The Post Your Thoughts of the Moment Thread 2

[JDMEK5]

(there is also the moon  )

I think that's a bit Farfetch'd. (Double pun!)

[Sebastian]

HAHAHAHA

I think we could easily mine the moon. But, NASA is too lazy....

[JDMEK5]

I think that all the money we spend on space could be better used feeding people in third-world countries honestly. At least we already know what we can do with that.

[SuperFireKirby]

Once the world population reaches 9 billion or so, we will enter a state of unsustainable demand(even though we're already pretty much there). Not to mention that's around the time we'll probably see the next great population killing disease.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Once the world population reaches 9 billion or so, we will enter a state of unsustainable demand(even though we're already pretty much there). Not to mention that's around the time we'll probably see the next great population killing disease.

And if not...

Spoiler

[close]

Really, though, people have been afraid of overpopulation ever since the Industrial Revolution, and possibly even before that. As long as we're able to manage our resources (e.g. not just completely razing the land), I think the Earth can handle us to a fairly expansive extent... and then, there's always Mars.

[Yugi]

Ehhh I would have a kid but I'd have to find someone up to my standards to get married to first and I don't see that happening

oh god 

im thinking of a dating show

it is

the best thing that has come into my mind today

[SlowPokemon]

go on

[Ruto]

Currently attempting to write a movie script because I want to make a movie. Anyone want to loan me $1,500 so I can by a half-decent camera rig? I promise I'll pay you back when I win an Oscar.

Maybe if you have the script and camera

go on

Noooo try a bachelor auction!

And if not...

Spoiler

[close]

Really, though, people have been afraid of overpopulation ever since the Industrial Revolution, and possibly even before that. As long as we're able to manage our resources (e.g. not just completely razing the land), I think the Earth can handle us to a fairly expansive extent... and then, there's always Mars.

My environment class said no. Besides, people need a lot of resources. If we have enough scientists we might be able to keep looking for ways to get by, like growing hamburgers in labs. But didn't the loud mouthed portion of Congress also make it clear it's not their job to feed the poor or support scientific research?

If I were to have kids, I'd have 5 or so.

I never had a big family and I really wanted one. Plus, everyone in my dad's side of the family are quite successful... and my grandparents had 5 kids. Plus in Scandinavia, they pay big money to have kids and make sure our quality of life is fantastic.

Otherwise, me and my wife would make shittons of money and travel a lot.

5 kids? Better start saving xD It's not so bad until two or more of them start crying at once. But as long as they become contributing members of society, that's fine.

[FierceDeity]

NASA is too lazy....

what

the hell kind of image does NASA have nowadays

how are they supposed to do anything without funding

Oh, we're far from that yet. There's still lots of open space to move to if areas get too crowded. I think that was just another reason to justify abortion before it was so accepted.

That's a reeeeaaaalllllyyyyy simplistic way of looking at it. As of right now, overpopulation is more of a localized issue, particularly in places like India and the larger cities in China. The problem is, "open space" isn't the only qualification for livable land, and the people most affected by overpopulation are generally the ones without the financial means to move away from it. It is a very real issue for many, many people, and not just some fabrication of abortion propagandists. In fact, the places where overpopulation is most rampant are the ones where contraception is most opposed. But maybe that's just a coincidence.

There are highly developed countries whose populations are actually decreasing, and that is good; that's the ideal state for a modern civilization to be in. The US is actually not in this state; while we're not growing drastically, we are still growing. The only reason that global overpopulation shouldn't be a problem is because individuals have been, and should be, making more responsible choices about having children; it is not because overpopulation is an impossible threat. India, for example, is still growing, despite already being vastly overpopulated, and the average quality of life is diminishing as a result. Its growth is slowing, but not fast enough.

I think that all the money we spend on space could be better used feeding people in third-world countries honestly. At least we already know what we can do with that.

