Experts: 'space base' halfway between the Moon and Earth could be built in 10 years

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: BO XIAN

This should have been done a decade ago.; We need to get on the ball! I say lets go, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Or even 25 years ago.

It seems to me, we could have at least put the basics up . . . probably for less money than the corruption money flowing around soooo loosely in DC and elsewhere.

Or . . . siphon X% from Defense; X% from entitlement programs; X% from banking scams; etc. etc. I'd think the funds would have been easy to come up with. Of course, the corrupt aren't willing to give up a penny of their greed and control freak stuff as the pants suit so outrageously demonstrates.

That's exactly what humanity needs right now.

With everything going on in the world today, let's build a base halfway between us and the moon.

a reply to: BO XIAN


There are currently 7.4 billion people on Earth and given the circumstances that will increase. For the issue is to if or not our leaders are ready for losses due to starvation in the realm of 1 billion per year. Due to starvation, in relation to what we are discussing over the next 300 years, at its maximum in relation to time.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: BO XIAN


There are currently 7.4 billion people on Earth and given the circumstances that will increase. For the issue is to if or not our leaders are ready for losses due to starvation in the realm of 1 billion per year. Due to starvation, in relation to what we are discussing over the next 300 years, at its maximum in relation to time.

I think you were just a bit toooo cryptic for me to follow your thinking well. Particularly your last sentence was quite unclear, to me.

Would love to know what you were trying to say.

Their goal is to force the population down to 200-500 million. The evidence from my most trusted source is that they will "only" make it to a bit less than half the population they start with.

There are fine scholars who insist that the world COULD SUSTAIN

MORE than 25 BILLION people with a LOT of creature comforts etc. etc. etc. IF the will were made to do so--and at the same time to clean up the environment; make the deserts bloom etc. etc. etc.

The PTB do NOT want to go there, for whatever reasons.

Some believe that the technology exists for relatively free, functionally free energy. And that we have craft that can go to the moon rather effortlessly and cheaply.

So, I don't know what an L1 or L2 or L3 or L5 space complex would serve mankind for but I still think it's a great idea--just philosophically or . . . I don't know . . . as a grand goal. If nothing else--it could be a fun resort sort of thing. But I'd think that some manufacturing processes would do well there, too.

It seems to me that Gates, Musk & Face Book's Z could use a bit more than pocket change to make it happen rather quickly--IF--they wanted to and were allowed. to.

Why not just do it?

a reply to: MysticPearl

I can't tell if your assertion was satire or heart-felt.

Both could be argued.

a reply to: BOXIAN


Over the last 500 years or so human culture has changed substantially and a very important reason was related to the distribution of resources. Recent discussions related to the United Nations present that this planet cannot sustain in relation to food no more than 5 billion people.

Children and hunger

Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Black et al (2013) estimate that undernutrition in the aggregate—including fetal growth restriction, stunting, wasting, and deficiencies of vitamin A and zinc along with suboptimum breastfeeding—is a cause of 3·1 million child deaths annually or 45% of all child deaths in 2011 (Black et al. 2013). Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body’s ability to convert food into usable nutrients.

Stunting
Globally 161 million under-five year olds were estimated to be stunted in 2013.

The global trend in stunting prevalence and numbers affected is decreasing. Between 2000 and 2013 stunting prevalence declined from 33% to 25% and numbers declined from 199 million to 161 million.

In 2013, about half of all stunted children lived in Asia and over one third in Africa. (UNICEF et al. 2014b)

Wasting and severe wasting

Globally, 51 million under-five year olds were wasted and 17 million were severely wasted in 2013.
Globally, wasting prevalence in 2013 was estimated at almost 8% and nearly a third of that was for severe wasting, totaling 3%.

In 2013, approximately two thirds of all wasted children lived in Asia and almost one third in Africa, with similar proportions for severely wasted children. (UNICEF et al. 2014b)

www.worldhunger.org...

Not certain where your getting your data and could you offer links?


Further...

www.wfp.org...

a reply to: Kashai

Most folks know I write from near 70 years of reading . . . from a mass of incomplete memories all mushed together . . . it would take me more bother than I'm interested in to look up the data.

Maybe others more current on such websites and studies will offer links.

HOWEVER,

I'm reasonably certain that the Malthusian hogwash is just that.

Experts far more educated, trained and experienced than I have documented fairly meticulously that the world can sustain far more than that.

THE OLIGARCHY HAS FORCED MASSES OF PEOPLE TO STARVE FOR 100'S OF YEARS in their ruthless disregard for human life and in their greed for wealth and power . . . and to move the world toward a one world government and religion.

They have done it with the ruling elite in each region . . . They have done it with various trade deals that disadvantage those already poor. They have done it in a list of ways.

But it is NOT because the world cannot bear 25 billion--and even that amount--in ecologically sound ways.

IIRC, the world's total population now could be stood in Texas with a surprising amount of space per person.

We HAVE NOW the technology to make the deserts bloom and to build eco-friendly habitats in a myriad of non-agricultural spaces--leaving vast picturesque spaces just as picturesque as they've ever been.

THE WILL IS NOT THERE TO DO IT. THE PTB want the opposite.

