Management, money people, and marketing suck.

Gorwe

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Sovrath

Gorwe said:

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Because in the scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money and the research that goes into creating products and materials for space projects eventually make their way to consumers.

I think they tout memory foam as one such thing and I couldn't thank them enough.

Gorwe

Sovrath said:

Gorwe said:

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Because in the scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money and the research that goes into creating products and materials for space projects eventually make their way to consumers.

I think they tout memory foam as one such thing and I couldn't thank them enough.

Goretex too. Bloody good for jackets, blankets etc.

But I don't buy that rhetoric. It's a similar rhetoric to what MIC uses. By investing into f-50, we'll somehow have more money and live better. I can see some ways, but still, /shrug .

Sovrath

Gorwe said:

Sovrath said:

Gorwe said:

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Because in the scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money and the research that goes into creating products and materials for space projects eventually make their way to consumers.

I think they tout memory foam as one such thing and I couldn't thank them enough.

Goretex too. Bloody good for jackets, blankets etc.

But I don't buy that rhetoric. It's a similar rhetoric to what MIC uses. By investing into f-50, we'll somehow have more money and live better. I can see some ways, but still, /shrug .

I don't know what MIC is so can't comment on that.

It's not really rhetoric. If no one is pushing the bounds of what we can do as a species then it "no one will do it."

There's always the challenge of feeding the hungry, taking care of disease and medical needs. And in a perfect world we'd be workign together to eliminate these challenges.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Saying that taking the money away from research will feed a hungry nation might be true but since this isn't a perfect world, I doubt it would happen. 

What probably would happen is that the money would be siphoned away by all the necessary components of a system required to turn that money into food. And what about creating a sustainable system for that country so it can feed itself? 

One would say that in a perfect world their governments would be working on that. But it's not a perfect world.

Instead, we have to work with what we have. And would we be able to solve these issues or will they always be issues? Issues that would keep us forever living a life of just figuring out how to feed ourselves.

I suspect we just have to inch our way towards all of our goals as opposed to being a united world and completely solving these challenges and then pushing the bounds of humanity's knowledge.

Essentially, and sadly, humanity has to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming because we can't work together.

Gorwe

Sovrath said:

Gorwe said:

Sovrath said:

Gorwe said:

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Because in the scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money and the research that goes into creating products and materials for space projects eventually make their way to consumers.

I think they tout memory foam as one such thing and I couldn't thank them enough.

Goretex too. Bloody good for jackets, blankets etc.

But I don't buy that rhetoric. It's a similar rhetoric to what MIC uses. By investing into f-50, we'll somehow have more money and live better. I can see some ways, but still, /shrug .

I don't know what MIC is so can't comment on that.

It's not really rhetoric. If no one is pushing the bounds of what we can do as a species then it "no one will do it."

There's always the challenge of feeding the hungry, taking care of disease and medical needs. And in a perfect world we'd be workign together to eliminate these challenges.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Saying that taking the money away from research will feed a hungry nation might be true but since this isn't a perfect world, I doubt it would happen. 

What probably would happen is that the money would be siphoned away by all the necessary components of a system required to turn that money into food. And what about creating a sustainable system for that country so it can feed itself? 

One would say that in a perfect world their governments would be working on that. But it's not a perfect world.

Instead, we have to work with what we have. And would we be able to solve these issues or will they always be issues? Issues that would keep us forever living a life of just figuring out how to feed ourselves.

I suspect we just have to inch our way towards all of our goals as opposed to being a united world and completely solving these challenges and then pushing the bounds of humanity's knowledge.

Essentially, and sadly, humanity has to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming because we can't work together.

Based off the observable facts, it'd seem you are right, yeah. And it's not a cynical outlook, it's just what it is(even though that is a part of cynicism, go figure). So, is it cynical? Huh.

MIC is Military-Industry Complex. I'm underselling the effect of it though, based upon their complete lack of ethics. I mean, look at the USA. Every time there is an extended time of peace, its budget nosedives. Because they no longer flog weapons and other assorted military services. Contra, Iran etc gates were right after all.

But let's not get too technical, huh?

