)
Religion is the bane of humanity.
One solution: Cut off ALL aid to 3rd world nations, who have a tendency to have extremely high birth rates.
Let nature take its course.
Overpopulation and solutions, page 1
privacy
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 02:42 AM by LordBucket
reply to post by reassor
Why do you believe this?
I don't see a problem. Earth can easily support trillions of people. It's simply a matter of efficient use of space and technology. People need food, water, clothing, shelter...simple things, really. There are technological solutions to any problem.
Water can be extracted directly from the air
Meat can be grown in a lab.
If you were to develop the available 148940000 km² land mass of earth as densely as the 337/km2 of Japan, you could accomodate 50,192,780,000 (50 billion) people. If you build as densely as the 10,452/km² of New York City, you could accomodate 1,556,720,880,000 (1.5 trillion) people. And that's just on the surface. There's phenomenally more room underground.
There's plenty of space and material. We just need to use it intelligently.
[edit on 8-2-2010 by LordBucket]
even if we stop growth of population we dont have
enough stuff on earth to support us for long.
Why do you believe this?
post your ideas
I don't see a problem. Earth can easily support trillions of people. It's simply a matter of efficient use of space and technology. People need food, water, clothing, shelter...simple things, really. There are technological solutions to any problem.
Water can be extracted directly from the air
Meat can be grown in a lab.
If you were to develop the available 148940000 km² land mass of earth as densely as the 337/km2 of Japan, you could accomodate 50,192,780,000 (50 billion) people. If you build as densely as the 10,452/km² of New York City, you could accomodate 1,556,720,880,000 (1.5 trillion) people. And that's just on the surface. There's phenomenally more room underground.
There's plenty of space and material. We just need to use it intelligently.
[edit on 8-2-2010 by LordBucket]
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 02:47 AM by reassor
reply to post by LordBucket
i belive that we cant just because of our current way of using resources - gas , oil - lets for a minute assume that peak oil is right.
why not let people die with little dignity than let em suffer pain of cancer etc.
if we could change our way of governing things then by all means it would solve something.
as for 3rd world country's and 2nd poster's solution - my post is exactly to find another way. because now its happening.
i belive that we cant just because of our current way of using resources - gas , oil - lets for a minute assume that peak oil is right.
why not let people die with little dignity than let em suffer pain of cancer etc.
if we could change our way of governing things then by all means it would solve something.
as for 3rd world country's and 2nd poster's solution - my post is exactly to find another way. because now its happening.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 02:49 AM by brainwrek
reply to post by LordBucket
Would you eat meat grown in a lab?
How would you propose providing energy to all of these people you believe the planet could hold? How about water?
Like any ecosystem, Earth has a carrying capacity, and it has nothing to do with having enough room.
It's called intelligent management of resources.
Additionally, from your own source:
[edit on 8-2-2010 by brainwrek]
Would you eat meat grown in a lab?
How would you propose providing energy to all of these people you believe the planet could hold? How about water?
Like any ecosystem, Earth has a carrying capacity, and it has nothing to do with having enough room.
It's called intelligent management of resources.
Additionally, from your own source:
Several current research projects are experimentally growing in vitro meat, but no meat has yet been produced for public consumption
[edit on 8-2-2010 by brainwrek]
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 02:54 AM by LordBucket
reply to post by reassor
So stop using resources like that. The internal combustion engine is over 150 years old. It is ancient technology. There is absolutely no reason for us to be using gasoline as fuel. We may as well start carving houses from stone.
Use technology. It's there. It just needs to be used.
because of our current way of using resources - gas , oil
- lets for a minute assume that peak oil is right.
