Hahahahahah. Thats funny. The imperial claw is being kept on countries in quite another way, generally to do with resource extraction.
Helium is found and obtained from all oil wells in the world, although not many have the equipment to retrieve it and store for ulterior sale. Perhaps the helim is running out in that well in Texas (along to its present oil content). But when they reopen that weel after say 30 years of being shut down, they will find it replenishing, as it has happened with many wells in the Galveston area, Bolivia, Argentina, etc. Of course, the replenishing occurred has not the importance of the previous ancient deposits. 30 or 40 years time of new oil formation cannot be compared with millions or billions years of Earths's geological history.
Then perhaps we will learn to design a matter replicator a la Star Trek? There is no physical law that would prevent us in doing so.... By 2050, we should have computers that are powerful enough to think and design innovative solutions to our pathetic problems....
Not me, do you? And what's the evidence for such a claim? It sounds like the Good Old Green Litany again... not again, please!
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp it sounds to me that consumerism is playing a role in some important natural resources.
If we do start running out of resources, then we will probably find another planet with resources that we need and we (humans) will dran the hell out of it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am just saying this beacuse Humans in general are fucking greedy.
'If we do start running out of resources, then we will probably find another planet with resources that we need and we (humans) will dran the hell out of it. I am just saying this beacuse Humans in general are fucking greedy.' sad, but VERY true. i totally agree. we'll find some planet/comet to steal resources from.
I figure there is no major problem currently in existance that could not be solved by fewer people. I figure things will become much easier when warfare is revolutionized by the contraceptive bomb. Suddenly people actually have to take a pill in order to have children instead of the reverse.
Well doesn't that seem a rather far-fetched gamble? How do you know that humans are even smart enough to make matter replicators? Yeah, I like that idea too, but don't know if we shall ever see them. Rather, I believe that human population growth makes resouces more abundant and reduces pollution, because all those people don't just sit around and do nothing. They expand the workforce, have creative ideas, and accelerate the growth of technology. And I think history has indeed supported this view. So does the Biblical worldview and God's commandment to people to multiply and fill the earth. People are getting richer and living longer, even as human populations accumulate throughout the world. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thus, human population growth self-accomodates and should be considered a great asset, not hardly a "problem" to "solve" somehow. Because more and more people would be glad to live, large families should still be encouraged worldwide, to benefit "the many" who couldn't live otherwise. If we ever get those matter or food replicators or ever colonize other worlds, I think it won't be because there were merely a nice mere convenience, but rather because we need them, because the population has grown so large. We likely would find it too expensive or too not cost-effective or we would be too lazy to colonize other worlds, until we "out-grow" this one, and the massive and still-expanding human population pushes the necessary technology forward. So how do we invent "matter replicators?" I say have lots of kids, and maybe one of them will invent them? They say that "necessity is the mother of invention," don't they? If you want "food replicators," help multiply the number of mouths to feed on the earth, so that their possible invention becomes more likely. I don't think much of that sci-fi stuff will occur anyhow, as we seem too near the Biblical endtimes to have time.
This article is the exact same argument made in the book "Limits to Growth." That was published in the 1970's, and they made all kinds of claims, none of which came true. This lie is so worn out it is now a cliche.
Well, better start saving up one heckuva stockpile now, for 2050. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The problem (partly) is that even if all the difficulties with finding another planet to suck dry are overcome, "we" will not be doing anything: some few people somewhere will exploit the hell out of it (or colonize a brave new frontier, if you prefer) while the majority of the population is left behind to rot. Bellieve it.