Mendel

Sovrath said:

Gorwe said:

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

I have even better example:

Why waste precious $$$ on researching bacteria etc on Mars when there is so much to be done on Earth? For every rover, you can feed an entire country, if not more.

Because in the scheme of things, it's a very small amount of money and the research that goes into creating products and materials for space projects eventually make their way to consumers.

I think they tout memory foam as one such thing and I couldn't thank them enough.

Goodness.  The list of products researched for space us huge!  But how could you list Memory Foam ahead of Velcro and microchips?  I assume you need some coffee to miss the more obvious (and ubiquitous) products.

As for bacteria, I wouldn't be averse to generically engineering bacteria (in a sterile, safe environment such as a space lab) to convert the atmosphere on Venus into one breathable by humans.  Maybe an airborne bacteria that eats CO2 and releases O2 into the very upper atmosphere?  Let some generic microbiologist come up with the ideas n how.  Then build an orbital facility around Venus to process the O2 gas into liquid form (LOX).

We're going to need/want Oxygen in space in some form.  Sure, you can get O2 from rocks, but those rocks are in gravity wells.  Retrieving a product from a gravity well is far more costly to move it into space.  There are likely ways to siphon off the very upper atmosphere without going all the way into the gravity well.  Something for the engineers to work out.

Eventually someone will want to try to terraform something.  Let's get in a bit of practice on a Venus -- it's likely never to be truly habitable due to the heat, but using it as one massive oxygen generator might have some use.  Who knows?  We might learn something, or accidentally create a usable planet.  Mars, Titan, and other moons with atmospheres are too valuable to very far future plans to go experimenting on.  If we screw up on Venus, there weren't really any ideas of how to exploit it.

Well, I've created enough jobs for the next century this morning.  Your great-great-great-great grandchildren can thank me later.  I think I'll go velcro a microprocessor to some memory foam, then maybe a nap.

Ungood

Sovrath said:

Essentially, and sadly, humanity has to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming because we can't work together.

The fact that we have to think in terms of spending money on Space/Technology/Advancement, or Feeding/Taking care of People, shows that we as a species are still very mentally limited.

There is no reason outside our own greed that we can't do both, as money is purely a fictional creation of us, a means by those who want power and control to regulate the exchange of goods and services, but the reality is, we have a near unlimited amount of both, we can make enough food to feed everyone on this planet without needing to take away any effort from research and technology.

The hard reality is, because we are greedy little shits as a species, and would rather see people starve and technology grind to a halt than be paid less than what we think we are worth.

KnightFalz

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

KnightFalz

Ungood said:

The fact that we have to think in terms of spending money on Space/Technology/Advancement, or Feeding/Taking care of People, shows that we as a species are still very mentally limited.

There is no reason outside our own greed that we can't do both, as money is purely a fictional creation of us, a means by those who want power and control to regulate the exchange of goods and services, but the reality is, we have a near unlimited amount of both, we can make enough food to feed everyone on this planet without needing to take away any effort from research and technology.

The hard reality is, because we are greedy little shits as a species, and would rather see people starve and technology grind to a halt than be paid less than what we think we are worth.

Such is human nature. We are not a generally caring and sharing bunch. This has always been so and there is no reason to believe this will ever change. Accordingly, expect any solution devised to reflect our nature, benefiting those higher on the feeding chain when it can't be extended to all.

cameltosis

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Ungood

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Kyleran

Ungood said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Naw, never believe the psycho-babble crap you find on the internet, Armageddon is coming, either by divine judgement or the planet just being wacked by random space debris as has happened many times before.

Scot

Ungood said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Civilizations face many problems, we don't need evolutionary biologists to add to them (science joke there). It is true that on becoming civilized we launched ourselves into unknown territory in terms of our evolution and relation to our ecosystem. But in evolutionary terms this has occurred in the blink of an eye, you can make the case that in such a short time can becoming civilized have put our evolution that of balance? It is easier to see how we can adversely effect our ecosystem than our evolution, but the fact is in an extremely short space of evolutionary time we have done just that.

Lets take a pair of glasses, if I was in the wrong age by now I would probably be dead if it was not for mine; a spear I did not see, a dangerous animal in the distance would have got me. We pass these genetic flaws down to the next generation and they proliferate in the gene pool of our species. That's just one of many examples, another would be people who find it hard to procreate for one reason or another, technology helping those bad genes to keep being passed down.

