15 replies to this topic

[Florian Xavier]

Some scientists say it is too late, and humanity will end in 100 years, even if we do the right things now.

OMS say we will eat insect instead of meal in 20 years.

And this guy :

http://www.ted.com/t...th_is_full.html

So, is it definitely too late ?

[Droplet]

Well given the world was going to end at least a few hundred times previously, I take anything like this with a huge grain of salt.

Oh and insects aren't that bad. Chilli meal worms and those scorpions in lollipops with a nutty flavour from Selfridges are gorgeous!

[robomoon]

To make people believe in the existence of sustainable growth, enough trickery must be at work. Here are are three working tricks for newspaper companies to turn facts into misleading information, just to unify mass media consumers, voters, and the decision making staff in large corporations for one believe into the sustainability of current financial and political strategies (Macroeconomics):

1st trick can be by raising awareness that birth rates in developed countries have fallen. Never make people really aware about the fact that mortality (death rates) espc. in children, went lower in developed countries too. Take http://www.bigissueg...migration.shtml noticing Kiryas Joel http://en.wikipedia...._Joel,_New_York as "Kurius Joel" as one example. From Wikipedia: "the village has the youngest median age (13.2) of any population center of over 5,000 residents in the United States." Glancing at the beginning parts of the page without reading attentive enough, the number 5,000 could make an average newspaper reader believe there is no big issue with population growth. 2nd trick can be by raising awareness that immigration into developed countries might have a minor impact in population growth. Never make people really aware about the fact that population growth (birth rates minus death rates) espc. in foreigners (immigrating societies and partners), went higher in developed countries too. 3rd trick is to accuse critics, including scientists, who cannot tolerate the above two tricks for the spreading of antisocial theories leading to racism, since they are "against foreigners".

These tricks have also been successfully tested in this forum, Longecity, and many important arguments are being easily swept aside, also see the above posting which could be reformulated just like this:

"No need to panic, given the world was going to end at least a few hundred times previously, I take growth limitations with a huge grain of salt" or "there is not much demand for more consumption next to water and food which scarcities are just political and a marketing matter. Even insects aren't that bad. Chilli meal worms and scorpions in lollipops can be nutritious too."

Newspaper media for the masses are mainly responsible for entertainment or to calm down consumers who need to overcome the inconvenient reality that their greedy demand requires unstopped growth which itself is not always sustainable.

[DAMABO]

although I believe that technology is going to be helpful to the extent that scarcity of resources will be hardly an issue (for most reasonably rich), I don't think we should push it. That is, I don't think we should let anybody have a lot of kids. Instead I would argue a global maximum of 1 child per household. 1 may seem below replacement, but given our lifespans may become high enough to not 'need' a replacement, underpopulation does not seem to be an issue. My vision also kind of depends on when we will have colonized Mars and other planets. Does anybody know of a timescale for the latter?

[The Immortalist]

Droplet, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Well given the world was going to end at least a few hundred times previously, I take anything like this with a huge grain of salt.

Oh and insects aren't that bad. Chilli meal worms and those scorpions in lollipops with a nutty flavour from Selfridges are gorgeous!

Don't forget deepfried crickets!

[The Immortalist]

Florian Xavier, on 21 May 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Some scientists say it is too late, and humanity will end in 100 years, even if we do the right things now.

OMS say we will eat insect instead of meal in 20 years.

And this guy :

http://www.ted.com/t...th_is_full.html

So, is it definitely too late ?

I say let all the stupid people destroy their own economy. Those who die as a result of lack of resources were meant to die. After we will just rebuild a new type of society and then life goes on ad infinitum.

Don't get me wrong I thinks it's horrible that people are destroying themselves. It's just that there's nothing we can do. Let's just hope that when the earths resources run out the idiots who think we can have infinite economic growth on finite resources will die and we can create a new society based on science.

Edited by The Immortalist, 03 June 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[Lufega]

I was watching a documentary about water shortage called "Blue Gold: World Water Wars."  All the problems happening in the world now can be attributed to insufficient resources.  The only solution is less people.   All I could think of is how we need a supervolcano to bring down the world population for half a billion or so.

Problem solved!  Earth is safe..for now.

[Luminosity]

You're both pretty sure the disasters won't affect you.  Hubris?

[MrHappy]

I wouldn't worry too much. Fukashima reactor#4's spent fuel rod pile is being hailed as a possible human extinction event.. Albeit slowly.

I've played enough Fallout 3 to know how this needs to be handled.

[The Immortalist]

Luminosity, on 04 June 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

You're both pretty sure the disasters won't affect you.  Hubris?

It probably will but I will try my best to survive it and if my best isn't good enough then that's life.

[robomoon]

DAMABO, on 03 June 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

( // quote shortened // )... underpopulation does not seem to be an issue. My vision also kind of depends on when we will have colonized Mars and other planets. Does anybody know of a timescale for the latter?

First, scientists are actually busy doing the kind of research the public admires the most so that makes the governments fund it the most so that makes the companies sell research equipment the most so that makes research experiments growing the most so that leaders in research groups get famous the most because they are are doing research in the greatest research experiments with most of the research equipment. Therefore, these scientists are receiving the greatest honour since such honour will be granted by organizations who are honouring those scientists doing the greatest research experiments they are accomplishing with most of the research equipment from companies that sell research equipment the most since governments are financing the purchases of research equipment the most because they are funding it the most. They are funding what the public admires the most because that is what they feel is science getting scientific the most.

With these trends in scientific research, is an infinite timescale for the colonization of mars optimally scientific?

