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.

 

Are we in a evolutionary danger zone?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The answer is yes, but hopefully we will surpass it.

This is a video of Michio Kaku, talking about Type 0 and beyond societies.

www.wimp.com...

Let me know if there are any problems with the link

When do you think we'll transition to a Type 1 society and what it will mean for all of us, our governments, our freedom.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


The only way I see mankind progressing is if 90% of the population was destroyed and only a few left behind who know how to progress the human race.
We are bound for an endless cycle of destruction, death and famine if we continue to live and think the way we do.

At the end of the day we have been technologically advanced for the tiniest amount of time and the human race has not even begun to evolve to adapt to that mentally. We are hardly and different from when we were going through the Iron Age.

It will be an interesting century for humans; personally I don’t think we deserve to survive on an ecological level. But I do hope that we can learn to be a better species then what we currently are.

edit on 3-2-2012 by TheCommentator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCommentator
reply to post by andersensrm
 


The only way I see mankind progressing is if 90% of the population was destroyed and only a few left behind who know how to progress the human race.
We are bound for an endless cycle of destruction, death and famine if we continue to live and think the way we do.

At the end of the day we have been technologically advanced for the tiniest amount of time and the human race has not even begun to evolve to adapt to that mentally. We are hardly and different from when we were going through the Iron Age.

It will be an interesting century for humans; personally I don’t think we deserve to survive on an ecological level. But I do hope that we can learn to be a better species then what we currently are.

edit on 3-2-2012 by TheCommentator because: (no reason given)


I really don't want to, but I agree. I like to think that we can pull it together, but then reality hits me like a bullet and makes me realize that people don't even want to pull it together. They'd rather it just stay "every man for himself". The only way I see anything changing, is a complete governmental, societal, global collapse.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I really don't want to, but I agree. I like to think that we can pull it together, but then reality hits me like a bullet and makes me realize that people don't even want to pull it together. They'd rather it just stay "every man for himself". The only way I see anything changing, is a complete governmental, societal, global collapse.


I know it doesn’t feel nice to accept but I have been thinking about this stuff for ages and if you remove emotion from your thoughts it’s the only logical conclusion.

Change is always a social thing; you can’t have one person thinking the correct thing and expect it to change the rest. History shows us that change always takes ages to spread and become reality, today the population has skyrocketed so it’s going to take even longer.
There are also many other factors holding people back from accepting reality, because the people in control have become masters at psychology and social influence. People are held to their beliefs with the deepest of emotions and most will never be bothered by an issue unless it’s affecting them personally or obviously. By the time most of us realise where we are heading it will probably be too late.

I agree, at present we have no push to change in the west; life seems so straightforward and easy on the outside.

I think when the economy collapses or goes into severe depression and inflation many people will wake up; I hope at least. are.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCommentator
 


Yeap. Thats how it works with most of us humans, we have to be in the destruction before we accept it and change our ways.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Interesting discussion. It really brings up the question of what is good for the species versus what is good for the individual. I sometimes wonder if TPTB just look at things from a more abstract perspective.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I read somewhere that the whole human race can fit inside Texas, so I hardly think we are overpopulated YET. I think the idea of overpopulation is mostly just the paranoid fantasies of the elites. You know, " poor people are going to eat all our food and drink all our water..." We certainly need to make some adjustments to our reckless abuse of the environment, switch over to alternate energy and get off the nuke/fossil fuel teat, but I'll consider us overpopulated when we have to start living in floating ocean cities, and colonize Antarctica. Right now we are just at the cusp of having to worry about it. No one's even really doing anything about it. I think that reducing the population is also just as crazy an idea. What if we have a major pandemic or get hit by a huge piece of space rock. A heavy population may be the only thing that keeps us from going totally extinct. Not to mention, by having a high population, we increase the odds of breeding another Einstein or Carl Sagan. Somebody has to figure out how to get us to the next stage of evolution, and it isn't going to happen in an elite-ruled 500 mil. population society. Instead of trying to sterilize everyone with BPAs and what-have-ya, put that paranoia into colonizing the Moon and Mars and Venus.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassandranova
Interesting discussion. It really brings up the question of what is good for the species versus what is good for the individual. I sometimes wonder if TPTB just look at things from a more abstract perspective.


It’s not really abstract just not fuelled by emotion.
If you look at it from an ecological and realistic level population reduction is a unfortunate necessity (population being one of the biggest core issues we face right now).
The problem with cognitive thinking is we have lost the instinctive drive to protect the species and maintain its normal functions and needs.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rodredux
 


You probably could fit everyone in texas, but it would be like a pack of sardines. Many have this misconception that we have all the food, water, and energy in the world it will never run out. This is a big and most unfortunate misconception because it leads people to thinking everything is taken care of no matter what. We tend to think of ourselves as immortal and this is our downfall. We forget, that most of all the food, water, and energy we use is shipped for miles from another location. If the energy grid were to fail due to a solar storm, we would all be screwed. If it happened on a global scale, a very real possiblity, I think I read somewhere that the estimated time of recovery would be like 15 years before we had access to energy, food, and water like we do now, after just a couple of seconds.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rodredux
I read somewhere that the whole human race can fit inside Texas, so I hardly think we are overpopulated YET. I think the idea of overpopulation is mostly just the paranoid fantasies of the elites. You know, " poor people are going to eat all our food and drink all our water..." We certainly need to make some adjustments to our reckless abuse of the environment, switch over to alternate energy and get off the nuke/fossil fuel teat, but I'll consider us overpopulated when we have to start living in floating ocean cities, and colonize Antarctica. Right now we are just at the cusp of having to worry about it. No one's even really doing anything about it. I think that reducing the population is also just as crazy an idea. What if we have a major pandemic or get hit by a huge piece of space rock. A heavy population may be the only thing that keeps us from going totally extinct. Not to mention, by having a high population, we increase the odds of breeding another Einstein or Carl Sagan. Somebody has to figure out how to get us to the next stage of evolution, and it isn't going to happen in an elite-ruled 500 mil. population society. Instead of trying to sterilize everyone with BPAs and what-have-ya, put that paranoia into colonizing the Moon and Mars and Venus.

