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.

 

Second Planet Needed to Meet Natural-Resources Demand

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I like the idea of 'restarting' Mars, that and the one science fiction writer who thought that peppering Mars with asteroids from the asteroid belt to increase it's mass and add to its resources. I was thinking that if you hit it enough times with enough mass you could drive it to a lower faster orbit closer to the earth.

Just putting a couple ideas together ...




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I read somewhere.. I think on here, stating everyone in the world could fit in Australia with 13 acres per person



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich rehashed with The Population Bomb what Malthus figured out in the 19th century. We didn't change our ways but we didn't die of famine by the millions in the '70s and '80's as he predicted.

Soylent Green covered the same ground and that was/is set in the 2020's so who knows. It seems to be the nature of human societies to stick with the status quo until it becomes absolutely necessary to change. There are those who are forward looking but the inertia of tradition is a hindrance. Or maybe not, maybe the reluctance to change is really a survival mechanism and in the long run works to our benefit. Maybe it's the desperate spurts of innovation inspired by imminent destruction that really move us "forward".

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Well truthtellist, that is what separates real science from pseuodoscience.

Real science doesn't involve ignoring data sets. Real science doesn't include paranoid 'they're just trying to scare you' bias. During WW2 there was fear, yet millions died. Just because you think someone is trying to influence you doesn't mean they are 100% of the time. The science behind the WWF information is in my opinion not biased. When bias is involved you can be misled. This is what the slogan of this website is all about...

This issue isn't as simple as global warming. I could understand if people were blowing things out of proportion, unfortunately I think people underestimate the potential consequences. I guess I was right in assuming you wouldn't read the science?

I'm not saying the world is going to end next week, but I do think there is the potential for a lot of people to die and we need to develop advanced methods to deal with this problem right now. The full consequences may be felt in 10 years or 100, but there is a large problem, and denial wont make it go away.

Edit: Phage: I understand what you're saying but we have only recently (2004 i believe) gone into ecological deficit. Interesting points you make, maybe innovation will prevail but it isn't going to address biodiversity. The threat of destruction being motivation to change is an interesting concept...

SGS: It isn't just area/people. It has to do with the amount of resources necessary to feed each person, power requirements, etc. You don't just affect the house you live in, farms produce food, factories build your furniture etc. So yeah, everyone could fit, but our way of life would no longer exist - without massive innovations.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


You are calling what Al Gore does as "Real Science"...

...when it is actually considered pseudoscience.

No wonder you are so mixed up.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The asteroid belt has enough metal to build cities in orbit it do the dirty things that now pollute the earth.

First we need a space elevator
en.wikipedia.org...
We can use the carbon from CO2 to make the nanotubes to build it.

Once we have the space elevator we can build a small space city at the top of it and use it as a staging ground to go to the moons of Jupiter and the asteroid belt for hydrocarbons and iron and other metals and gasses.

we can also use microwaves to beam energy from power satellites to the space elevators and down to earth with super conducting power cables

Once we are going that far out we can also hijack comets and crash them into mars, this will build up a atmosphere on mars plus more water.

add some methane from the moons of jupiter and CO2 from earth (we can replace it with O2 from the solar furnaces gases) and start a green house effect on mars and you then have a planet that can support life.
add a space elevator on mars and now you have two planets for man.

Then take more asteroids and with a ring of space solar furnaces
en.wikipedia.org...
To build space habitats
en.wikipedia.org...

These can be built around the moon and moved with solar sails anywhere they are wanted.
en.wikipedia.org...

For the atmosphere in the habitat the gases from the refining of the asteroids can be cryogenicly separated and used to fill the habitats

Whats left why use natural resources from other planets when the moon, the asteroid belt, comets, and the moons of Jupiter, can supply all we will need for 1000s of years
after that it is up to the imagination,

warp drive
transporters (beam me up Scotty)
family space craft
space prospectors.
asteroid farms.
clear glass space homes.
put a space shade in front of Venus to cool it down and we can move there too.
move mercury out of orbit and put it in orbit around mars.
mine the rings of Saturn.
mine the kuiper belt.
en.wikipedia.org...
or maybe the Oort cloud

earth first we will mine the other planets later.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by ANNED]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Truth this has nothing to do with Al Gore.

