DescentBB

I don't know where you've been. "Overpopulation" is right up there with "climate change".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't know where you've been. "Overpopulation" is right up there with "climate change".

You mean on the "negligible" rank? If we put our priorities straight, we'll be off this rock far before either becomes a terminal problem.

DoTheGeek, this is not a rock. This happens to be the ideal habitable planet, set in the ideal place in our galaxy, in a universe where such planets are statistically nonexistent and theoretically very rare.

No, I was saying that "overpopulation" is ranked right up there with "climate change" in the "intelligent" minds of our day. Meaning that drastically reducing population is at the top of their to-do list.

Some really smart people built a parabolic shaped building over in the UK, and now it’s setting fires and blistering paint on the buildings in its reflective hotspot.

One would think wisdom and experience would have a right to rule before intelligence any day, but I’m not willing to submit to either.

A truly “intelligent” person would understand the need for the rule of law, and the fact that true authority is earned, given or granted…not simply assumed.

I’ve been giving this premise some thought over the past few days, and have come to the conclusion that it’s as bad an idea as “might makes right” and other concepts where people assume authority based on some particular premise.

And the examples of possible abuse are just too numerous to list.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:DoTheGeek, this is not a rock. This happens to be the ideal habitable planet, set in the ideal place in our galaxy, in a universe where such planets are statistically nonexistent and theoretically very rare.

Rather odd then that such a theoretical improbability happens to be right here in our solar system, orbiting Saturn. That's besides the point even. With technology we can adapt to any environment, not to mention terraforming.

Titan is not an Idea habitable planet the atmosphere would kill you, not to mention the bone chilling −179.2 °C surface temp, good thing the green house gases are there or it would be colder.

Spidey wrote:Some really smart people built a parabolic shaped building over in the UK, and now it’s setting fires and blistering paint on the buildings in its reflective hotspot.

One would think wisdom and experience would have a right to rule before intelligence any day, but I’m not willing to submit to either.

A truly “intelligent” person would understand the need for the rule of law, and the fact that true authority is earned, given or granted…not simply assumed.

I’ve been giving this premise some thought over the past few days, and have come to the conclusion that it’s as bad an idea as “might makes right” and other concepts where people assume authority based on some particular premise.

And the examples of possible abuse are just too numerous to list.

well put.....I would note that a similar concept, under the French name of 'noblesse oblige' worked really well in this country for a couple hundred years, but seems to have fallen apart due to abuse around 'noblesse', with no sense of 'oblige' anymore. I've spoken of this on the board in the past. Spidey makes a great point insofar as ANY scheme that entails a simple equation to describe order in society is suspect, thanks to human nature......

DoTheGeek wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:DoTheGeek, this is not a rock. This happens to be the ideal habitable planet, set in the ideal place in our galaxy, in a universe where such planets are statistically nonexistent and theoretically very rare.

Rather odd then that such a theoretical improbability happens to be right here in our solar system, orbiting Saturn. That's besides the point even. With technology we can adapt to any environment, not to mention terraforming.

Too many Sci-Fi novels. The best argument I can come up with right off-hand is that if what you're saying is true we should be populating the oceans. There's a lot of extra space right there, and the resources are a lot closer (not to mention plenty of water and salt). We aren't. Think about that. I think maybe you don't appreciate the effort and material expense ratio in comparison with life where it was meant to be--in our natural environment. I think some people only reason so far, and the void is filled with fantasy, only they don't seem to know where one ended and the other began...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't know where you've been. "Overpopulation" is right up there with "climate change".

Soooooo, you don't think overpopulation is a problem? In that case, what do you think is going to happen when our oil and natural gas reserves run out in about 100 years, or when the Ogallala Aquifer becomes 70% depleted by 2060 and we start having trouble growing the food our expanding nation needs because of the lack of water for irrigation?

