts. Fact; math; science - and worst of all it comes from Genesis. It has to be hard to swallow. We see why today's neo science is substantially bogus and agenda based; scientific truths have become bad career moves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I rest my case - you said it. We must have more of 'our planets' or become historical artifacts. Fact; math; science - and worst of all it comes from Genesis. It has to be hard to swallow. We see why today's neo science is substantially bogus and agenda based; scientific truths have become bad career moves. Yes so we need to lower our population first if we WANT TO GET OF THIS ROCK because it WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE IF EVERYONE IS STARVING!!!! And it will be IMPOSSIBLE to send large numbers to colonise space at best we will send a few 10 000 at a time to colonise a planet. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: We need to increase living space - more lands - to save the population - else nothing matters and nothing makes sense. Lowering population, a heinous premise of losers, is antithetical to the pretense/insanity - of helping humanity. Bite the bullet and free yourself - Genesis is spot on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Better, you are saying the Jews were right. The fundsamental things apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No sir. Life is first - food is secondary. Its like your car - first the car, then the fuel. Put another way, the fuel must be worked out for the car's sustainence - and sustainance is vital, but secondary. t is why we have vegetation, rain and a particular mix of atmosphere - to sustain life with anticipationary actions. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Won't help eventually. Its still a guaranteed dead premise ahead.
quote: Your premise ends in humanity's death, boosted by a slower pace at best. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 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 2321 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You are still affirming Genesis by default or exposing some form of denial. You are saying when we have food - we must follow Genesis. Its like saying we need clothes - then we look for other lands outside the earth. Food gives us the mind to think further ahead - no one said we must not worry about food - this is a deflection. Man does not live by bread alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ok, I grant you this position. You are still affirming Genesis, the only document which makes this provision.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024