There are a lot of things that we humans spend a shitload of money on that would be better put towards philanthropy, and I think that space exploration is the least of our troubles in that respect (especially because, again, exactly what funding of theirs should we be diverting?). And the purpose of space exploration is not to do something that we already know can be done; it's called exploration, goddamn. We're trying to discover the unknown. If you want to be practical about it, though, there are cosmic forces that will annihilate our planet in a set (albeit large) amount of time, and it'd be pretty great if the human race were able to survive that somehow or another. It'd also be pretty great if we were to discover extraterrestrial life (although the two of those go hand in hand, in a way). It just makes no sense to me that we should resign ourselves to this little blue dot without at least knowing what is out there, and how it works.

Really, though, people have been afraid of overpopulation ever since the Industrial Revolution, and possibly even before that.

I don't really think that "It wasn't a problem in the past, therefore it won't be a problem in the future [despite a ridiculously disproportionate amount of population growth in the past century in comparison to the rest of the history of man]" is a very valid argument...

As long as we're able to manage our resources (e.g. not just completely razing the land), I think the Earth can handle us to a fairly expansive extent...

what humanity have you been watching this whole time

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I don't really think that "It wasn't a problem in the past, therefore it won't be a problem in the future [despite a ridiculously disproportionate amount of population growth in the past century in comparison to the rest of the history of man]" is a very valid argument...

Read this... I do not think I meant what you thought I meant...

To explain it myself, though: I never said that it won't be a problem. It's just that people have always been afraid of the Earth becoming completely overrun by humans like... forever (or at least primarily since the Industrial Revolution). Fortunately, Malthus's theories haven't come true (yet), thanks to medical advances, increased food supply due to better agricultural developments, etc.

Surely, the Earth will be overrun by humans some day, but unless our technological and industrial development hits a complete standstill, I doubt that will come any time soon. The highest (reasonable) estimate that I've seen for the carrying capacity of the Earth is 40 billion humans. Right now, there are about 7 billion. Yeah. As our technology and industries expand (e.g. finding better, more renewable sources of energy, using limited resources more efficiently, etc.), the carrying capacity may be even greater than that.

Or, then again, our technology might not develop that much, and we might reach a point where the death rate does eventually overtake the birth rate (due to forced "population control," but that brings to mind a dystopian future). You can look at this chart to get an idea of population growth within the last 50-or-so years. STATISTICS, MAN!

what humanity have you been watching this whole time

One that isn't completely pessimistic and (apparently) awaiting its ever-imminent destruction.


EDIT: Also, to bring up something important:

My environment class said no. Besides, people need a lot of resources. If we have enough scientists we might be able to keep looking for ways to get by, like growing hamburgers in labs. But didn't the loud mouthed portion of Congress also make it clear it's not their job to feed the poor or support scientific research?

I have to disagree with your environment class, to a certain extent. People need resources, yes, but we can easily expand to fit the needs (also to a certain extent, limited by what we have and how we can conserve everything without just immediately depleting all of our resources, which is prevented by technological/scientific/industrial/agricultural advances): just look at the expansion of wheat production since 1950. Sure, the rate of growth in wheat production decreases in more recent years, but if you look at population growth since 1900, you can see how much the rates match each other (granted, people don't eat only bread, but I'm sure the trend is similar/the same with other sources of food or other resources).

The only problem (one of the only- another is economic development and stability of countries in question, as well as land, which might be solved if we figure out how to colonize other planets, though land shouldn't be a problem yet) is working towards the more efficient use of our limited resources, which I hope our current and future generations will be able to do (maybe if everybody wasn't so pessimistic... but I digress).

[FierceDeity]

Trust me, I'm familiar with Malthus XD I've studied this too, ya know? I understood what you meant, I just mean that failed theories in the past don't have any significance regarding substantially differnet theories of the present, at least in this context. The Industrial Revolution was a far different time, in terms of population density and technology.

Or, then again, our technology might not develop that much, and we might reach a point where the death rate does eventually overtake the birth rate (due to forced "population control," but that brings to mind a dystopian future).