So stop using resources like that. The internal combustion engine is over 150 years old. It is ancient technology. There is absolutely no reason for us to be using gasoline as fuel. We may as well start carving houses from stone.
my post is exactly to find another way
Use technology. It's there. It just needs to be used.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 03:02 AM by reassor
reply to post by LordBucket
im not talking about gasoline only. what about pastic? rubber and other stuff that need oil to be produced?
im well aware that fossil fuels engines are old - but we do not see any alternative.
there we have sollar panels wich are inefficient (cost vs output)
imagine what a waste of resources is fishing tunna on hawai shipping it to us for canning and then distributing around the world ... (i dunno if they fish for tunna around hawai its just an example)
how much all that transport costs?
how much of that transport cost could be used otherwise?
lets get back to the topic cause with simple math we can show that population growth is exponential wich means we do not have much time...
im not talking about gasoline only. what about pastic? rubber and other stuff that need oil to be produced?
im well aware that fossil fuels engines are old - but we do not see any alternative.
there we have sollar panels wich are inefficient (cost vs output)
imagine what a waste of resources is fishing tunna on hawai shipping it to us for canning and then distributing around the world ... (i dunno if they fish for tunna around hawai its just an example)
how much all that transport costs?
how much of that transport cost could be used otherwise?
lets get back to the topic cause with simple math we can show that population growth is exponential wich means we do not have much time...
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 03:07 AM by LordBucket
reply to post by brainwrek
Yes.
Or would you prefer to reduce the population by five and half billion people? And are you volunteering to be one of them?
Are these rhetorical questions you're asking? The tecnology is there. We have the ability to desalinate ocean water, we have the technology to extract water from the air, there are already cities powered by wind turbines.
What are you really asking? Or are you so fixated on finding problems that you can't be bothered to accept solutions?
Yes. So? The technology is there. It has been done.
Yes it is. And technology is a resource.
Would you eat meat grown in a lab?
Yes.
Or would you prefer to reduce the population by five and half billion people? And are you volunteering to be one of them?
How would you propose providing energy to all of these people you believe the planet could hold?
How about water?
Are these rhetorical questions you're asking? The tecnology is there. We have the ability to desalinate ocean water, we have the technology to extract water from the air, there are already cities powered by wind turbines.
What are you really asking? Or are you so fixated on finding problems that you can't be bothered to accept solutions?
from your own source:
but no meat has yet been produced for public consumption
Yes. So? The technology is there. It has been done.
It's called intelligent management of resources.
Yes it is. And technology is a resource.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 03:16 AM by LordBucket
reply to post by reassor
There are non petroleum based plastics.
Rubber comes from plants.
...aren't we discussing the topic? You said you're looking for solutions to overpopulation. You said you wanted to "find another way." I'm giving you solutions. I'm giving you another way.
im not talking about gasoline only. what about pastic?
rubber and other stuff that need oil to be produced?
There are non petroleum based plastics.
rubber
Rubber comes from plants.
lets get back to the topic
...aren't we discussing the topic? You said you're looking for solutions to overpopulation. You said you wanted to "find another way." I'm giving you solutions. I'm giving you another way.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 03:20 AM by Dark Ghost
reply to post by LordBucket
Land mass is not the problem with overpopulation - access to and distribution of resources are the real issues. The current World Population (WP) is too high to produce and distribute resources evenly amongst people scattered around the world. Some civilisations around the world are able to build and sustain an economy around them, others are not. Those that are not will only increase in number as the WP gets higher. It means more of those who are dependent on aid from others will place strain on all of those that are independent and can self-sustain.
The higher the WP becomes, the greater the need for extra land and infrastructure. This comes at a cost to animals and other creatures already living in these areas. Areas where food can be naturally produced will be under great strain as will many natural habitats. More people also means more pollution, more waste and greater responsibility.
The Earth's resources are not limitless and our means to deliver aid to those in need aren't either. Altruism will not solve the problems that we face, but Realism might.
Land mass is not the problem with overpopulation - access to and distribution of resources are the real issues. The current World Population (WP) is too high to produce and distribute resources evenly amongst people scattered around the world. Some civilisations around the world are able to build and sustain an economy around them, others are not. Those that are not will only increase in number as the WP gets higher. It means more of those who are dependent on aid from others will place strain on all of those that are independent and can self-sustain.
