Where do we go from here?

[Mulholland]

The average western population will continue to sit on thier arse and only discuss things like professional sports, HDTV, shopping, and cars- blissfully unaware that this type of willfull ingorance and passive consumption that is activley destroying the world around them. They'll look at thier TV screen when the next disaster/war strikes and watch it from the saftey of thier own livingroom. They'll say things like "oh that's terrible, I feel really bad for those people" but not have the power to do anyting. They'll quash thier inability to do anything meaningful with addictions/distractions while it is infact thier behaviour that is really causiing the world to melt down around them. Inequaluity will get more prounced and many billions will die from war, famine, disasters. I see more of the same only more acute.



But that's OK tecnology will be alot cooler.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

We do both and more!

We also gotta putt stuffs on the moon and other moons because moons are moony.

Well, I agree with you. But... why exactly do we want to do this? I'm not entirely certain, myself, except that I seem to have Manifest Destiny built into me...

 

[Gogf]

Dismantle the suburbs and change them into tens of thousands of ecovillages instead.

What positive effect would dismantling suburbs have?

What, exactly, is an "ecovillage."

Place human interest over economic interest.

Economic interest is human interest.

Voluntarily reduce population.

So we should just start killing off people because the population is "too high"? Why is the population too high?

I would also call into question the utility of "voluntarily reducing the population." Since you're apparently trying to avoid some sort of mass starvation, you're proposing that we kill off large segments of the population in order to prevent mass death.

 

[Narz]

What positive effect would dismantling suburbs have?

It would make the landscape prettier for one.

What, exactly, is an "ecovillage."

Google &/or wikipedia are both your friends, you're popular.

Economic interest is human interest.

Well, long term economic interest is.

So we should just start killing off people because the population is "too high"?

No, hence the word "voluntary".

Why is the population too high?

People (especially in the 3rd world) reproduce too much.

I would also call into question the utility of "voluntarily reducing the population." Since you're apparently trying to avoid some sort of mass starvation, you're proposing that we kill off large segments of the population in order to prevent mass death.

No, just advise they not have so many babies.

 

[Mulholland]

Narz. All I have to say is that you're a good man. Stay true to your beliefs no matter what those bastards say. I hope all is well in Florida.

 

[Gogf]

Yup, hope you're enjoying it down there .

It would make the landscape prettier for one.

That's subjective. Can you offer an objective reason why we should "dismantle the suburbs"?

Google &/or wikipedia are both your friends, you're popular.

I'm sure there are a lot of definitions of "ecovillages" floating around. I want to know what you mean by them.

No, hence the word "voluntary".

So you're asking people to kill themselves because the world is overpopulated?

People (especially in the 3rd world) reproduce too much.

That's not what I meant. What makes the current population too high?

No, just advise they not have so many babies.

The result is still the same.

 

[Turner]

I think overpopulation is a lot of hype.

There are huge open spaces that are underpopulated and with time could be turned into very productive regions. Unfortunately, a lot of this open space is in politically unstable areas and development is in part hindered by the fear that a venture into those territories may result in expropriation of assets.

I think it would be easier to build up than to build out. Use the space that we have to grow food. Of course, with a little ingenuity the greenhouses could be incorporated into the high rise arcologies we'll be living in. I'm not talking rooftop gardens, either. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out a way to duct the sunlight from outside into the greenhouses inside.

We're a long ways away from making this planet uninhabitable. Especially once we get over the oil dependence and move on to better energy sources.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I agree with you. But... why exactly do we want to do this?

Because it's COOL! Duh!

 

[ummmm........]

This thread title makes me want to break into that song from the Buffy musical every time I read it.

To answer the OP, I'd say we'll keep going for a while until we eventually peter out, and nothing will remember us once we're gone. But that'll be long after I'm dead, so I don't care

 

[Narz]

Narz. All I have to say is that you're a good man. Stay true to your beliefs no matter what those bastards say. I hope all is well in Florida.

Thanks Mulholland. Actually I'm in Central California now.

Yup, hope you're enjoying it down there .

Thanks, I try to enjoy it wherever I am.

That's subjective. Can you offer an objective reason why we should "dismantle the suburbs"?

They aren't sustainable. They destroy natural diversity. I could think of other reasons but they're mostly subjective.

I'm sure there are a lot of definitions of "ecovillages" floating around. I want to know what you mean by them.

Any community that is at least 50% self sufficient (in terms of food, resources and human services).

So you're asking people to kill themselves because the world is overpopulated?

No. Just to not reproduce irresponsibly.

That's not what I meant. What makes the current population too high?

The amount of humans alive today are lowing quality of life per capita. More arguments here : http://dieoff.org/index.htm#foodpop

The result is still the same.

Suggesting people have one child (or none) is not the same as suggesting that they kill each other.

Unsustainably population growth will ultimately lead to disaster and misery for those alive. It can be seen on the faces of malnourished, diseased and neglected children in parts of Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

 

[Perfection]

They aren't sustainable. They destroy natural diversity.

You're not insinuating that the loss of biodeversity is the reason they aren't sustainable are you?

