5 ms·

> I think that, before colonizing other planets, we should start by realizing that Earth can easily sustain human kind for the foreseeable future, given some pr

> I think that, before colonizing other planets, we should start by realizing that Earth can easily sustain human kind for the foreseeable future, given some pretty modest tweaks to our way of life (compared to "going multi-planetary" that is). What a horrible lie to spread. What you said is hardly the case at all. Scientists have known for many decades that Earth is already beyond its carrying capacity. Multiply that by the fact that our natural ecosystem is collapsing way faster than any estimates, and you get the fact that humanity has NO CHOICE but to establish a self-sufficient colony off Earth as soon as we possibly can. You're in denial about the severity of our situation, but without realizing it you're also not aware of the reality of the problem. CO2 is not the real main cause of global warming; and global warming is just the first step in a series of steps that will result in the destruction of human civilization. I've already got verification of this through lots of research and collaboration with peers and we'll be publishing a paper soon. But completely aside from whether this supposed cataclysm is going to happen in 1 year or 200 years, and given that technology continues to develop and be used, why on Earth wouldn't we ensure our survival by distributing ourselves? I would apologize for my tone but to be honest it's imperative that you and the the people around you open your eyes to the reality. If not, you will also perish. Would you rather live forever or perish forever? And if someone appears in front of you and says "here is your way to live forever", would you turn away from them or would you try to verify their proof?

Demiurge 10y ago
You keep alluding to some cataclysm but that's not enough to make your point count to say you have some paper in the works.
- blueprint 10y ago
  Of course. When I find people who are truthful enough to be able to pursue the line of questions that could lead them to having to abandon their existing knowledge, I can guide them to see the world by making their questions concrete enough, and then helping them to confirm them. But those people are the exception. When you observe me doing this on the internet, most people can't understand what I say, much less have the spirit to confirm it. In nature, it's much easier to fall down a mountain than it is to climb up it. In philosophy and psychology, people who have falsehood in their consciousness plus a weak will feel sick and overburdened when they hear the explanations and processes which make them open their eyes to the reality. When you want to confirm something specific, let me know. Then I can give you a specific answer.
  - Demiurge 10y ago
    You're not saying anything factual, at all. You need to back up your assertions, not as someone to prove your assertion negative.
    - blueprint 10y ago
      What could I do aside from showing you more equations and more examples? Can you understand them even if I tell you? While you demand that I show you proof, you don't realize the proof is right in front of your eyes, all around you, in any field or sector.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - lexhaynes 10y ago
    Paranoid delusions?
    - blueprint 10y ago
      Rationalizations of psychological buffering?
chc 10y ago
If we're able to survive on a planet with inhospitable temperatures and no ecosystem, why would climate change and ecosystem destruction be a problem? It's almost impossible to make our planet as inhospitable as Titan, where coming into brief contact with the air would leave grievous and permanent injury due to freezing, sunlight is so weak that it's basically incapable of supporting either solar power or agriculture, and there's no oxygen at all. What cataclysm could kill life on earth if we have the ability to survive in a place like that?
- blueprint 10y ago
  Good question. The problem I'm talking about originates in the gravity field of Earth. Human activities have formed an obstruction in its circulation which according to models can lead, rather quickly, to a big explosion of energy from the core. But it's pretty tough to find people who I can converse properly with about gravity because even the majority of specialists today lack (a) the basic knowledge about how gravity is generated, how it maintains itself, and what circumstance would cause an already-formed gravity field to lose itself, and (b) the basic willingness to question the knowledge they piled up in their heads. Whenever/wherever science and technology develop, humans will tend to use it for bad results because it's easier, more comfortable, and more convenient for people to be ignorant. Combine that with the fact that any habitable planet's ecosystem is homeostatic and you get the result that humans destroying their environment is pre-determined to occur. I can't speak to what would happen if humans were actually able to make it off Earth but I could say that I have a much stronger case to show that humans destroying their environment has happened before multiple times in the past than the argument to show that humans just developed agriculture within the last 10,000 years. However, that's somewhat besides the point. The only real answer to your question is that humans are going to do it again no matter what planet they're on, it's just that we are very much out of time on Earth right now. If we are for some reason actually able to establish other self-sufficient colonies then the only way they can maintain their stability is for a majority consensus of individuals in the society to be correctly taught, correctly understand, and accept the fundamental principle of what kind of causes in what problems lead to what kind of effect so that the society doesn't lose justice. But it's sort of an idealist situation because we can barely do that kind of thing in small groups.
banach 10y ago
I understand your concerns, but I am not taking my ideas out of thin air. Here are some references to corroborate my claims. Ways to address climate change: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/people-still-don-t-get-the-link-between-meat-consumption-and-climate-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/people-still... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000374 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709... Way to address the supposed food crisis: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/aug/26/f...
wallace_f 10y ago
> Scientists have known for many decades that Earth is already beyond its carrying capacity. People were saying this before the Enlightenment. There is no evidence that this is true. Our population is probably not sustainable with the way that we currently treat the environment, but that doesn't mean we can't evolve our sophistication. This has been the same forever. Alternatively, a population on earth of 50 people is arguably not sustainable if they spend their efforts trying to kill each other with the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. There's no such thing as an inherent carrying capacity of people irrespective of technology or total biomass.