Well I much rather be "left behind" on some "overcrowded" planet, and exist, than to never have been born because there were fewer people having opportunity to live. The population control freaks, paranoid pessimists, gloom-and-doomers, or whatever is appropriate to call them, would probably have us believe that we need more planets, for people to keep multiplying, or for more people to have wealth, and yet they ignore the possibility, that if we had new space or other planet colonies everywhere just "begging" for more people, most people, loving being lazy or their familiar surroundings, would still probably choose to stay on the earth, "crowded" or not. So of what relevance would more "space colonies" be anyways, at least in the near future? Except for cool sci-fi movies. We should have strong families and clean up our culture, and not put too much faith in far-fetched fantasies like building more inhabited planet/colonies for humans. If we ever need to colonize more worlds, I imagine some means to do that, will be found. Right now, I think that excessive space exploration would just be a huge "suck" on taxpayer dollars, and produce little. Until we have better technology such that I can afford a flying car to fly to Mars, venturing far into outer space, just isn't very cost effective without better technology first.
It's pretty clear that our demand for resources (food, water, misc. biomass, air) is increasing exponentially, driven by the exponential growth curve in population and intesified consumerism in both developed and under-developed nations. It's also clear that the resources of the planet are finite. Those two lines will intersect at time - that's mathematical certainty. There's ample evidence to suggest that resources are reaching critical points. You can dismiss this evidence as green propoganda if you want, but that seems pretty ignorant since I'm sure you haven't read a single scientific paper on the subject.
It is also a mathematical certainity that our sun will go supernova and kill all of us....or that another Iceage wipe out a major chunk of the population. The prudent direction should be aiming towards a zero population growth through education and focusing on technology as in Clark's 3001 while developing policies to reduce urban congestion and pollution - like insourcing jobs to rural areas.
Well of course human population is supposed to grow on an exponential curve. I am fully in favor of that. Think about it. If God wanted the human population to grow quite large, what better way than an exponential curve? It would seem the main restriction on how fast human populations can grow, is the limited number of parents to raise all the children. As the number of women of childbearing age steadily rises around the world, then of course babies can be added to the world at a faster rate, as all those additional children have all the more parents to care for them. And all the more population and larger workforce to build up the infrastructure for still more population. Malthus, the apparent father of population gloom and doom, said that somebody must die to make room for each new birth. Back when the world only had around a billion people. Good thing people didn't follow his perverted advise. Lest you and I would never have been born. What about the obvious alternative? Why not simply leave births unrestricted, celebrate the precious gift of life from God, and welcome human populations to accumulate? Because "faith" might be required? Well I don't have much "faith" in Malthus' non-solution, as it has little benefit for humanity nor the few humans remaining with little freedom and population "control" tyranny. Where can we put all the additional people? Simple. In between all the people already living. World population can indeed grow larger and denser, as the world is nowhere near "full." Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be far more if ever need be. Growth in population on a "finite" planet? Critical points you say? Well not within the forseeable future. Just because a few pessimists might think they can spot some "growing pains" of the burgeoning world population, does not mean that humans still could not survive and thrive in a world continuing to grow more and more populous. I count the rising population as great progress for humanity, and all the more people around to enjoy and experience life. It is great news and something to celebrate. For each person that dies, 3 more are born. Long lifespan, people being better fed, increasing wealth and technology around the world, ought to be good news to celebrate, and I think such things are really driven and accelerated by population growth, or God's grace and will for human populations to continue to grow. What do "critical points" mean anyways? I suggest that they not be negative. Doesn't the baby inside the womb reach some "critical point" in size, before labor and birth begins? Is there some "critical point" at which human freedom, and dignity, should no longer be respected, and people no longer allowed to bring precious new human life into the world? Not unless God takes away our ability to reproduce in the Biblical endtimes. Rather, isn't "necessity the mother of invention?" I think people think about it backwards. Rather than waiting for "food replicators" before we welcome people to keep having so many babies, maybe if the world eventually someday, hypothetically, grows so full of people, that we need "food replicators" to feed all those hungry mouths, then they will then be invented. If we ever want to actually colonize other worlds, rather than merely dream about it in sci-fi movies, perhaps we will have to "out-grow" this planet, to push the technology