Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

Human Population Control


O hai im KAMIL

Recommended Posts

Populations tend to level out naturally over time anyway, but wouldn't it be nice to plan population control rather than waiting on mass starvation or the next plague? There's a very limited amount of resources on our planet. Perhaps this is something really worth considering.

 

I'd tend to agree but you have to admit that slope could get slippery real quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population control will never become a reality in most countries imo. Not in our lifetimes anyway. Can you imagine trying to enforce it in the Usa? The resulting screams of, "unconstitutional", would be deafening, and politicians are cowards. (not a criticism) Bluntly, it will come to the point that the rich will be ok and the poor will starve. Though personally I think lack of water will be the real problem. (which will in turn cause a lack of food)

 

In a world that faces up to the facts, maybe the best way would to be to limit a woman to only producing 2 children in her lifetime. (not 2 children per family, hard to define should people find new partners/spouses) If this was the limit, the population would slowly decline. I don't think a 1 child limit is appropriate. If a 1 child limit was enforced successfully, the population drop would be destabilizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea lots of African countries have it right. Have as many kids as you can and hopefully they won't die in the first couple of years so they can take care of themselves and now myself have to rely on foreign aid to help them survive.

 

It's an amazingly terrible approach to survival, rather than trying to have a few kids and raising them, having so many kids you can't even take care of yourself is what they're doing.

I know you'd think they'd just hop in their cars and drive somewhere where there's food like America

 

When the life expectancy isn't much higher than forty and many die in infancy or childhood (in some countries, 1 in 10 under the age of five die), you're gonna keep having kids so they can help support the family. When you have no access whatsoever to birth control and aren't educated, you're gonna keep having children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel Human Population Control is a necessary step in the period between feasible space colonization and our current rapid expansion. That said, the problem is it's political suicide for absolutely anyone who ties their name to it.

 

Sterilization lottery, anyone?

 

Lottery? That's a stupid idea, you could never pull that off :P

 

How about a procreation license? If you have a child without a license it gets taken away to be raised by somebody who's responsible :D

 

I was almost entirely joking. 99% joke, 1% "Well that COULD happen." Sorry if that wasn't clear, that was my bad. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought. 70% of the earth is water. Let's take advantage of that and build upon it. We have mastered sea travel and making sea-worthy ships, so let's expand on this and make a floating apartment complex. Then move on to a small community, town, city, state, country, etc. Take advantage of more then half of the surface area the world has to offer!

It's not land mass that's the problem. We have room for people. What we don't have are the resources to keep those people alive at the level they want to be. Current farm productions are already struggling to keep up with demand. Now farming on the sea is an interesting concept but it would reek havoc on the local biology so that would mean we'd have to go to places with little life, like the middle of the ocean. That means that if anything went wrong, you were screwed.

 

Actually that's not true - North America alone grows enough crop to feed the world three times over. Just for some reason some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to use the vast majority of that crop for feeding unbelievable large farms full of methane producing animals just to kill and eat them. Adding another level to the food chain reduces efficiency hugely.

Here's the thing, as people go up in the world, they want to have more meat in their diet. Sure we could make everybody eat vegetarian and everything would be solved but nobody wants that. We want to eat meat. Forcing people to change their diets is kinda what I would say is on the Orwellian side.

 

So 25% of the population should get to eat meat while 75% don't get to eat? That's the fair option? I'm not saying we should get rid of meat completely, but drastically cutting back on it would work out to be extremely good for everybody involved.

That's a hyperbole but that's not the point. This has nothing to do with fairness. It's a fact of life. Just try to take something people have lived with for generations away. Meat has always been a sign of status since caveman days. The rising middle classes don't want to eat the same vegetables and grains over and over again now that they don't have to. Meat consumption is increasing in the developing world. Trying to slow it down is hard enough but reducing it without breaking into personal freedoms is near impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought. 70% of the earth is water. Let's take advantage of that and build upon it. We have mastered sea travel and making sea-worthy ships, so let's expand on this and make a floating apartment complex. Then move on to a small community, town, city, state, country, etc. Take advantage of more then half of the surface area the world has to offer!

It's not land mass that's the problem. We have room for people. What we don't have are the resources to keep those people alive at the level they want to be. Current farm productions are already struggling to keep up with demand. Now farming on the sea is an interesting concept but it would reek havoc on the local biology so that would mean we'd have to go to places with little life, like the middle of the ocean. That means that if anything went wrong, you were screwed.

 

Actually that's not true - North America alone grows enough crop to feed the world three times over. Just for some reason some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to use the vast majority of that crop for feeding unbelievable large farms full of methane producing animals just to kill and eat them. Adding another level to the food chain reduces efficiency hugely.

Here's the thing, as people go up in the world, they want to have more meat in their diet. Sure we could make everybody eat vegetarian and everything would be solved but nobody wants that. We want to eat meat. Forcing people to change their diets is kinda what I would say is on the Orwellian side.