Its real science. There are real papers. It is a bit messy, but the best case scenarios are still bad.

You're just too ignorant to consider alternatives to your world view.

Part of why I don't try to explain this stuff on this board.... just like its best to leave the religious people alone.

I have never once encountered Al Gore while researching this stuff, it comes from science journals.

To say there is no problem at all goes against what any professional scientist will tell you. I don't have to rely on the media to tell me about the science, I read it from the source.

I'm done here. Look at Sanderson et al. (2002) 'The human footprint the last of the wild', and the Garneaut report. Thats just the beginning.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


So disagreeing with you makes me religious?

You haven't posted a single link to back up the ridiculous claims you have been making.....especially about the members of this board.

Perhaps you should do that. Then you might earn yourself a modicum of credibility.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I was comparing your refusal to acknowledge anyones opinion but your own to the religious community.

Global footprint:
Sanderson et al.

Thats for starters.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge for anyone who thinks for themselves.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I'll post the temperature stuff tomorrow I have to go.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Intergovernmental Panel on global Climate Change assessment reports:

IPCC

I recommend (see page 23 for temperature projections): IPCC Synthesis Report 2007

It's 52 pages so I doubt anyone will want to read it all, it isn't packaged like a small MSM article, but it contains 100,000X more detail.

The issue is very complex... you must devote a significant portion of your time to really understand all the issues. A few MSM reports don't mean #.

I often wonder why everyone links to MSM. The MSM go to this kind of stuff to write their condensed and sometimes biased material.

I posted the links. There you go. Theres a lot more. Science isn't trying to prove you or anyone wrong, it tries to explain how and why things happen.

The real conspiracy is denying that there is anything wrong.

Climate change will alter almost every aspect of your survival. I think we will be able to work it out in the end, but in the meantime there are going to be some real problems.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seenitall
 


Your links don't work.

Why don't you post a few paragraphs that support the outlandish claims you have been making.... there is no sense punishing us all with the burden of reading your Communist Scarcity-based propaganda..

*Maybe you should link to another site with the same report. It might work.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
They work fine for me.

Go to google and type in IPCC

On the front page you will find the 2007 synthesis report (AR4). Temperature data on page 23.

Go to google and type in sanderson global footprint.

They aren't that hard to find. The files are PDFs by the way, and they are reasonably long.

Thats the first time I've ever been called a communist.

Are you sure they don't work? Maybe you just can't be bothered reading...? A few paragraphs wouldn't do this material justice. You're gonna have to be prepared to learn a bit of jargon too. I told you that before.

If you aren't prepared to read this material for yourself and come to your own conclusions, I'm not going to hold your hand. I've given you the tools to educate yourself.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by seenitall]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SGSPatriot
 


That maybe right it I dunno i haven't done the calcs. As a resident downunder I have just completed a long outback tour in my 4x4. Even living here I couldn't have imagined how remote it gets its scary. My point is if you all head down here don't expect Aussie to support the population there is lots of land for sure but just try growing something.The US is a similar size but Aus wouldn't even support that population. Apart from natural resources you need fertile land to live.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by seenitall
 


Why don't you post a few paragraphs that support the outlandish claims you have been making.... there is no sense punishing us all with the burden of reading your Communist Scarcity-based propaganda..



Therein lies the problem. Many people believe that the best answer is the one that can be understood in a few paragraphs when the fact is you need to have a LOT of data, and a broad knowledge base to even begin to understand why your world view is naive.

There are no few short paragraphs that would convince you. Nor any lengthy studies. The problem is that you want to believe what you already believe, and will only accept information that supports the view you already hold. Which is not a problem. Odds are, you are in no position to make a difference one way or the other.

I personally think there is a huge ego factor involved. It probably strokes your ego to have people try to convince you that you are wrong, because it leaves you with the impression that you are important in some way. You arent. What will happen will happen. Your opinion at that point wont mean anything at all. Nor will mine, or anyone elses. In fact, I would argue that this self importance is exactly the reason nothing will be done until it is too late. Why should YOU have to change your ways, or waste your time becoming knowledgeable about the issue, or make sacrifices for those that come after you or live in other parts of the world?

Lol. You will find that life is very egalitarian. No matter how special you think you are, nature begs to differ. And, nature is in charge, not you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join