The higher the WP becomes, the greater the need for extra land and infrastructure. This comes at a cost to animals and other creatures already living in these areas. Areas where food can be naturally produced will be under great strain as will many natural habitats. More people also means more pollution, more waste and greater responsibility.
The Earth's resources are not limitless and our means to deliver aid to those in need aren't either. Altruism will not solve the problems that we face, but Realism might.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 04:00 AM by Lophe
reply to post by reassor
Jack ass, hows that for a name calling? I'm just joking. I dig what your saying bro, and I wouldn't be worried about it. Something big is coming, really big. It always does. God or nature. or what ever you want to call it, will do a great deal of cleaning soon. That's just how earth works, and it's been that way for millions of years. Don't worry about it, and go have a drink ;-)
[edit on 8-2-2010 by Lophe]
Jack ass, hows that for a name calling? I'm just joking. I dig what your saying bro, and I wouldn't be worried about it. Something big is coming, really big. It always does. God or nature. or what ever you want to call it, will do a great deal of cleaning soon. That's just how earth works, and it's been that way for millions of years. Don't worry about it, and go have a drink ;-)
[edit on 8-2-2010 by Lophe]
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 04:06 AM by LordBucket
reply to post by Dark Ghost
Do you think the current 6.8 billion people could be supported using only horse drawn carts from 200 years ago? No? So why should we plan to use only technology from 150 years ago to solve problems 50 years from now?
My point here is that we're already dependant on technology to survive as it is. Without trucks, without transit systems, without irrigation, without all of these things we do, we would not be able to have the nearly 7 billion of us there already are. But...we do.
The only reason we're using fossil fuels is because at this particular moment...right now, it happens to be more cost effective than other methods. If those fuels start becoming insufficient for our needs, their cost effectiveness is going to change.
It doesn't make sense to say that we can't support more people because the methods that happen to be most cost effective at this particular moment with this many people can't accomodate more people and won't last forever. Use other methods. Problem solved.
So solve those problems. Use different resources, fly resources instead of driving them, recycle resources...all of this is nothing but logistics. There's no fundamental problem here.
So don't produce food naturally. Do what I've been suggesting this entire time: use technological solutions. We already produce food unnaturally. So instead of trying to find ways kill off billions of us, why don't we simply improve our methods?
They don't need to be.
access to and distribution of resources are the real issues.
Do you think the current 6.8 billion people could be supported using only horse drawn carts from 200 years ago? No? So why should we plan to use only technology from 150 years ago to solve problems 50 years from now?
My point here is that we're already dependant on technology to survive as it is. Without trucks, without transit systems, without irrigation, without all of these things we do, we would not be able to have the nearly 7 billion of us there already are. But...we do.
The only reason we're using fossil fuels is because at this particular moment...right now, it happens to be more cost effective than other methods. If those fuels start becoming insufficient for our needs, their cost effectiveness is going to change.
It doesn't make sense to say that we can't support more people because the methods that happen to be most cost effective at this particular moment with this many people can't accomodate more people and won't last forever. Use other methods. Problem solved.
access to and distribution of resources are the real issues.
So solve those problems. Use different resources, fly resources instead of driving them, recycle resources...all of this is nothing but logistics. There's no fundamental problem here.
Areas where food can be naturally produced will be under great strain
So don't produce food naturally. Do what I've been suggesting this entire time: use technological solutions. We already produce food unnaturally. So instead of trying to find ways kill off billions of us, why don't we simply improve our methods?
The Earth's resources are not limitless
They don't need to be.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 04:27 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by masonicon
Do that and come back when you have built a working free energy machine.
But you nailed it, actually:
The second law of thermodynamics stands in the way of all the proposed utopian solutions.
[edit on 8-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]
Do that and come back when you have built a working free energy machine.
But you nailed it, actually:
The second law of thermodynamics stands in the way of all the proposed utopian solutions.