Fresh water will become an even bigger problem, because it already is a BIG problem. The Colorado River runs dry before it hits the ocean and most of the reservoirs along it will never be full again. The farmers are fighting with fish conservationists over the water in our own Klamath basin for water rights. Las Vegas is sinking because they are taking so much water from beneath them that the ground is subsiding. Soon, they'll run out all together. No clean water to drink, more disease as people drink what they can manage to find. No ST, we're headed for a big crash as a species because there are just too many people seeking a resource that that's rapidly dwindling. Clean water is one of those things required for survival and we are using it up way too rapidly.

DoTheGeek, I'm glad your dad remained positive during his chemo, but not everyone does. Nor does it cure most people with stage 4 cancer. Both my mother and grandmother died from lung cancer, AFTER chemo and radiation. Oh, the docs tried and tried to kill it, but it was for naught. They both suffered for about 2 years before the cancer finally killed them. And I mean suffer. They were miserable. I asked my mother one day if it was worth the extra year of life she got due to the chemo. She emphatically said "NO". If she'd had to do it all over again, she would have forgone the treatments that made her so sick and gone out and lived her life to the fullest in that final year, because in the end, she couldn't even enjoy the short time she did have left. Personally, if I got cancer, I would not seek treatment if it entailed chemo and radiation. Cut it out of the body, sure, Poison it to kill it, naa. Life's too short anyway, why make it even more miserable with something that may not cure you, but will definitely make you sick.

Yea, water is the largest problem in the long run…but also the simplest to solve…if we start right now.

I don't see any long term solutions even being seriously looked at. The marketplace doesn't reward that type of long term thinking. Wall Street is a short term place.Typical, wait until the last moment when all is lost, then some hero sweeps in and tries to save the day. They wait until a problem bites them in the butt before they decide to actually light a fire under that same said butt and get something done about it.

Well, it won’t be Wall Street’s job.

It will be a job for all of the governments of the world.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:DoTheGeek, this is not a rock. This happens to be the ideal habitable planet, set in the ideal place in our galaxy, in a universe where such planets are statistically nonexistent and theoretically very rare.

We're actually discovering more "Earth-like" extrasolar planets every day, including a few in the "Goldilocks zone" that would allow for the existence of liquid water. Granted, there's no way in hell we could get to said planets in the foreseeable future, but we know they're out there.

Every day, huh? Ok Mr. hyperbole. How about just one? Pick the best.

TunnelCat wrote:I don't see any long term solutions even being seriously looked at. The marketplace doesn't reward that type of long term thinking. Wall Street is a short term place.Typical, wait until the last moment when all is lost, then some hero sweeps in and tries to save the day. They wait until a problem bites them in the butt before they decide to actually light a fire under that same said butt and get something done about it.

I would like to ask a question... where was the political or social alarm at overpopulation driving the advancements in agriculture, water processing, housing, etc which got us through the last century? Because if all you're saying is that we can't support tomorrow's population with today's way of doing things, I would say what kind of stupid obvious argument do you think you're making? No need to be alarmed, just bear it in mind and don't do things that ★■◆● over the next generation on their way there (*caugh* rising national debt and exporting jobs *caugh*). I swear all of this alarm is nothing more than a *short-sighted* political expedient, and you have been suckered.

Spidey wrote:Well, it won’t be Wall Street’s job.

It will be a job for all of the governments of the world.

Governments work for Wall Street (generally speaking, and very specifically excluding the Obama administration)

So we've come full circle to the source of all of humanity's problems once again: capitalism. It has so abominably integrated itself into everyday life that even the participants in this discussion now take for granted that funding is what makes everything possible. Not that I suggest that such a large group of individuals exists, but suppose hypothetically that a bunch of people who are passionate about clean energy, aeronautics, green methods, etc. and passionate about saving Earth got together and started working on a solution. Would Wall Street need to reward them in order for them to carry out their task? No. Willpower is very obviously on the rise as the new form of currency, as highly advanced technology, new psychotropic drugs, new forms of art, etc. stand poised to facilitate the next major evolution of the human brain (what will be the post-human brain when all is said and done). I forsee that as this happens, money will grow proportionally more valueless (not in material value--in such a value will it grow ever more valuable). But the material will be gradually devalued in the coming century, and the 99.99% who own <.1% of the wealth will be forced to turn to another form of currency: cooperation and willpower. Granted it will be far to late for conventionally proposed solutions by then.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Every day, huh? Ok Mr. hyperbole. How about just one? Pick the best.