It’s not about the space, it’s about resources.
It’s hardly paranoid fantasies because the idea is as simple as it gets: Infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. This is not a theory or speculation its undeniable and unchangeable fact.

Being such a large population we the individual has lost connection to his own species. The world is heading for a pretty bleak future but people don’t care because they would rather watch TV.
Yes of course we are not at the peak of the problem yet but any one smart knows it’s better to deal with a problem before it becomes unmanageable.
Everything becomes more dangerous with a large population and with a localized, small population the treat of pandemic would be reduced significantly.
There are so many other problems with such a large population that its ignorant to deny it’s not an issue.
An Einstein or Carl Sagan can’t do much if there are no resources. Plus with the elevation of technology it becomes impossible to serve the needs of everyone in such a large population anyway. Half of the world doesn’t get to use technology or drink clean water or pig out on fatty meals every two seconds.
Do you think you would be saying the same stuff if you had grown up in a third world nation living in famine with billions of other people?
Evolution for the human race requires a mental change and it’s obvious this has become almost impossible with such a large population for it to spread over. We will not change until it is too late and this is something that can be avoided in a small population.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Actually, 12 billion people could be fit inside Texas, giving them approximately 600 square feet each of living space, and this is not taking into account building upwards. Each addition level would double the amount of people who could be fit into Texas, or double their living space, or provide a substrate on which there could be farms, water reclamation plants, solar power plants. We are not overpopulated, we are living inefficiently.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rodredux
Actually, 12 billion people could be fit inside Texas, giving them approximately 600 square feet each of living space, and this is not taking into account building upwards. Each addition level would double the amount of people who could be fit into Texas, or double their living space, or provide a substrate on which there could be farms, water reclamation plants, solar power plants. We are not overpopulated, we are living inefficiently.
We could infinite land mass but if we only have the same amount of resources it’s not going to make a difference.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rodredux
Actually, 12 billion people could be fit inside Texas, giving them approximately 600 square feet each of living space, and this is not taking into account building upwards. Each addition level would double the amount of people who could be fit into Texas, or double their living space, or provide a substrate on which there could be farms, water reclamation plants, solar power plants. We are not overpopulated, we are living inefficiently.


Yes you are correct, resources determine a species population. We aren't overpopulated because we still have resources for everybody. We just don't know how to distribute them evenly. We will reach the point though, where we will reach overpopulation where millions of people will just start dying of starvation every day. Do we really want to push it that far?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
If you'd read my posts, you would have seen that I never said our resources are infinite. Only that we are not overpopulated now. You're just arguing with yourself. We do need to start thinking about population management, because there will eventually come a time when we really are overpopulated. The danger really isn't consumption of resources however. We don't actually consume water, for instance. We only borrow it. It goes in and goes back out. The danger is pollution and waste.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCommentator
reply to post by andersensrm
 


The only way I see mankind progressing is if 90% of the population was destroyed and only a few left behind who know how to progress the human race.
We are bound for an endless cycle of destruction, death and famine if we continue to live and think the way we do.

At the end of the day we have been technologically advanced for the tiniest amount of time and the human race has not even begun to evolve to adapt to that mentally. We are hardly and different from when we were going through the Iron Age.

It will be an interesting century for humans; personally I don’t think we deserve to survive on an ecological level. But I do hope that we can learn to be a better species then what we currently are.

edit on 3-2-2012 by TheCommentator because: (no reason given)


The only thing that will guarantee is extinction. As such a society lacks the numbers to survive in-case technology fails. The only hope for human civilization is a combined exodus into space, with a massive population increase. So that the risk's of space travel seem trivial compared to staying on the Earth(think about the lure of America in the early 16-1800's). As long as we stay on this rock we risk extinction.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rodredux
If you'd read my posts, you would have seen that I never said our resources are infinite. Only that we are not overpopulated now. You're just arguing with yourself. We do need to start thinking about population management, because there will eventually come a time when we really are overpopulated. The danger really isn't consumption of resources however. We don't actually consume water, for instance. We only borrow it. It goes in and goes back out. The danger is pollution and waste.

What is your reasoning for thinking this?
More than half the world does not have access to food, water, medical care, decent jobs, homes etc.. Have you considered them in your opinion?
The only reason earth doesn’t seem over populated is due to our corrupt system. If we lived in a fair system where every person on earth was equal you would see quickly that we are vastly overpopulated.

Pollution and waste are a huge problem and we are going to need to deal with that asap



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 

Yes, extinction is inescapable on a long enough time period.
Society as we know it would be lost without technology, but without it the species would probably do a lot better.

We have a far greater risk of extinction in space then we do on earth, but as technology expands this will become more of a probability.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join