But as always science eventually presents an answer, we can already alter the genetic code of a human before they are born. There are all sorts of moral issues here, but to me when there is a clear medical reason to do so it should be done. Not saying that short sightedness needs to be top of the list, but once society gets used to the idea of this then yes lets get rid of that as well.

When it comes to the psychological effect of being top dog I say get out into space and create a new frontier, thats how you create a challenge for a species that already spends too much time gazing at its own navel and dreaming opium dreams.

AlBQuirky

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Naw, never believe the psycho-babble crap you find on the internet, Armageddon is coming, either by divine judgement or the planet just being wacked by random space debris as has happened many times before.

And the planet keeps going on.

Dinosaurs are gone, though, and so will Human Beings someday

Scot

AlBQuirky said:

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Naw, never believe the psycho-babble crap you find on the internet, Armageddon is coming, either by divine judgement or the planet just being wacked by random space debris as has happened many times before.

And the planet keeps going on.

Dinosaurs are gone, though, and so will Human Beings someday

But the dinosaurs survived and became birds, how we will look in millions of years to come may not be recognisable to ourselves today, but if your genetic information survives in a sense your species lives on.

Ungood

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Naw, never believe the psycho-babble crap you find on the internet, Armageddon is coming, either by divine judgement or the planet just being wacked by random space debris as has happened many times before.

I for one welcome our world destroying asteroid overloads, and wish they would hurry up.

KnightFalz

Ungood said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will.

If within the next 100 years the population on Earth becomes unsustainable people will die off until it is, whether it be in struggle over the resources that remain or for simple lack of them. The issue would be corrected without divine intervention.

I both agree, and am also not worried about it in the slightest.

Humanity, in its arrogance, believes we are in control of the world and everything that happens. Overpopulation is talked of as being a huge problem right now, let alone in the future. It's just not true.

If you actually look at the planet, you'll see that humanity remains fairly contained. Most of the planet remains untouched / uncontrolled by people. We have tons of room to expand, tons of land to cultivate, so we have a lot of breathing room in the future.

So, it just becomes a question of how we handle it. Do we try to work in harmony with nature, using expert knowledge and the best technology to do it in a sustainable way? Or do we act selfishly, taking whatever we can today at the expense of tomorrow? In the latter case, self-correction will occur, after all, can't keep on living if there is nothing to live on! Whether it's famine, disease, extinction of critical species or self-inflicted wars, the planet will correct itself.

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Humans do have predators. Other humans. We kill each other every day, and occasionally organize to kill each other on a massive scale for years at a time.

I think a violent end to our kind is quite plausible.

Gorwe

Chaos...Chaos marks us all!

What has this to do with anything? ...nothing? Or EVERYTHING. Depends.

delete5230

Quizzical said:

delete5230 said:

This may sound bold..... But I need to be in charge.  You will get an mmorpg that all of you would like, with the exception of the free-to-play freeloaders.

If you were put in charge of a large-budget MMORPG, you might learn why it's a lot harder than you think.  Hopefully you would.  The alternative is that you'd fail spectacularly and blame it on others.

This is a good spot to jump in an explain how I would run a large-budget mmorpg.


First, I would have to be self sustaining rich because investors want "so called accountability".



Understandable, but bad !!!..... Right from the offtake abuse of money, corruption and fat !!!!...... instant money pit BEFORE A PRODUCT STARTS. Multi-millions spent. It gets much much worst..... They dig in and set themselves up to insure longevity of their position. So dug in with power, the product could look like failure and they would file bankrupt before they would let their position go....Completely dug in and grounded !!!

Key words:
- Multi-millions spent before production starts !!!!!!
- Maximum pay throughout !!!!!!
- Understand no game yet !!!!!!

The so called accountability is the corruption,
I could stop right here, This point is FACT !

But wait..... It gets even worst. Investors want updates, Large scale accounting and future projection, multi-million extra cost.

All this expense, yet the product is not even on the table yet. Millions and millions spent. 

I understand THIS IS HOW IT IS.  However it's the problem.