Not sure why you're snapping at an innocuous statement, but it's not much of a hyperbole. This is a list of all the extrasolar planets we've discovered up to this date...it comes to an impressive 942 confirmed, with a few thousand additional potentials that haven't been confirmed yet. Out of those, we're looking at about 16 or so terrestrial planets in the "Goldilocks zone," give or take, with multiple other gas giants in the same zone that could potentially have habitable moons. From the current data we've recovered, it's estimated that there could be up to 4.5 billion habitable planets across the entire galaxy. So yeah, they're everywhere.

Anyone would think you were attempting to disprove my statements... As I start clicking down the list, in the first dozen or so, the lowest temperature I'm seeing translates to over 3000 degrees F. Also the mass measurements are all over the place, so the gravity is going to vary drastically. Those are not habitable. If you think I'm wrong let's see some statistics from an inhabitable planet!

...are you just completely ignoring what I'm actually saying? I stated that that link was to every extrasolar planet we've confirmed so far, to show how many we've been finding, so of course most of them won't be habitable. This is especially true given that we're only now able to detect "smaller" planets (i.e. a few times bigger than Earth); previously, our instruments weren't sensitive enough to pick up anything smaller than huge gas giants, so they make up the majority of the list up to this point. As for the stuff we've found that could potentially support human life, knock yourself out.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anyone would think you were attempting to disprove my statements... As I start clicking down the list, in the first dozen or so, the lowest temperature I'm seeing translates to over 3000 degrees F. Also the mass measurements are all over the place, so the gravity is going to vary drastically. Those are not habitable. If you think I'm wrong let's see some statistics from an inhabitable planet!

3000 degrees puts you off, Thorne? Heck, have you ever spent summer in New Orleans? That would seem chilly if the humidity were low enough!

I think people overestimate the possible habitable planets/moons, simply because they keep saying we could live on Mars…and I keep reminding them that Mars doesn’t have a magnetic field…but I never get a response after that.

I mean fine….if you consider “habitable” in some marginal way. Personally if you consider living in domes or in suits as “habitable” then one might as well consider space as habitable.

I think, to amplify Spidey's comments, that we need to separate the concept of existence of habitable planets, with the idea of reachable, habitable planets(or moons of planets). I am convinced that there are, in our universe, several planets which are not only habitable, but likely have robust lifeforms based on carbon/nitrogen/oxygen processes such as those on Earth. Most would, statistically speaking, be millions of light years from here, and I don't see the development of the sort of human transit that would make such places feasable.

So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

I doubt we will be able to travel to far away planets, and settle. I'm not sure, but, I would believe those planets must be a perfect match before we can live there. We might be able to terraform, but before we can do that, we would be able to terraform our own earth, thus no traveling is needed.

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people? And, really, the 'keep government out and let the market operate' mantra is getting a bit tiresome. That is the ticket to a victimization of many for the benefit of a few, and always has been so, hence no responsible society gives that path a serious thought.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?

Irrelevant question.

callmeslick wrote:And, really, the 'keep government out and let the market operate' mantra is getting a bit tiresome. That is the ticket to a victimization of many for the benefit of a few, and always has been so, hence no responsible society gives that path a serious thought.