Demiurge 10y ago

You keep alluding to some cataclysm but that's not enough to make your point count to say you have some paper in the works.

blueprint 10y ago
Of course. When I find people who are truthful enough to be able to pursue the line of questions that could lead them to having to abandon their existing knowledge, I can guide them to see the world by making their questions concrete enough, and then helping them to confirm them. But those people are the exception. When you observe me doing this on the internet, most people can't understand what I say, much less have the spirit to confirm it. In nature, it's much easier to fall down a mountain than it is to climb up it. In philosophy and psychology, people who have falsehood in their consciousness plus a weak will feel sick and overburdened when they hear the explanations and processes which make them open their eyes to the reality. When you want to confirm something specific, let me know. Then I can give you a specific answer.
- Demiurge 10y ago
  You're not saying anything factual, at all. You need to back up your assertions, not as someone to prove your assertion negative.
  - blueprint 10y ago
    What could I do aside from showing you more equations and more examples? Can you understand them even if I tell you? While you demand that I show you proof, you don't realize the proof is right in front of your eyes, all around you, in any field or sector.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- lexhaynes 10y ago
  Paranoid delusions?
  - blueprint 10y ago
    Rationalizations of psychological buffering?

chc 10y ago

If we're able to survive on a planet with inhospitable temperatures and no ecosystem, why would climate change and ecosystem destruction be a problem? It's almost impossible to make our planet as inhospitable as Titan, where coming into brief contact with the air would leave grievous and permanent injury due to freezing, sunlight is so weak that it's basically incapable of supporting either solar power or agriculture, and there's no oxygen at all. What cataclysm could kill life on earth if we have the ability to survive in a place like that?

blueprint 10y ago
Good question. The problem I'm talking about originates in the gravity field of Earth. Human activities have formed an obstruction in its circulation which according to models can lead, rather quickly, to a big explosion of energy from the core. But it's pretty tough to find people who I can converse properly with about gravity because even the majority of specialists today lack (a) the basic knowledge about how gravity is generated, how it maintains itself, and what circumstance would cause an already-formed gravity field to lose itself, and (b) the basic willingness to question the knowledge they piled up in their heads. Whenever/wherever science and technology develop, humans will tend to use it for bad results because it's easier, more comfortable, and more convenient for people to be ignorant. Combine that with the fact that any habitable planet's ecosystem is homeostatic and you get the result that humans destroying their environment is pre-determined to occur. I can't speak to what would happen if humans were actually able to make it off Earth but I could say that I have a much stronger case to show that humans destroying their environment has happened before multiple times in the past than the argument to show that humans just developed agriculture within the last 10,000 years. However, that's somewhat besides the point. The only real answer to your question is that humans are going to do it again no matter what planet they're on, it's just that we are very much out of time on Earth right now. If we are for some reason actually able to establish other self-sufficient colonies then the only way they can maintain their stability is for a majority consensus of individuals in the society to be correctly taught, correctly understand, and accept the fundamental principle of what kind of causes in what problems lead to what kind of effect so that the society doesn't lose justice. But it's sort of an idealist situation because we can barely do that kind of thing in small groups.

banach 10y ago

I understand your concerns, but I am not taking my ideas out of thin air. Here are some references to corroborate my claims. Ways to address climate change: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/people-still-don-t-get-the-link-between-meat-consumption-and-climate-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/people-still... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000374 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709... Way to address the supposed food crisis: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/aug/26/f...

wallace_f 10y ago

> Scientists have known for many decades that Earth is already beyond its carrying capacity. People were saying this before the Enlightenment. There is no evidence that this is true. Our population is probably not sustainable with the way that we currently treat the environment, but that doesn't mean we can't evolve our sophistication. This has been the same forever. Alternatively, a population on earth of 50 people is arguably not sustainable if they spend their efforts trying to kill each other with the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. There's no such thing as an inherent carrying capacity of people irrespective of technology or total biomass.