 

So 25% of the population should get to eat meat while 75% don't get to eat? That's the fair option? I'm not saying we should get rid of meat completely, but drastically cutting back on it would work out to be extremely good for everybody involved.

That's a hyperbole but that's not the point. This has nothing to do with fairness. It's a fact of life. Just try to take something people have lived with for generations away. Meat has always been a sign of status since caveman days. The rising middle classes don't want to eat the same vegetables and grains over and over again now that they don't have to. Meat consumption is increasing in the developing world. Trying to slow it down is hard enough but reducing it without breaking into personal freedoms is near impossible.

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

 

Also regarding the first posts' response to me. I know we have enough area for people to live in, but if you think about it, most of that area is unhabitable, or, would take a ridiculously large amount of resources to make habitable. Japan, for instance, is something like 35% unhabitable because of the geography. That's why they build UP and have people live in towers rather then spewed across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Well that's what i'm trying to say.

 

How do we know we are over fishing? We havn't even scratched the surface when it comes to exploring oceans. Heck, we havn't even explored the entire surface of land on our planet - there are islands found all the time with an abundance in fruits and foods to eat. So, there could be trillions upon trillions of fish still left undiscovered, swimming thousands of feet below our deepest nets and fishing lines. I highly doubt we would be able to wipe out an entire population of fish seeing how they have so much more room to live in, and most likely have a mugh higher population then we think.

 

The fish we are wiping out now are mostly freshwater, or ones we catch close to off-shore. There's no point in going to the middle of the ocean to catch fish because the trip out would cost more then the bounty they bring back in. The boat simply can't hold that much. So, there are probably tons more fish in the middle of the sea (where my proposed man-made floating city would be located) as compared to off-shore and in rivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Well that's what i'm trying to say.

 

How do we know we are over fishing? We havn't even scratched the surface when it comes to exploring oceans. Heck, we havn't even explored the entire surface of land on our planet - there are islands found all the time with an abundance in fruits and foods to eat. So, there could be trillions upon trillions of fish still left undiscovered, swimming thousands of feet below our deepest nets and fishing lines. I highly doubt we would be able to wipe out an entire population of fish seeing how they have so much more room to live in, and most likely have a mugh higher population then we think.

 

The fish we are wiping out now are mostly freshwater, or ones we catch close to off-shore. There's no point in going to the middle of the ocean to catch fish because the trip out would cost more then the bounty they bring back in. The boat simply can't hold that much. So, there are probably tons more fish in the middle of the sea (where my proposed man-made floating city would be located) as compared to off-shore and in rivers.

 

A) Expensive as hell to build.

B) Emergency services would have to be totally self contained.

C) ALL the amnenities and specialized healthcare that an ENTIRE COUNTRY deals with, all in one city.

 

Seperately: Fish can only survive in very specific areas. The reason we know we're killing populations is because they can only survive at x and y out of the billions of theoretical places in the ocean.

Edited by Eye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Well that's what i'm trying to say.

 

How do we know we are over fishing? We havn't even scratched the surface when it comes to exploring oceans. Heck, we havn't even explored the entire surface of land on our planet - there are islands found all the time with an abundance in fruits and foods to eat. So, there could be trillions upon trillions of fish still left undiscovered, swimming thousands of feet below our deepest nets and fishing lines. I highly doubt we would be able to wipe out an entire population of fish seeing how they have so much more room to live in, and most likely have a mugh higher population then we think.

 

The fish we are wiping out now are mostly freshwater, or ones we catch close to off-shore. There's no point in going to the middle of the ocean to catch fish because the trip out would cost more then the bounty they bring back in. The boat simply can't hold that much. So, there are probably tons more fish in the middle of the sea (where my proposed man-made floating city would be located) as compared to off-shore and in rivers.

 

A) Expensive as hell to build.

B) Emergency services would have to be totally self contained.

C) ALL the amnenities and specialized healthcare that an ENTIRE COUNTRY deals with, all in one city.

 

Seperately: Fish can only survive in very specific areas. The reason we know we're killing populations is because they can only survive at x and y out of the billions of theoretical places in the ocean.

A) Yeah but so would anything else in this topic. Clearing a rainforest then making it habitable? Building foundations on a mountainside prone to avalanches and rock slides? EASY!

B) That's fine, it's a couple decades in the future, if a skyscraper can float so can a hospital. And a landing zone for imports.

C) I don't get it, it will be a part of a country already made (obviously) so it will have that countries' healthcare and amnenties.

 

And, yes I understand what you mean about the fish BUT please read what I wrote. We don't know what kind of fish live under our reach. No one has really explored it. There are some extreme conditions on land that animals have adapted and evolved to be able to live in, i'm sure there are areas in the ocean where the same thing has occured. Let me reiterate: We just don't have the technology to know yet, but it's still possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Well that's what i'm trying to say.