forward to make it possible? As population growth accelerates the technologies that eventually do so much to help accomodate today's swollen human populations (compared to "historical" norms), I say that human population growth self-accomodates, and so for the sakes of human freedom and dignity, and obeying God's commandment to multiply and fill the earth, that humans should only seek to accomodate human population expansion, and do nothing at all to "limit" actual human numbers. That better benefits "the many" people. Married couples should be encouraged to go ahead and have "all the children that God gives," and avoid "preventative measures" to limit family size, as what child wouldn't rather have been born than not exist at all, even if into a large family with so many children that the younger children might share beds for a while? The 10th child is just as precious and valuable as the 1st child, so population size is the jurisdiction of God, and not humans. Population is what it is. And I want my children to know how much they are wanted, in knowing that their parents don't practice any form of "birth control" nor rhythm, as more children are always welcome, if God is willing to give us more. And I hope they would have faith in God's ways, and do the same for their children, even in a more populous world, than today's. To live in a child-friendly, family-friendly, pronatalist (favoring childbearing) and rather populous world, would be a far better place to live, than a crueler, but more sparsely populated world. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pronatalist, why do you bother to type out new posts? Just cut and paste one of your old ones, they are all the same! (if anyone reading this doubts me, do a search of his posts) Various nuts out there latch on to certain passages in the bibull, and then dedicate their lives to them. You've really got "be fruitful and multiply" stuck in yours. Have you ever even considered the possibility that there is no god? We humans are in control of our own destiny, at least to the extent that our biological determinism allows. If we allow ourselves to multiply out of control, (like bacteria in a Petri dish full of agar agar) until there is a big die off, we will have no one but ourselves to blame. Yes, you can always blame starvation and want on politics and nationalism, and the uneven distribution of resources it causes. What possible reason do you have to think that these forces are going to do anything but get stronger?
What if we allow ourselves to "multiply out of control," and there is no "die off?" What if nature really doesn't care how populous humans get? What if there is no God? Well if this life is all there is, then it's pretty crummy and short. If there is no God, then we all die, with no hope. Do the details of how really make a lot of difference, with no eternal destiny? We humans are in control of our own destiny? Are you serious? How many of us even get to choose our jobs? Isn't it more like our employers decide who they want to hire? We don't even seem to have much control over how many children we have. How many people struggle for years to conceive a child, or another child? How many people end up having to adopt, that is if they can even find a child to be placed with them? It takes a lot of work to add another billion people to the planet, so it is rather unlikely to happen "overnight" or "accidentally" or without people even thinking about it. If humans keep breeding up their numbers, wouldn't it be better if people did it willingly and deliberately? Wouldn't it be more prudent to make plans for and to welcome the population increase that may or may not be inevitable anyways? If humans have any say about it, humans should be encouraged to "multiply out of control," as it is not something that humans were meant to control, and more and more people would be glad to live. To do the most good for the most people, would seem to also imply that whatever "ideal" population size should be rather large, or even nearly "as large as possible." What does "control" in this case mean anyways? Wouldn't a more accurate word be on the order of "tyranny," or "anti-life?" The planet is still quite huge, and it would take a tremendous human population to "fill" it, so there is little danger in welcoming the nations to keep growing more and more populous, to benefit "the many" people. Sure, I think much of the third world nations are growing so populous that they should modernize and get flush toilets and clean electric and gas stoves, for proper sanitation and to stop the pollution of themselves hovering over smoky cooking fires of wood, trash, or dung, but we already have ample technology and sanitation methods, to welcome all the nations to keep growing in population so all the more people can enjoy living. The answer to the population concern, is not to diss life and try to magically cut birthrates while contradictorially supposedly respecting the lives of all the people already here; but to leave birthrates unrestricted, welcome each and every person, and rather urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. Human populations have 3 perspectial dimensions into which they may grow: outwards, inwards, and upwards. We can grow outwards and build more cities and towns, and welcome existing cities and towns to sprawl as they swell with people and all the children those people enjoy having. Humans should be welcome to spread over and fill more and more of the land. We can also grow inwards, and infill underutilized land or allow more people to live in the same amount of space. More streets and homes can be built in regions of cities where people already live. We can also grow upwards