BTW,

www.arcosanti.org...

is an interesting solution to cities and transportation challenges as well as food growing.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Many Gulf nations are hoping science can turn arid desert regions into arable land to boost food security and avoid relying on farming abroad, industry insiders told Reuters on Monday.


Gulf farming is tricky, with little water supply, high soil salinity and extreme heat. Many countries in the Gulf region do have the cash to implement expensive solutions that other cannot.

The Abu Dhabi Environment Agency has studied the soil to find areas with underground water systems and better soil quality, or soil that could be enhanced, said Faisal Taha, who led the project.

The survey found more than 495,000 acres of land that could be used for agriculture if the proper investments were made, Taha told Reuters at an industry conference in Abu Dhabi.

"We are talking about tens of millions of dirhams in investments ... but it's worth it because with this land vegetable and fodder production could be increased by up to 70 percent," said Taha.

Read more at www.redorbit.com...

www.redorbit.com...

Your source is actually lacking in any real information that supports your position.

Even with technology it is apparent that the Earth cannot sustain double the population it was designed to support.

Much less as you suggest 5 times that of what I have presented.

Can you present links that offer otherwise?


Check this out...


"If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote."

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: BO XIAN


To be clear and in opinion given the fact you had no idea what a Lagrangian point is. Makes you argument that you do understand the subject at hand questionable at best.

a reply to: Kashai

POPULATION RELATED LINKS . . . QUICKLY SCANNED AND OFFERED:

The first batch is more conventional stuff full of current propaganda and UN/GLOBALIST perspectives and blather.

www.pewresearch.org...
.
10 projections for the global population in 2050

= = =

esa.un.org...
UN POPULATION DIVISION WORLD POPULATION PROSPECTS
.
= = =
www.scientificamerican.com...
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?
.
= = =
livinggreenmag.com...

Sustainability and the World Population: What Is Our Global Limit?

= = =
HOW TO FEED THE WORLD IN 2050
www.fao.org...
.

= = =

POPULATION POSSIBILITIES 2 BILLION TO 40 BILLION SUSTAINABLE
www.ecofuture.org...

HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOULD the earth support?

That article did not take into account 2 facts:

1. The USA has PROVEN oil reserves within it's borders to manage well increased needs for 800+ YEARS.

2. Exotic energy technologies kept off the table by the same globalists who want to reduce populations to 200 million globally total.
= = =
www.infowars.com...
= = =



*****************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************
THIS NEXT CHUNK GETS SOMEWHAT INTO WHAT'S POSSIBLE . . .
.
OVER POPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM: NEW YORK TIMES:
.

.
. . .
.
This is nonsense. Even today, I hear some of my scientific colleagues repeat these and similar claims — often unchallenged. And once, I too believed them. Yet these claims demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the ecology of human systems. The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been. Since prehistory, human populations have used technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain populations well beyond the capabilities of unaltered “natural” ecosystems.
.
. . .
The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.
.
. . .
.
There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both more popular and more possible than ever.
.
The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems. In moving toward a better Anthropocene, the environment will be what we make it.
.

= = = =
.
OVERPOUPLATION: FACT OR MYTH?

www.collective-evolution.com...
.

Before starting this article, I wish to specify that it is not because I choose to question the concept of overpopulation that I also question the need to end poverty, overconsumption and environmental destruction. Overpopulation may be debatavle, but poverty and unsustainable practices are a reality and my life is geared towards raising consciousness about alternative ways to operate as a society.
.
However, I believe it is important to question everything; even claims closely tied to the activist and environmentalist movement. Why? Because by questioning theories such as overpopulation, I discovered an even more promising future than the never-ending struggle of trying to merely control the damage we cause to the planet and each other without addressing the cause.
.
Questioning scare-tactics, even if they seem to be geared towards noble causes, does not necessarily deny our support of the causes themselves. Yet they might save us from getting caught up on issues that distract us from the REAL problems and relevant steps we can take to create meaningful and long-lasting change.
.
. . .
.
1. The Entire World Population Can Sink Into The State Of Texas

Many believe that overpopulation is a question of lack of space. It isn’t.

Today, there is approximately 7,268,730,000 people on earth. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 square miles (7,494,271,488,000 square feet). If we divide 7,494,271,488,000 square feet by 7,268,730,000 people, we get 1031 square feet per person. This is enough space for everyone on earth to live in a townhouse while altogether fitting on a landmass the size of Texas. And we’re not even accounting for the average four-person family who would most likely share a home!
.
. . .
.
1. Scarcity Is A Myth

The world is abundant of resources and could provide for everyone’s need, yet every year rich countries waste more that 220 million tons of food. Meanwhile, the poor still starve to death – not because resources are scarce, but because they don’t have the money or have rights to enough land.
Did You Know?
.
– All the world’s nearly one billion hungry people could be lifted out of malnourishment on less than a quarter of the food that is wasted in the US, UK and Europe. (Click HERE for more outrageous food waste facts)
.
. . .
.
2. Overpopulation Does Not Cause Hunger, Unfair Management Does