 

How do we know we are over fishing? We havn't even scratched the surface when it comes to exploring oceans. Heck, we havn't even explored the entire surface of land on our planet - there are islands found all the time with an abundance in fruits and foods to eat. So, there could be trillions upon trillions of fish still left undiscovered, swimming thousands of feet below our deepest nets and fishing lines. I highly doubt we would be able to wipe out an entire population of fish seeing how they have so much more room to live in, and most likely have a mugh higher population then we think.

 

The fish we are wiping out now are mostly freshwater, or ones we catch close to off-shore. There's no point in going to the middle of the ocean to catch fish because the trip out would cost more then the bounty they bring back in. The boat simply can't hold that much. So, there are probably tons more fish in the middle of the sea (where my proposed man-made floating city would be located) as compared to off-shore and in rivers.

But you're making so many assumptions here and discounting scientific understanding with nothing but hand-waving. You're assuming that fish species that currently are in rapid decline live in areas of extreme depth, areas that are entirely different environments from the ones in which they live. We discover fish in very deep areas of the ocean that live nowhere else. They have adapted to those conditions, as they may not be suited or may be less suited for coastal areas, shallow waters, etc.

 

Decline in ocean life is measureable and not by any means as unsure as your statement would imply. Beyond overfishing, ocean acidification, coral bleaching and warming oceans--effects of global warming and the ocean sequestering more carbon dioxide--present serious risks to ocean life. There was a topic about it in Breaking News a while back.

 

All evidence we have says that the world's oceans are in decline. I suppose there's always the slim uncertainty that we're wrong or the unlikely chance that we'll discover a massive food source in some unexplored regions, but I don't think anything indicates that our current relationship with the majority of ocean life isn't unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

The problem is that we're already overfishing many fish species as it is. It doesn't matter how much space there is--it matters whether they're being harvested at a rate faster than they reproduce. Increasing our population to 10 billion and transitioning to a fish-based diet would be a recipe for disaster.

 

The only way to solve our overpopulation problem is to take measures that reduce population. Attempting to live underground, on the sea, or hoping we find an inhabitable planet we can reach is the foolhardy choice of putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

I'm all out of cheesy aphorisms, so I'll stop typing.

Well that's what i'm trying to say.

 

How do we know we are over fishing? We havn't even scratched the surface when it comes to exploring oceans. Heck, we havn't even explored the entire surface of land on our planet - there are islands found all the time with an abundance in fruits and foods to eat. So, there could be trillions upon trillions of fish still left undiscovered, swimming thousands of feet below our deepest nets and fishing lines. I highly doubt we would be able to wipe out an entire population of fish seeing how they have so much more room to live in, and most likely have a mugh higher population then we think.

 

The fish we are wiping out now are mostly freshwater, or ones we catch close to off-shore. There's no point in going to the middle of the ocean to catch fish because the trip out would cost more then the bounty they bring back in. The boat simply can't hold that much. So, there are probably tons more fish in the middle of the sea (where my proposed man-made floating city would be located) as compared to off-shore and in rivers.

But you're making so many assumptions here and discounting scientific understanding with nothing but hand-waving. You're assuming that fish species that currently are in rapid decline live in areas of extreme depth, areas that are entirely different environments from the ones in which they live. We discover fish in very deep areas of the ocean that live nowhere else. They have adapted to those conditions, as they may not be suited or may be less suited for coastal areas, shallow waters, etc.

 

Decline in ocean life is measureable and not by any means as unsure as your statement would imply. Beyond overfishing, ocean acidification, coral bleaching and warming oceans--effects of global warming and the ocean sequestering more carbon dioxide--present serious risks to ocean life. There was a topic about it in Breaking News a while back.

 

All evidence we have says that the world's oceans are in decline. I suppose there's always the slim uncertainty that we're wrong or the unlikely chance that we'll discover a massive food source in some unexplored regions, but I don't think anything indicates that our current relationship with the majority of ocean life isn't unsustainable.

Your second paragraph I will accept, however your first paragraph is made from reading only half of my post.

 

No, i'm not saying that the fish we catch now will be found somewhere else, i'm saying there is the possibility of a completely different species of fish living in unexplored waters that we may harvest and eat. Your last sentence of that paragraph is also a reiteration of what I already said.

 

EDIT: Another thought. I know my idea sounds far-fetched and crazy, as there are many problems that could arise, and many areas that would need to be pefected before a project of this magnitude actually worked - but listen. In these past 100 years we have crafted the power of flight, invented electricity, built computers/robots, perfected sea travel, manufactured cars, and harnessed atomic and nuclear power. That doesn't even scratch the surface. So, what of the next 100 years? How much more advanced are we going to be? It is going to be insane how different our world today is compared to our world in another 100 years. I bet that by then my idea will easily become possible.