Edited by robomoon, 06 June 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[DAMABO]

robomoon, on 06 June 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

First, scientists are actually busy doing the kind of research the public admires the most so that makes the governments fund it the most so that makes the companies sell research equipment the most so that makes research experiments growing the most so that leaders in research groups get famous the most because they are are doing research in the greatest research experiments with most of the research equipment. Therefore, these scientists are receiving the greatest honour since such honour will be granted by organizations who are honouring those scientists doing the greatest research experiments they are accomplishing with most of the research equipment from companies that sell research equipment the most since governments are financing the purchases of research equipment the most because they are funding it the most. They are funding what the public admires the most because that is what they feel is science getting scientific the most.

With these trends in scientific research, is an infinite timescale for the colonization of mars optimally scientific?

it would help to add some signs to your text such as , or - . or space here and there. anyhow, infinite timescale?

[DAMABO]

digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mars-one-plans-human-colonization-of-mars-by-april-2023/

[robomoon]

DAMABO, on 06 June 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

( //Quote shortened // ) ... anyhow, infinite timescale?

Also citing the forum message by DAMABO posted 03 June 2012 (quote shortened): "... given our lifespans may become high enough to not 'need' a replacement, underpopulation does not seem to be an issue."

An infinite timescale makes an estimated event easy enough to calculate. If you with your relatives, partners, fellows, etc., as a society would not 'need' replacements, then it looks like you are betting on lifespans that would be long enough to choose rejuvenation over children. Since it does not look too problematic to get a clue about a time when ancestors of procreative humans have arisen, but very hard to calculate the probability for the end of an evolution in which their descendants would be gone, it can be practical to choose an infinite time. That is not so different from what can be tried with the concept of immortality. When life in your society is about to go on for a long time without births and deaths, your society might eventually be called immortals.

Citing from the article about the project Mars One referred through by the URL (digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mars-one-plans-human-colonization-of-mars-by-april-2023/) in the above posting: "let us know in the comments below if you’d be willing to leave the comforts of Earth to spend the rest of your life..." Since your society want their lifespans getting higher, they may not want the rest of their life being finished before a time when some very improved rejuvenation therapy could become available by any means of plausible estimations. Do you even want to calculate a fixed period of time for the rest of your life or leave it an open question? If it remains an open question, would we even know when a project of settlement on Mars has been successfully accomplished? Only realize, the success of the project has been described as, citation: " Private corporations like ... are racing to become the next household name that children will be talking about for generations..." Generations means new birth rates and not higher lifespans, that makes things more complicated.

As an example about an infinite timescale: http://ec.europa.eu/...ications_en.htm is linking to the document "Guidance on the calculation, presentation and use of collective doses for routine discharges." It cites: "UNSCEAR (2000). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation". Volume 1: Sources. UN, New York (2000). According to the EU publication, estimates published in that volume needed an infinite timescale. For the European Commission, this source alone has not been sufficient for further studies. Considering it comes from the UN, would it not look very scientific for the public, at least within one decade or so?

[DAMABO]

robomoon, on 07 June 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Also citing the forum message by DAMABO posted 03 June 2012 (quote shortened): "... given our lifespans may become high enough to not 'need' a replacement, underpopulation does not seem to be an issue."

An infinite timescale makes an estimated event easy enough to calculate. If you with your relatives, partners, fellows, etc., as a society would not 'need' replacements, then it looks like you are betting on lifespans that would be long enough to choose rejuvenation over children. Since it does not look too problematic to get a clue about a time when ancestors of procreative humans have arisen, but very hard to calculate the probability for the end of an evolution in which their descendants would be gone, it can be practical to choose an infinite time. That is not so different from what can be tried with the concept of immortality. When life in your society is about to go on for a long time without births and deaths, your society might eventually be called immortals.

Citing from the article about the project Mars One referred through by the URL (digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mars-one-plans-human-colonization-of-mars-by-april-2023/) in the above posting: "let us know in the comments below if you’d be willing to leave the comforts of Earth to spend the rest of your life..." Since your society want their lifespans getting higher, they may not want the rest of their life being finished before a time when some very improved rejuvenation therapy could become available by any means of plausible estimations. Do you even want to calculate a fixed period of time for the rest of your life or leave it an open question? If it remains an open question, would we even know when a project of settlement on Mars has been successfully accomplished? Only realize, the success of the project has been described as, citation: " Private corporations like ... are racing to become the next household name that children will be talking about for generations..." Generations means new birth rates and not higher lifespans, that makes things more complicated.

As an example about an infinite timescale: http://ec.europa.eu/...ications_en.htm is linking to the document "Guidance on the calculation, presentation and use of collective doses for routine discharges." It cites: "UNSCEAR (2000). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation". Volume 1: Sources. UN, New York (2000). According to the EU publication, estimates published in that volume needed an infinite timescale. For the European Commission, this source alone has not been sufficient for further studies. Considering it comes from the UN, would it not look very scientific for the public, at least within one decade or so?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that, because our life spans will be indefinite, we might be scared to go out into another planet for fear of death? I think there are always people bored enough to take risks.

[robomoon]

http://www.geekosystem.com/mars-one - citation: "The key to this whole scheme is, as founder Bas Lansdorp  says, to turn the entire thing into an enormous “media event.” The company is a bit vague... All he needs is $6 billion."

http://www.kickstart...is-now?ref=live - citation: "How much... Estimates for an initial landing of four first Colonists and support for two years are in the $20B range."

So what could it really be, only $6B or more like $20B? As long as the estimated sums are hard to know, I'm reluctant to dive into this with a better timescale. Thus, I even got speechless when I was asked about the main hindrances to commercial aquatic colonization, see this http://www.longecity...efore-ad-astra/ discussion. It is hard to get a clue about the costs of colonization - no matter if it's with blimps in the sky, with undersea stations, or an outer space settlement.