No, all the problem blamed on the free market is getting tiresome. Because, as you have said yourself (in another tread), it has never been tested thus never existed. So therefore one cannot blame anything on it. We have a mixed economy, and problems must therefore be blamed on that model.
Just to give you some pointers, environmental destruction was far more present in places like old Soviet and communist China, where there was no market operating, thus creating shortages and overuse of resources. In philosophy it's called 'tragedy of the commons' - what nobody owns (same as collectively owned), no one takes care of either. In economy, where the Government operates, price mechanism is destroyed, which blinds us on what we run short of, or what we have too much of. Production and consumption is then distorted.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would like to ask a question... where was the political or social alarm at overpopulation driving the advancements in agriculture, water processing, housing, etc which got us through the last century? Because if all you're saying is that we can't support tomorrow's population with today's way of doing things, I would say what kind of stupid obvious argument do you think you're making? No need to be alarmed, just bear it in mind and don't do things that **** over the next generation on their way there (*caugh* rising national debt and exporting jobs *caugh*). I swear all of this alarm is nothing more than a *short-sighted* political expedient, and you have been suckered.

Welp, I'm old, so I don't give a damn anymore. The world could explode and I could care less. I bore no children, so I didn't contribute any more than myself to the problem that's going to burn humanity in the long run. You want to blame a generation for creating this mess, go after the WWII generation, because they all came back from a world war as the winners, loaded to the gills with high testosterone and joy, and started making babies like there was no tomorrow. They lived during the best of times and reaped the best of it's benefits. So if you don't like all the Boomers taking from you, thank their parents for the mess we have now, because the Boomers had no say in their own creation and are victims just as you. If you can't see the burgeoning load that humanity is placing on our planet's resources, you're looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Land is not the issue. Food, water and energy are the issue. Sooner or later, we'll be fighting major wars over who gets what's left. The minority who are the "haves" will win, the majority who are the "have nots", will die. We're the rats who will be eating each other.

WHT? Read it again. I'm saying the "problem" is overblown, and amounts to little more than a politically expedient for alarmists. What I'm saying is, why should you think that the next 100 years will not find us creating solutions to these issues just as has been done in the past?

LEON wrote:We might be able to terraform, but before we can do that, we would be able to terraform our own earth, thus no traveling is needed.

That is exactly right. It is a special kind of phenomenon for people to be looking to MORE COMPLEX solutions in places VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH just because it's off in the distant future and thus not difficult to believe. Hey Leon, if you give me $20, when I grow up and become rich I'll give you $1,000,000! Anyone here ever hear that?

Top Gun, I've been reading exactly what you've been saying, and what you've done is neatly skirt the issue, all the while giving the impression that Earths are everywhere. Finally you admit that we couldn't even detect a planet of the appropriate size! How do you go from estimating 4.5 billion habitable planets to admitting that we can't even detect planets the same size as our own? Maybe you science buffs are comfortable with a very loose/shallow definition of "habitable" which doesn't actually mean habitable?

Also, I realize that your list was expressly linked as including a wide range of planets. What I would like to know is why? I would like to know why you bothered to link the list instead of picking out a planet. Surely you must know of one! Hell, if earth-like planets are as plentiful as you claim I expect you to have a favorite on a poster in your room!

I'll throw it your way too, slick. Which planet is it that you are "convinced" is not only habitable but inhabited by life forms?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:WHT? Read it again. I'm saying the "problem" is overblown, and amounts to little more than a politically expedient for alarmists. What I'm saying is, why should you think that the next 100 years will not find us creating solutions to these issues just as has been done in the past?

I'm saying it's not being taken seriously enough. Sure, we may invent our way out of the problem in the future, but why don't we as a species seriously take into consideration that we may NOT come up with a solution soon enough to prevent mass suffering? It's not like we won't be able to reproduce more of us in the future.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Top Gun, I've been reading exactly what you've been saying, and what you've done is neatly skirt the issue, all the while giving the impression that Earths are everywhere. Finally you admit that we couldn't even detect a planet of the appropriate size! How do you go from estimating 4.5 billion habitable planets to admitting that we can't even detect planets the same size as our own? Maybe you science buffs are comfortable with a very loose/shallow definition of "habitable" which doesn't actually mean habitable?