[edit on 8-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 05:08 AM by davesidious
reply to post by LordBucket
If we lived like that, we'd no longer live on Earth, but Coruscant from the Star Wars movies. Surely we'd want our kids' kids' kids to know what a "meadow" is, or what a "stream" is, or what an "animal that isn't a foodsource" is.
OK, by your calculations, we can fit trillions of people on the Earth. Well, if we had that amount of density, we'd still run out of space one day. Not to mention disease would spread like wild-fire, and we'd not have anywhere to put our garbage, etc.
Living at that density across the entire planet would not be living.
Education is the key to overpopulation. Make people realise that the world is not infinite in size, and they'll figure it out. Make them realise that the very act of having too many kids is eventually condemning those kids to a terrible life, and they'll stop shooting out crotch-fruit.
If we lived like that, we'd no longer live on Earth, but Coruscant from the Star Wars movies. Surely we'd want our kids' kids' kids to know what a "meadow" is, or what a "stream" is, or what an "animal that isn't a foodsource" is.
OK, by your calculations, we can fit trillions of people on the Earth. Well, if we had that amount of density, we'd still run out of space one day. Not to mention disease would spread like wild-fire, and we'd not have anywhere to put our garbage, etc.
Living at that density across the entire planet would not be living.
Education is the key to overpopulation. Make people realise that the world is not infinite in size, and they'll figure it out. Make them realise that the very act of having too many kids is eventually condemning those kids to a terrible life, and they'll stop shooting out crotch-fruit.
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 07:09 AM by some joes email
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
You have obviously never studied engineering, and have no idea at all what you are talking about, throwing around the word 'thermodyamics' as a catch-all phrase; you clearly do not understand the concept of entropy.
It makes me laugh; much appreciate the entertainment.
www.youtube.com...
The second law of thermodynamics stands in the way of all the proposed utopian solutions.
You have obviously never studied engineering, and have no idea at all what you are talking about, throwing around the word 'thermodyamics' as a catch-all phrase; you clearly do not understand the concept of entropy.
It makes me laugh; much appreciate the entertainment.
www.youtube.com...
reply posted on 8-2-2010 @ 07:14 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by some joes email
Is it much fun to copy my responses to your incoherent rants?
I would think that the concept of enthropy speaks against the feasability of several trillion inhabitants on earth. But hey, that's just me.
You seem to be very fond of ad hominems. Does that come from the lack of attention you get in real life or is that an unrelated issue?
Is it much fun to copy my responses to your incoherent rants?
I would think that the concept of enthropy speaks against the feasability of several trillion inhabitants on earth. But hey, that's just me.
You seem to be very fond of ad hominems. Does that come from the lack of attention you get in real life or is that an unrelated issue?
The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
Posted 12 days ago with 138 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 138 member flags
The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
Posted 1 days ago with 127 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 127 member flags
Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
This is the true mess that this society is in. The U.S. is completely BLIND!
Political Issues, Posted 14 minutes ago
Political Issues, Posted 14 minutes ago
Overcoming a Christian fundamentalist upbringing
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 59 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 59 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 57 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 57 flags
Mass-arrest attempt on video - proof that CA riot police are the ones inciting violence
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 31 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 15 hours ago, 31 flags
Fox News to Cut "The Judge". No More "Freedom Watch" Come Feb 20th. I Think We All Know Why.
Education and Media, Posted 6 hours ago, 30 flags
Education and Media, Posted 6 hours ago, 30 flags
Are you a Fundamentalist Christian? Top ten signs!?
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 10 hours ago, 17 flags
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks, Posted 10 hours ago, 17 flags
What do you get when you cross an accelerator with a nuclear reactor?
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 12 flags
7-year-old fights off kidnapper in Georgia CCTV: (one lucky little girl)
Other Current Events, Posted 11 hours ago, 11 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 11 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 161 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 161 replies
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 115 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 115 replies
Again, Democrats Protest Drug Testing for Welfare and Unemployment Recipients...
General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 41 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 41 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.008 seconds
Page processed in: 0.245 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.008 seconds
Page processed in: 0.245 seconds