Sociologists Frederick Buttel and Laura Raynolds published a study of population growth, food consumption, and other variables in ninety-three third world countries. The statistics showed no evidence that fast population growth causes hunger. However, they did find that the populations of poorer countries, and those countries where the poorest 20 % of the population earned a smaller percentage of a nation’s total income, had less to eat.
.
. . .
.
[World's richest 20% consume 76.6%; middle 60% consume 21.9%; poorest 20% consume 1.5%]
.
. . .
.
– Many of the countries in which hunger is rampant export much more in agricultural goods than they import. Northern countries are the main food importers, their purchases representing 71.2 % of the total value of food items imported in the world in 1992. Imports by the 30 lowest-­‐income countries, on the other hand, accounted for only 5.2 % of all international commerce in food and farm commodities.
.
– Africa has enormous still unexploited potential to grow food, with theoretical grain yields 25 to 35% higher than maximum potential yields in Europe or North America.
.
. . .
.
The truth is, if we all shifted towards an earth-friendly lifestyle and designed sustainable cities that would allow for self-sufficiency and collaboration for the good of all, we would no longer be considered a threat to the...

= = =

a reply to: Kashai

YOU assumed I had no idea what a Lagrangian point is.

You were wrong.

I even recalled the essential points about it.

I had forgotten there were L1-L5 points. I only recalled 2 of them.

Given your errors in assumption about me . . . I'm not surprise you have assumption errors about population sustainability etc.

a reply to: BO XIAN

There was a natural evolution in the discussion to the overpopulation issue. However, that is not really the topic of this thread.

I plan to start a new on on that issue shortly.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

I wonder if we'll still be a technologically functional culture by then. The oligarchy seems soooo determined to take us back to the stone age, one way or another.

Why would they want to do that? We basically live in a scientific dictatorship. Without technology, the "elites" would be completely screwed.

a reply to: BO XIAN


Wow you forgot...gee um... why would anyone interested in the subject forget about that????


Based on the Wikipedia link I provided the whole idea of placing a facility between Earth and the Moon has been around for....I don't know about 50 years.

The more cost effective way to deal with our problems in general is to begin Colonizing the Solar System, especially with respect to the profit margin and bottom line economically.

To be honest I sincerely do not give the hind end of an overweight Ratus in so far as conspiracy theories in general.

No offence.

a reply to: BO XIAN


I provided you a link in relation to the OP that provided mathematical support to my position.

I of course would expect you to do the same.

To be clear I feel I have been patient.

Take your Scientific American article and have you noticed no links to PDF files or source citations?

That makes very little sense.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

They have become convinced that a large population is a threat to their !!!CONTROL!!! and tyrannical rule.

And, that the planet is threatened by so many humans and mankind is threatened by himself--ecologically.

And they have FORCED conditions globally to make it appear so to those who are not perceptive enough to look behind the curtain and the propaganda.

BTW, the other thread is now started here:
.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Typically, whatever links do not copy over are available at the original article's link.

Sigh.

a reply to: Kashai

Actually, I think I'm the patient one. LOL.

I get exceedingly weary with folks who are not well read, who appear terminally ignorant about the state of the world so carefully engineered over so many many decades by the ruling elite.

And then when the implications of the oligarchy's manipulations of the planet and its citizens relates wholesale to a given issue . . . and the naysayers spew endless reams of oligarchy propaganda . . . from, often enough, oligarchy managed and paid scientists, universities, media stooges etc. etc. etc. It just gets exceedingly dreary and old to have to deal with folks who simply WILL NOT see . . . the obvious.

Some experts say back for 400 years. Some say back to Rome. Some say back to Babylon. I suspect that the latter is more correct.

a reply to: BO XIAN


Still not impressed it sounds like a bunch of B.S. without verifiable data which you have no yet provided.

Again no offence.

I guess that makes me suspect in your impressions of conspiracies.

More B.S without verifiable data.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: BO XIAN


Wow you forgot...gee um... why would anyone interested in the subject forget about that????

Loooook, . . . . oh snide one . . .

I have a wide diversity of interests . . . and though retired, I have a wide diversity of stuff on my plate . . . some of which I play too much hookey from on ATS.

I'm also about 70 years old. I'll forget whatever the blazes I happen to forget. You can be cheeky and impudent about it day in and day out, if you wish. I'll consider you accordingly.

Based on the Wikipedia link I provided the whole idea of placing a facility between Earth and the Moon has been around for....I don't know about 50 years.

So? That earns you how many Brownie points for what reason?

The more cost effective way to deal with our problems in general is to begin Colonizing the Solar System, especially with respect to the profit margin and bottom line economically.

Nonsense. It would take a very long time before the poor of India and other regions would benefit from any such colonizing. Particularly so, with the oligarchy determined to keep masses of people poor to dying.

To be honest I sincerely do not give the hind end of an overweight Ratus in so far as conspiracy theories in general.

It's not my fault that you have decided to wall off with a horrendous false negative error a hugely major overriding factor that has given us the world we all must deal with daily. Your ignorance on that score will change--probably withn 3-15 years. But it will not be a happy change.

No offence.

Really?

You could have fooled me.