Any community that is at least 50% self sufficient (in terms of food, resources and human services).

I think we should have one community that is 100% self-sufficient!

The amount of humans alive today are lowing quality of life per capita.

Nope! We're doing better then ever!

Unsustainably population growth will ultimately lead to disaster and misery for those alive. It can be seen on the faces of malnourished, diseased and neglected children in parts of Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

Population growth isn't the big problem, the big problem is getting everyone to work together so the logistics work out.

 

[Princeps]

Just a notice on the BBC article. Asteroids don't drop on earth, meteorites do.

 

[Perfection]

Just a notice on the BBC article. Asteroids don't drop on earth, meteorites do.

Completely false. Asteroids can drop on earth, but meteorites cannot (because by definition they already have).

 

[Narz]

You're not insinuating that the loss of biodeversity is the reason they aren't sustainable are you?

No, certainly it's not the sole reason but loss of biodiversity does negatively effect human life and survival though.

I think we should have one community that is 100% self-sufficient!

That'd be nice but there's nothing wrong with trade.

Nope! We're doing better then ever!

Whatever you say. You're living in a blessed period. Enjoying all the fruits of human labor from years past while only beginning to suffer some of the negative consequences.

Population growth isn't the big problem, the big problem is getting everyone to work together so the logistics work out.

A cornucopian vision. The logistics aren't working out and as population grows and energy supplies begin to shrink things will become more and more chaotic, and no longer only far removed from us in the 3rd world. Cheap energy is what allows so many to govern so few, as energy prices rise the cost of globalization will become apparent. Places already overpopulated will suffer the most but there will be a "trickle up" effect as well.

 

[Perfection]

That'd be nice but there's nothing wrong with trade.

Trade is essential to get one community with 100% self suffiency.

Whatever you say. You're living in a blessed period. Enjoying all the fruits of human labor from years past while only beginning to suffer some of the negative consequences.

You just don't know a good thing when you see it.

A cornucopian vision. The logistics aren't working out and as population grows and energy supplies begin to shrink things will become more and more chaotic, and no longer only far removed from us in the 3rd world. Cheap energy is what allows so many to govern so few, as energy prices rise the cost of globalization will become apparent. Places already overpopulated will suffer the most but there will be a "trickle up" effect as well.

Meh, more peak oil bunk, I don't care to debate that anymore with you. Suffice it to other forms of energy exist, and they can be made affordable.

 

[Arcadian83]

We cannot currently destroy the planet. We can only make it uninhabitable to ourselves, and once we disappear, it will return to its natural course in a few million years as though we were never there.

I predict we will be mostly (95%+ of population) on Earth for at least another hundred years. We need to improve things here much more before it becomes practical to move beyond the Earth.

We need to increase productivity (the amount of utility gained from labor). This is accomplished through technology and capital. Particularly automation-related technologies which accompish tasks with only the minimal management of the automation.

By means of increased productivity and greater technology, scarcity will be diminished, and more lofty goals will become possible.

(By 'technology' I mean any factor which increases productivity without additional capital value or labor, this includes immaterial things like better teaching methodologies, better social hierarchies, etc.)

 

[Princeps]

Completely false. Asteroids can drop on earth, but meteorites cannot (because by definition they already have).

It becomes a metorite when it enters the gassious part of a planet--- namely in this case, earth's atmosphere. Thus, meteorites strike. It is an asteroid while it is still a planetoid...

EDIT: my first post was to the wrong forum!!!

 

[Swedishguy]

We cannot currently destroy the planet. We can only make it uninhabitable to ourselves, and once we disappear, it will return to its natural course in a few million years as though we were never there.

I predict we will be mostly (95%+ of population) on Earth for at least another hundred years. We need to improve things here much more before it becomes practical to move beyond the Earth.

We need to increase productivity (the amount of utility gained from labor). This is accomplished through technology and capital. Particularly automation-related technologies which accompish tasks with only the minimal management of the automation.

By means of increased productivity and greater technology, scarcity will be diminished, and more lofty goals will become possible.

(By 'technology' I mean any factor which increases productivity without additional capital value or labor, this includes immaterial things like better teaching methodologies, better social hierarchies, etc.)

This is the most intellectual post in the whole thread. I fully agree with you! Good work!

And global cooperation is also important.

 

[Sidhe]

Is it down to the lake I fear?

If I get my way, we will be able to destroy the Earth and much of the surrounding solar system.

Depends, if everyone everywhere can stop acting like children for five minutes and learn to play nice, then maybe we have a chance? Otherwise we might as well nuke the planet now and let nature retake it's course.

 

[Perfection]

It becomes a metorite when it enters the gassious part of a planet--- namely in this case, earth's atmosphere.

No, that's a meteor. Meteorites are completely post strike.

Thus, meteorites strike. It is an asteroid while it is still a planetoid...

The progression is as follows:
Meteoroid (small debris in space) or Asteroid (large hunk of space crap) ---atmospheric entry----> meteor ("shooting star") ----impact----> meteorite (space rock).
Thus during the falling phase it is a meteoroid at first then a meteor.