It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Equation. Humanities infrastructure relies on destruction.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Throughout history religion, politics, etc have played a consistent role in humanities evolution. Behind the curtain we must look at the causes. At a time when the economist of certain "civilized" nations knew their population was not excelerating at the speed needed contraceptives were considered a sin by Catholisism. Catholisism and religion in general plays the role that politics cannot play to keep economic, societal, etc in-tact. But that is not my point, but only reference, foot note.

Humanities long-term survival depends on destruction. Abortion, war, famine, disease, etc is all part of this destruction used to help humanity evolve in a orderly fashion. So, destruction is progressive for humanity. Humanity would become vunerable if overpopulated too early, disease would kill quicker and become harder to contain because of overpopulation. So, the infrastructure guards us from this, we are the infrastructure. Biological clocks ticking to the beat of humanities evolutionary drum.

It is nescessary for destruction to sustain life is main point of my post but I feel that this idea of infrastructure is only temporary. It's temporary until a solution is found. That solution in my opinion is terraforming of other planets to sustain populations on planets easily.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by The Division Bell]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Anyone have theoretical or scientific data to support this idea?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
It's a good idea, right?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Yes actually,

When left alone, forests still have forest fires. Lightning as a cause on occasion will kill thousands of acres or forests. Before man got involved this was part of a cycle. The forest depends on it. It is a good analogy.

Nature controls itself. Human destruction is inevitable over time. It is as you say, beneficial to our overall survival.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
``

ancient mythologies incorporated this dynamic process

present day eastern philosophies also recognize Kali

even Christianity asserts that from death comes life
~~~

now, taking your meme a little further...
is there a 'saturation point' ??

will a future terra-forming of Mars for instance
necessitate a decimation of Earth populations?
- after all, an orderly balance & progression is a major point of the process you've presented to us. -



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
A rather draconian philosophy of human progress if you ask me.
Humans have progressed unbelieveably quickly since the industrial revolution. We are at the stage now where we can harvest resources from our planet efficiently enough to sustain all humans. Instead our world economy, thanks to capitalism, choses to waste so much of these resources on consumerist junk like vanity products, plastic sh*te and bigger, faster cars.
As long as the elite controll so much, the rest of humanity will always have to suffer. Even if it means adopting population reduction as a viable way of sustaining life on this planet then so be it, in their eyes.

I, however, completely disagree.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
will a future terra-forming of Mars for instance
necessitate a decimation of Earth populations?
- after all, an orderly balance & progression is a major point of the process you've presented to us. -


This will atke me awhile to respond to, I was in a different state of mind when I posted this idea. It takes me awhile to get back to that state of mind to answer your question.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Division Bell At a time when the economist of certain "civilized" nations knew their population was not excelerating at the speed needed contraceptives were considered a sin by Catholisism. Catholisism and religion in general plays the role that politics cannot play to keep economic, societal, etc in-tact.

Actually, specific religions had little to do with it. Pressures came from a number of sources, including high infant mortality and high female mortality. In order to have 2 adult sons, you may need to have 10 children (5 of which would die before they were 5.)

And then there was the ego thing. In cultures where the paternal lineage determined land and inheritance, it was vitally important to have a lot of sons. So cultures with a real "macho" attitude often had a "kids without end" sort of system. In cultures where women have equal status to men and equal property ownership, where the maternal lineage is as important as the paternal lineage, the drive to have a certain sex (and to breed until you have a number of those gender) is not as strong.

In modern cultures where women have equal status to men and where technology ensues that almost all children grow to adulthood, there's a strong preference for managing the family size and for birth control.


Humanities long-term survival depends on destruction. Abortion, war, famine, disease, etc is all part of this destruction used to help humanity evolve in a orderly fashion.

Actually, that wouldn't be true if we could just convince guys to use birth control methods. Babies never get started and there's no need for destruction.



It is nescessary for destruction to sustain life is main point of my post but I feel that this idea of infrastructure is only temporary. It's temporary until a solution is found. That solution in my opinion is terraforming of other planets to sustain populations on planets easily.


Nah. Just get guys to buy into the idea of THEM using birth control (no unwanted parental surprises) and you'll find that the population will tend to balance itself out.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, specific religions had little to do with it. Pressures came from a number of sources, including high infant mortality and high female mortality. In order to have 2 adult sons, you may need to have 10 children (5 of which would die before they were 5.)

And then there was the ego thing. In cultures where the paternal lineage determined land and inheritance, it was vitally important to have a lot of sons. So cultures with a real "macho" attitude often had a "kids without end" sort of system. In cultures where women have equal status to men and equal property ownership, where the maternal lineage is as important as the paternal lineage, the drive to have a certain sex (and to breed until you have a number of those gender) is not as strong.

In modern cultures where women have equal status to men and where technology ensues that almost all children grow to adulthood, there's a strong preference for managing the family size and for birth control.

Actually, that wouldn't be true if we could just convince guys to use birth control methods. Babies never get started and there's no need for destruction.

Nah. Just get guys to buy into the idea of THEM using birth control (no unwanted parental surprises) and you'll find that the population will tend to balance itself out.



In the words of Salvador Dali, "I will make this speech so brief it has already ended."



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I still want the thread "Hugo Chavez is the next dictator of Latin America." back, Byrd.
Until then anything you say to me will be in the words of Salivador Dali, "I will make this speech so brief it has already ended."



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I actually agree very much with Byrd.
There are many reasons why we needed the population to grow at a certain rate. Now that we have technology and science at our fingertips to avoid most disasters the only problem really is population growth.
If we can adopt a proper method of birth control and ignore the dogma we can become a self-regulated species without the fear of destruction to some degree.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Nevermind.....................................................

[edit on 18-2-2005 by The Division Bell]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
yes...

my physics teacher said that: "systems tend toward destruction / chaos"...

this is true...





posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

That solution in my opinion is terraforming of other planets to sustain populations on planets easily.


See, technology. I_S_I_S


------------------------------------------------

If we overpopulate now then we begin to pollute ourselves until the world is polluted beyond redemption and humanities survival becomes almost nil, and the infrastructure's destruction has delayed this until humanity can properly deal with itself.
We're already projected to be severly overpopulated by 2015, and by 2050 we're projected to be living like Japan is now. I'd add a source, but forgot where I read it.
The infrastructure of humanity has successfully delayed our overpopulation until we we're able to deal with it by means of technology. Thus, "That solution in my opinion is terraforming of other planets to sustain populations on planets easily."
Or, you could have another theory that overpopulation has lead to technology to deal with the population. It's limitless and nobody is wrong or right.
---------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------


Though terraforming would take centuries, possibly millenia, possibly millions of years. so instead technological advances would sustain there until it it was formed. We could possibly be doing it now..

[edit on 18-2-2005 by The Division Bell]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by The Division Bell]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
John Bull 1 is a moderator...

they are gods here at ATS...





posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
By using your logic The Division Bell, the holocost was a good thing.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
By using your logic The Division Bell, the holocost was a good thing.


No, it wasn't. But we have been prepared for the excess population that would've been created from it not happening?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
By using your logic The Division Bell, the holocost was a good thing.

Apparently you misinterpreted the Logic. Thats not what he meant...



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Industry is based upon the repacement and upgrade of older technology.
Each Generation tears apart what the previous generation left and improves upon it.

Nature provides for the never ending arms race between predator and prey, and this has resulted in animals that practice chemical and biological warfare, as well as plants that practice the same. its how things become more efficient and complex at the same time.

Humanity seems destined to follow this path as well.




top topics



 
0

log in

join