Y'know, the snarky bull★■◆● about stuff you can't even be bothered to educate yourself about gets old rather quickly, especially when you go so far as to not ★■◆●ing read the very simple words I'm saying. We started out only being able to find really big exoplanets, because the instruments we were using weren't sensitive enough to see anything smaller. More advanced techniques, notably the Kepler mission, have allowed us to collect data on exoplanets that are only a couple of times the size and mass of Earth, which are referred to as "super-Earths." It won't be too long until we can directly detect stuff right down to the same size as Earth, if not smaller. And yes, "habitable" doesn't necessarily mean "exactly like Earth down to the molecule," because you're not going to get that...but if it's in the correct temperature range and can support liquid water on its surface, it's definitely something that we could work with.

Also, I realize that your list was expressly linked as including a wide range of planets. What I would like to know is why? I would like to know why you bothered to link the list instead of picking out a planet. Surely you must know of one! Hell, if earth-like planets are as plentiful as you claim I expect you to have a favorite on a poster in your room!

Why? Because I wanted to demonstrate just how many of these things we're discovering, and how quickly we're being found. This is just the tip of the iceberg; that list gets expanded on by the week. What we're seeing from observational data is an average of more than one planet in each of the solar systems we look at, and since there are around 100 billion stars in the entire Milky Way galaxy...well, you do the math. Just how unlikely do you think it would be that a decent percentage of those planets aren't places that we could set up shop someday?

You really want one single planet? Here. Have a Kepler-62e.

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?

Irrelevant question.

really? You claim overpopulation isn't a problem. If so, my question should be critical....a what point do you think human population of the Earth is a problem?

callmeslick wrote:And, really, the 'keep government out and let the market operate' mantra is getting a bit tiresome. That is the ticket to a victimization of many for the benefit of a few, and always has been so, hence no responsible society gives that path a serious thought.

No, all the problem blamed on the free market is getting tiresome. Because, as you have said yourself (in another tread), it has never been tested thus never existed. So therefore one cannot blame anything on it. We have a mixed economy, and problems must therefore be blamed on that model.
Just to give you some pointers, environmental destruction was far more present in places like old Soviet and communist China, where there was no market operating, thus creating shortages and overuse of resources. In philosophy it's called 'tragedy of the commons' - what nobody owns (same as collectively owned), no one takes care of either. In economy, where the Government operates, price mechanism is destroyed, which blinds us on what we run short of, or what we have too much of. Production and consumption is then distorted.

[,/quote]
you conveniently leave out the industrial revolution, current 'fracking' damage to the environment, and pretty much every opportunity man has taken under Free Market capitalism to victimize his fellow man environmentally, socially and physically. Sorry, I don't buy your argument for a minute.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll throw it your way too, slick. Which planet is it that you are "convinced" is not only habitable but inhabited by life forms?

there are, with some statistical certitude, likely several out there. They don't have names(at least that I am aware of), nor have theymost likely been discovered. It's just that in a universe with billions of stars, and thus even more billions of planets, the chances for such happening are too high for it not to happen. It isn't like Earth is some sort of one-off environmental miracle, it just seems so as we know little of detail about our own galaxy, let alone other galaxies.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:WHT? Read it again. I'm saying the "problem" is overblown, and amounts to little more than a politically expedient for alarmists. What I'm saying is, why should you think that the next 100 years will not find us creating solutions to these issues just as has been done in the past?

I'm saying it's not being taken seriously enough. Sure, we may invent our way out of the problem in the future, but why don't we as a species seriously take into consideration that we may NOT come up with a solution soon enough to prevent mass suffering? It's not like we won't be able to reproduce more of us in the future.

Can you show me where it was "taken seriously enough" in the past? I'm telling you, an old problem has been re-framed to appear as if it requires a certain power structure to solve it, and I would argue that it's all smoke and mirrors being used on something that is in reality nothing more than business as usual. As I said, the only threat is government itself, and our economy being put in a place where the "problem" will not take care of itself as it has in the past.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?

Irrelevant question.

really? You claim overpopulation isn't a problem. If so, my question should be critical....a what point do you think human population of the Earth is a problem?