This is the scenario that I'm saying we should try to avoid. I never implied that overpopulation means total annihilation of the human race. The main problem is this: right now, it would be entirely possible to end world hunger with our resources. In a situation of mass global overpopulation, it would not. This "population control" you speak of is most likely to come in the form of China's (mostly past now) solution: strictly limiting childbirth. Nobody wants that, and that's why the idea of individuals making responsible decisions while they still can is so important. Luckily, mass global overpopulation is not a huge risk at this point, since, as I said, more developed countries are seeing a decrease in population (due to individuals making responsible decisions). The issue, again, is localized to areas where the culture has yet to beget this change.

One that isn't completely pessimistic and (apparently) awaiting its ever-imminent destruction.

Pessimism isn't really the issue, so much as ignorance. If we stay at our current level of resource consumption, humanity will be forced to deal with our resources more responsibly, but the problem is that it might actually get to that point. Change is coming, sure, but it may not be fast enough to prevent actual hardship.

[Ruto]

Well yeah, I heard about the revolutions in agriculture but that's not going to save us because we still need land and stuff to maintain land. I'm all for reusing and recycling as much as possible but if you can't convince anyone there's a problem, they won't do anything about it and continue their lifestyles. (Ever heard what it would be like if the Earth gets too warm? Such as 100 degree winters, wooo! -.- No one even wants to think about that! Least of all, fund technology to help us prepare for the worst, or slow the damage. Try going to your neighbors and telling them that they should only own one car for the sake of the environment. They won't.)

Anyway, I'll just recall some dimwit arguments that the Earth is underpopulated.

"The entire population of Earth can fit in a city" (That's not even an issue, but how will you feed, clothe and sustain all those people? In that same plot of land?"

"We have enough oil for 50 years" (Rick Santorum said this in an interview somewhere, he was clearly pulling stats from his ass. Some environmentalists said we'd already reached peak oil, and have resorted to super dirty methods already..oil from sand -.-)

Then there's the people who try to say stuff like baby holocaust and stuff when there are actual issues to worry about. There's no magic force that would come save everyone from the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

I don't think I'm being that pessimistic, but I still think something could be done. However, when people are coming up with theories that science/government is going to kill them all someday and running around with their pitchforks and complaints, you have to think about dealing with that first. Or wait for them to die off. Saying the Earth is going to be overpopulated isn't a crazy conspiracy theory. 40 billion people is much too high for an estimate, 2 billion people in China and India and less than half of that amount in America, is straining the resources more than you think they are. You just have to think of the world as one place, and some people can barely think of that possibility (Rush Limbaugh).

We haven't even manage to land people in Mars and the last moon mission happened before anyone here was born. We're not going that fast and we can't think of colonization as a solution before 2050 when we're going to really start to feel what we did.

[SuperFireKirby]

We're already reaching the point of unsustainable demand in terms of food and many other natural resources. Fresh water is being depleted drastically(the fucking Colorado River is drying up, thanks to California), massive droughts in the midwest last year, this year in Cali, "super storms" are becoming a yearly routine, thanks to our wonderful friends at Monsanto bacteria is building up antibiotic resistance like crazy in livestock, so we'll likely be experiencing some super bacteria in the future that kills a wole lot of people(disease IS mother nature form of population control, after all).

Then there's always the possibility that we'll simply cause our own extinction thanks to our out of control technological evolution. Which is probably going to end up happening. But hey, animals go extinct. It's just the way nature works, and we're no exception. So enjoy the Earth while you can, because you're gonna be dead some day.

[Clanker37]

I read somewhere that we have enough food, just that it's unevenly distributed. Too much is in First world countries and not enough in Third world. At KFC, I have to through out any food we don't sell (and now employees can't even take it home >_>). The amount of food I've thrown out could feed a family for a life-time (and make them very fat).

[Waddle Bro]

"Soon China will go all Japan WWII on yo' asses. They'll come for the room and resources."