and more people live in highrise apartments or condos. I advocate all 3, especially people growing outwards over the land. I suppose most people have not given serious thought to how many billions or 100s of billions of people there could be plenty of room for, if human populations were welcome and encouraged to grow into all 3 dimensions, so that everybody's children could still be welcome far into the future. One point though. If there is a God after all, then it is probably far safer for human populations to grow "out of control," as it is far more likely that the Earth was really designed for large and growing human populations, than had humans somehow magically come about by "evolutionary" happenstance, chance. So that is just another reason for people to learn the truth about their eternity destiny and come to faith in the true God of Abraham, the one of which we read in the Bible. But if the world could, hypothetically hold, perhaps up to some 200 billion people, then why worry if world population eventually soars beyond 30 billion? Wouldn't a mere 6 billion people be a huge waste of potential? Shouldn't an "optimal" size human population, if such a thing could even be defined by humans, seek to populate the world, and any other worlds we might reach?, to its full potential? And isn't world population already "controlled" by the time it takes human populations to expand; people increasingly becoming either too lazy, selfish, or preoccupied to breed, as in the "demographic transition" (no doubt helped along by anti-life contraceptive pushing); and people being intelligent enough to make decisions about marriage and employment and childbearing without anti-life coercion? How long have the gloom-and-doomers, who usually are the same people who reject God and faith and dreams, and think rather small, been harping that we should have all starved to death by now? And yet the world has more mouths to feed than ever, people are living longer, obesity is a growing problem in China and even a recent news story said that the dogs in China are becoming obese, and wealth and technology is growing. So it rather looks to me, as the world population continues to grow, that at the same time the world grows all the more "underpopulated," having all the more capacity for still more people. And that is because human population already self-accomodates, especially with good leadership. The population growth already has its own seeds for its accomodation, so there never was any need to slow human population growth. And as the population accumulates, we also accumulate more people coming into adulthood who want to have children themselves. So we accumulate all the more people and reason and drive towards more population. Which is all the more reason to welcome human populations to expand, which the people obviously must want. "The more the merrier," they say. Why do I bother to type new posts? Because the world has far too much bad news, and there is far too much a "culture of death" abortion mentality, contributed to by lack of faith in God, selfishness, and lack of respect for human life. The positive side of the issue, that human population growth may actually be good for people and society, just isn't heard enough, even though it is far more scientific and logical than hearsay gloom-and-doom population pessimism. Humans are social creatures, and can both survive and thrive, even at high population densities. Especially if that's what we purpose to do. I type because I care about people. Because I really don't think nature "cares" just how populated humans get. Why do you think there is so many people now? I rather believe it is no "accident," but by design for some great purpose. I see it as great progress for humanity, whether or not our large population size is supposedly "intentional" or not. When God gave "dominion" over nature and such to humans, why could that not have included an invitation or implication for humans to grow to among the most populous of large mammals? Couldn't numerical superiority, or outnumbering other kinds of creatures, be part of "dominion?" It's nothing to be embarrassed about, but something rather cool for us humans at least. We don't breed fast, but rather live a long time, and so rather relentlessly accumulate in numbers, over time, which gives ample time to prepare and adapt to our population expansion. Each person has great value imputed to them by God, and people value themselves, so each person is just as valuable, precious, and essential, regardless of overall population size. So babies should be just as welcome throughout the world, even in the most populous of nations or communties. Large families should be encouraged worldwide, so that all the more people may live. It is up to God to decide how numerous he wants to make people. Some people without a lot of vision, may claim that "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," was for a time long ago before there were so many people as there are today. But is that really logical? While to fill an "empty" planet may be *a* reason to encourage large families, is it really the *best* reason? I think not. The real reason for people to multiply, would be so that all the more humans can experience life. Thus, "be fruitful and multiply" is just as relevant today, in today's world of "burgeoning billions." As the world could still *hold* a lot more people if ever need be. Our children still rather like living, and people today do have much more opportunity and exciting things to do and technology, so we should still have them, even though even more billions of people might be added to the planet in the process. It is well worth it to welcome and enjoy our children.