How can a population grow past its own foundation?

callmeslick wrote:

callmeslick wrote:And, really, the 'keep government out and let the market operate' mantra is getting a bit tiresome. That is the ticket to a victimization of many for the benefit of a few, and always has been so, hence no responsible society gives that path a serious thought.

No, all the problem blamed on the free market is getting tiresome. Because, as you have said yourself (in another tread), it has never been tested thus never existed. So therefore one cannot blame anything on it. We have a mixed economy, and problems must therefore be blamed on that model.
Just to give you some pointers, environmental destruction was far more present in places like old Soviet and communist China, where there was no market operating, thus creating shortages and overuse of resources. In philosophy it's called 'tragedy of the commons' - what nobody owns (same as collectively owned), no one takes care of either. In economy, where the Government operates, price mechanism is destroyed, which blinds us on what we run short of, or what we have too much of. Production and consumption is then distorted.

[,/quote]
you conveniently leave out the industrial revolution, current 'fracking' damage to the environment, and pretty much every opportunity man has taken under Free Market capitalism to victimize his fellow man environmentally, socially and physically. Sorry, I don't buy your argument for a minute.

??

Well, Top Gun, as much as it may bother you, and as relatively ignorant about the nuances of space exploration as I am, I will insist on some honesty and accuracy when it comes to talking about the possibility of interplanetary population. The fact is that you folks are believing and espousing something that is more fantasy than reality. This is science fiction. You make fun of me by saying "molecule for molecule", but the problem really is one of details. Size/gravity, proper distance from star, proper orbit, star electromagnetic spectrum, planets to shield us, planetary core which creates a magnetic shield, moon, presence of water, atmosphere, ... An awful lot of things are just right for life here on earth. It is a miraculous balance. It boggles my mind--the mind-**** involved in taking an extraordinarily remote possibility and bringing it to the place where supposedly intelligent people would be willing to make policy based upon it. The illogical nature of it all indicates clearly that there is something else at stake.

After all of that navel-gazing is cleared up, there is still the inextricable problem of reaching this lottery-winning planet.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll throw it your way too, slick. Which planet is it that you are "convinced" is not only habitable but inhabited by life forms?

there are, with some statistical certitude, likely several out there. They don't have names(at least that I am aware of), nor have theymost likely been discovered. It's just that in a universe with billions of stars, and thus even more billions of planets, the chances for such happening are too high for it not to happen. It isn't like Earth is some sort of one-off environmental miracle, it just seems so as we know little of detail about our own galaxy, let alone other galaxies.

That's what I thought. I'm afraid your statistics are merely impressions. More to the point, by what definition is the Earth not an environmental miracle?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll throw it your way too, slick. Which planet is it that you are "convinced" is not only habitable but inhabited by life forms?

there are, with some statistical certitude, likely several out there. They don't have names(at least that I am aware of), nor have theymost likely been discovered. It's just that in a universe with billions of stars, and thus even more billions of planets, the chances for such happening are too high for it not to happen. It isn't like Earth is some sort of one-off environmental miracle, it just seems so as we know little of detail about our own galaxy, let alone other galaxies.

That's what I thought. I'm afraid your statistics are merely impressions. More to the point, by what definition is the Earth not an environmental miracle?

I agree that life on Earth is a miracle, of sorts, I merely am stating that there is NO WAY it is an isolated miracle. Similar developments had to occur elsewhere in this vast Universe.

I wasn't even talking about life, I was (we were) talking about just the environment for life.

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?

Irrelevant question.

really? You claim overpopulation isn't a problem. If so, my question should be critical....a what point do you think human population of the Earth is a problem?

How can a population grow past its own foundation?

easily, it happens all the time, and then the population goes through a dramatic crash. There is a whole field, called Population Dynamics, that deals with the study of these things. Humans, unfortunately perhaps, have the capacity to overpopulate to the point where they destroy other species' ability to survive the process, and thus can lead to a complete, irreversable decimation of our 'foundation', or ecosystem, if one prefers that term.