No mmorpg's because it's locked into summation. Absolute because of power.



This took much longer than expected, so I'll make the only solution short:

Self sustaining rich.... Avoid everything above, MILLIONS SPENT ON GAME ONLY.  The self sustaining rich sets the parameters, he/she is the money person with the idea.


Sorry for being bold, but facts are facts. Prove it ?.... out sourced to Asia. 

KnightFalz

delete5230 said:

Quizzical said:

delete5230 said:

This may sound bold..... But I need to be in charge.  You will get an mmorpg that all of you would like, with the exception of the free-to-play freeloaders.

If you were put in charge of a large-budget MMORPG, you might learn why it's a lot harder than you think.  Hopefully you would.  The alternative is that you'd fail spectacularly and blame it on others.

This is a good spot to jump in an explain how I would run a large-budget mmorpg.


First, I would have to be self sustaining rich because investors want "so called accountability".



Understandable, but bad !!!..... Right from the offtake abuse of money, corruption and fat !!!!...... instant money pit BEFORE A PRODUCT STARTS. Multi-millions spent. It gets much much worst..... They dig in and set themselves up to insure longevity of their position. So dug in with power, the product could look like failure and they would file bankrupt before they would let their position go....Completely dug in and grounded !!!

Key words:
- Multi-millions spent before production starts !!!!!!
- Maximum pay throughout !!!!!!
- Understand no game yet !!!!!!

The so called accountability is the corruption,
I could stop right here, This point is FACT !

But wait..... It gets even worst. Investors want updates, Large scale accounting and future projection, multi-million extra cost.

All this expense, yet the product is not even on the table yet. Millions and millions spent. 

I understand THIS IS HOW IT IS.  However it's the problem.

No mmorpg's because it's locked into summation. Absolute because of power.



This took much longer than expected, so I'll make the only solution short:

Self sustaining rich.... Avoid everything above, MILLIONS SPENT ON GAME ONLY.  The self sustaining rich sets the parameters, he/she is the money person with the idea.


Sorry for being bold, but facts are facts. Prove it ?.... out sourced to Asia. 

In all of that you said absolutely nothing about how you would run a large budget MMORPG other than you'd somehow be self-funded.

Being bold is fine and all, but at some point it would be nifty if you addressed your claimed topic somewhere in the midst of your rambling rant.

Amaranthar

Ungood said:

Kyleran said:

Ungood said:

Well, not being pessimistic, but if the social experiments done on population control for an apex species turn out to be correct, we die.

Not in a bad or violent way, hence why we are an Apex species, we have no predators' or threats, nor will we kill ourselves or blow up the world.

There is a saying that Strife is the Spice of Life, and there is apparently some truth to this, as discovered by people who study this stuff way more than I do, but as best I can understand it, which, gimmie a break here, this is not my profession.

Anyway, from the articles I read while drunk and just random clicking though those "Check this cool shit out" sites, apparently, there were a lot of studied done on ecological placement of a species, and as it goes, once we lose our place in the Ecosystem and are the Apex Species, for all intents and purposes, we become bored and start to die off, like "Yay we won, ok.. that's a wrap" and it's not mean, or violent, or even bad, it like the Give a Fuck gets broke, we just get to the point where we don't see the need to procreate.

Naw, never believe the psycho-babble crap you find on the internet, Armageddon is coming, either by divine judgement or the planet just being wacked by random space debris as has happened many times before.

I for one welcome our world destroying asteroid overloads, and wish they would hurry up.

Ok, but let me get a bottle of aspirin first. 

Heh, just a little story...
Years ago the world was supposed to end, I think it was the Aztec calendar thing. 
It was the same day as a friend's daughter's 21st birthday, when she would be able to legally drink mixed drinks. He was throwing a little party for her on that day. 
So I went to a store that made custom t-shirts with whatever you wanted written on it.
I had them make a football jersey that said, on the back, 
"Due To My 21st Birthday"
and on the front,
"The End Of The World Has Been Delayed".
She loved it, and that night a few of us took her out to a Holliday Inn, where they had a band playing. She wore the jersey, and it served as a great ice breaker for her and all the young men there.

It's great to make someone's day like that.