Edited by Chaoss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought. 70% of the earth is water. Let's take advantage of that and build upon it. We have mastered sea travel and making sea-worthy ships, so let's expand on this and make a floating apartment complex. Then move on to a small community, town, city, state, country, etc. Take advantage of more then half of the surface area the world has to offer!

It's not land mass that's the problem. We have room for people. What we don't have are the resources to keep those people alive at the level they want to be. Current farm productions are already struggling to keep up with demand. Now farming on the sea is an interesting concept but it would reek havoc on the local biology so that would mean we'd have to go to places with little life, like the middle of the ocean. That means that if anything went wrong, you were screwed.

 

Actually that's not true - North America alone grows enough crop to feed the world three times over. Just for some reason some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to use the vast majority of that crop for feeding unbelievable large farms full of methane producing animals just to kill and eat them. Adding another level to the food chain reduces efficiency hugely.

Here's the thing, as people go up in the world, they want to have more meat in their diet. Sure we could make everybody eat vegetarian and everything would be solved but nobody wants that. We want to eat meat. Forcing people to change their diets is kinda what I would say is on the Orwellian side.

 

So 25% of the population should get to eat meat while 75% don't get to eat? That's the fair option? I'm not saying we should get rid of meat completely, but drastically cutting back on it would work out to be extremely good for everybody involved.

That's a hyperbole but that's not the point. This has nothing to do with fairness. It's a fact of life. Just try to take something people have lived with for generations away. Meat has always been a sign of status since caveman days. The rising middle classes don't want to eat the same vegetables and grains over and over again now that they don't have to. Meat consumption is increasing in the developing world. Trying to slow it down is hard enough but reducing it without breaking into personal freedoms is near impossible.

Would it solve your problems to remind you both that my plan involves living on the sea? Meaning fish (meat) would become a staple of everyone's diet. While we know of most our ocean in terms of "where it is," we really don't know much about what lies below the surface, particularly thousands of feet down.

 

If this Human Population Control would be happening in over a couple decades, we would definatly have the technology to see into the water easier, and possibily would pick out new bounties of fish that we could eat. I doubt the fish population would run out seeing as there is so MUCH space for them to live in.

 

Also regarding the first posts' response to me. I know we have enough area for people to live in, but if you think about it, most of that area is unhabitable, or, would take a ridiculously large amount of resources to make habitable. Japan, for instance, is something like 35% unhabitable because of the geography. That's why they build UP and have people live in towers rather then spewed across the country.

Actually fish stocks are already stressed to the breaking point right now. We've been overfishing them for decades and they've been on the decline. Unless we seriously divert a lot of it from the land, I can't see it being a major way to get food.

 

The thing with marine environments is that there isn't much energy (food) there. Most marine life is clustered in the relative shallows of the continental shelves. There coral reefs can support a wide variety of flora and fauna. The deep oceans are generally deserts except in the arctics and during plankton blooms. The great vastness of the ocean is starved for nutrients.

 

But you realize that the problem isn't space right? Because that's the thing, we need food, water, and energy to sustain higher populations. Without those we see shortages that lead to conflicts that lead to wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with the entire concept of population control is the dividing line between what is ethical and what isn't. Obviously a situation where people actually get killed would (hopefully) be deemed unethical, but eventually the world's governments will have to make some hard decisions. In that regard, something like the one child law would certainly be effective (even with, as mentioned before, a limit of maybe two children). And that will be where we have to decide whether such a thing is ethical. As the situation becomes more desperate, (which may not even occur, with some countries already seeing a decline in population (though this is a very slow process)), the ethical boundaries shift. At this very moment, there are probably very little people that would accept limits to childbirths, especially in the countries with the highest population growth, like India, where people still rely on their kids to get bread on the plate.

As for the seafood issue, I agree with the fact that fishing will probably not be viable. Yes, there are undiscovered fish waiting to be served on our plates with lemon slices, but since there is already overfishing with the current population, those extra fish will be overfished as well if the population growth doesn't stop anytime soon. Then there is also a matter of viability; if we can't easily get there now, it will probably be some time before a cost effective method is invented to get there. Hydroponics is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few people have said space travel is impractical or impossible

Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes, and - all of this - all of this - was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

impractical, impossible, maybe. but to me it looks pretty inevitable. And once we get space travel down, population control, food, nearly all our problems will instantly vanish.

Edited by Dr-Horrible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few people have said space travel is impractical or impossible
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes, and - all of this - all of this - was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

impractical, impossible, maybe. but to me it looks pretty inevitable. And once we get space travel down, population control, food, nearly all our problems will instantly vanish.

 

We won't have to worry about that for another few billion years. By then I'm pretty sure we'd have already blown ourselves up via nuclear wars and all that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.