5 ms·

Ok, nice prose of your, but the tiny blue ball thing is bullshit. Any plane on window seat will show you that the Earth is enormous and empty for most it's part

by gbog 15y ago

Ok, nice prose of your, but the tiny blue ball thing is bullshit. Any plane on window seat will show you that the Earth is enormous and empty for most it's parts, even in China. Don't think I advocate more cars and buildings. It's just that the tiny crowded ball argument is wrong, and dangerous, as it can be used to build a nasty antihumanism.

baq 15y ago
ask yourself how much land is required to support a single human for a year. mostly empty is how it must be, otherwise we've got problems.
grannyg00se 15y ago
"A small amount of resources" does not necessarily have direct correlation with square footage. Even if every part of the earth aside from Europe and NA were empty, there would still be a serious issue with respect to resource consumption.
GeneTraylor 15y ago
>>> nice prose of your <<< Thank you, but my prose is far from being nice. You should see my boss with a red pen around my prose. :-) >>>but the tiny blue ball thing is bullshit<<< Carl Sagan has another take on the matter. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M >>>Any plane on window seat will show you that the Earth is enormous and empty for most it's parts, even in China. Don't think I advocate more cars and buildings. It's just that the tiny crowded ball argument is wrong, and dangerous, as it can be used to build a nasty antihumanism.<<< I would argue that treating our resources as essentially endless because of the sheer size as compared to the individual fails to take into account that there are now 7 Billion people on this earth. Each and every one of them deserves a better life, they deserve to be able to have a luxurious bath, flush toilets with water, wash hands with water, eat processed foods which take a lot of water to make, wash their cars with water, drink pure water and at the end of the day consume around 315 litres of it. Of course, today not everyone lives like that except for wealthy countries (the statistic is based upon the US) but I think everyone wants a standard of life like that. If somehow, tomorrow 7 billion people started consuming water like that then we would drink up 2 205 000 000 000 litres of fresh water in a day, but the total possible water supply we can access (and this includes the glaciers) is only 3.5 × 10^19 litres... That's quite an easy way to run out of water. Now if you do the same with energy, with waste, with consumption and so on what you have is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. The way we live today just can't last. I think that you can solve this problem using technology, but its roots lie deep in our societies. What's frightening over here is that there is no way out for us. Unlike our ancestors we simply can't burn and move on. The earth is where we have to make our stand. I really think that it's important for people to start taking the gravity of the situation seriously. We need solutions, and we need them fast. Our time is running out. I think that there is no greater form of humanism than realizing that all of these people need to be saved from such an horrible end and devoting your entire life to creating a better future.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
 The earth is where we have to make our stand Why? We have a whole solar system right on on our front porch. but the total possible water supply we can access (and this includes the glaciers) Water doesn't just get used once and then disappear forever. Now, one could certainly make an argument against (say) sucking water out of the Oglalla Aquifer faster than it gets replenished, but that's a localized problem. We aren't going to "run out of water". Really.
 - GeneTraylor 15y ago
 >>> Why? We have a whole solar system right on on our front porch <<< This is an honest question, not a rebuttal. How would you get those resources here, or us over there? >>> Water doesn't just get used once and then disappear forever. Now, one could certainly make an argument against (say) sucking water out of the Oglalla Aquifer faster than it gets replenished, but that's a localized problem. We aren't going to "run out of water". Really. <<< Well it would have been labored to add that although it would take a large amount of energy to purify water, or perhaps desalinate our oceans, the loop can be closed. The problem really is that it takes resources to keep that loop closed. I think that all of our issues today boil down to how we convert energy to extract work, if we do manage to make something like fusion work then all of these concerns could be undermined with technology, but how do we get from here to there?
 - randallsquared 15y ago
 How would you get those resources here, or us over there? There are a number of high-startup-cost, low-running-cost schemes for putting stuff in LEO, and as someone once said, LEO is halfway to anywhere in the solar system, energy-wise. Some possibilities are laser launching, space elevators, launch loops, and electromagnetic guns. Some of these have much higher startup costs (to be effective for human launching, a gun would have to be very, very long and possibly cost the most of any of these, but shorter ones could launch material at very high acceleration with much less up-front cost), and some of them have awful failure modes (the space elevator could spread destruction in a narrow path wrapped all the way around the earth if it failed in the wrong way, via separation from the counterweight), but they're feasible. The cheapest ways of getting to orbit, therefore, approach the cost in electricity of the task, which is less than 10 KwH per kilogram, or about $2USD per kilo. A recent flight from coast to coast cost more than that for me.
lkozma 15y ago
Even if the resources were enormous, exponential growth would still have to level off sooner or later.
netcan 15y ago
Population growth has some worrying trends if you start thinking in historical time frames. If we continue to grow as is, until we reach some sort of natural barrier we double the population ever 50-60 years. What will the world look like with 25bn (100yrs) or 100bn (200yrs)? What will it look like @ 1 trillion (say 300- 400 yrs)? Somehwere between 50 & 500 years from now we may know the limit. That's not that long in historical terms and it will probably be a recognizable world. Most of the same countries & cultures will probably still exist. Elvis might still be popular. If growth does stop what will stop it? Culture (ie middle class western Europe) or something "natural" like famine?
- dapyx 15y ago
  The population growth rate is decreasing (the average number of children per woman is down from 5 in the 1950s to 2.5 today) and in much of the industrialized world, it's already going down. The population is still increasing, but much of it is no longer due to a high birthrate but due to an increase in lifespan.
  - drewjoh 15y ago
    Link: http://7billionactions.org/data http://7billionactions.org/data

by gbog 15y ago

baq 15y ago

ask yourself how much land is required to support a single human for a year. mostly empty is how it must be, otherwise we've got problems.

grannyg00se 15y ago

"A small amount of resources" does not necessarily have direct correlation with square footage. Even if every part of the earth aside from Europe and NA were empty, there would still be a serious issue with respect to resource consumption.

GeneTraylor 15y ago

>>> nice prose of your <<< Thank you, but my prose is far from being nice. You should see my boss with a red pen around my prose. :-) >>>but the tiny blue ball thing is bullshit<<< Carl Sagan has another take on the matter. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M >>>Any plane on window seat will show you that the Earth is enormous and empty for most it's parts, even in China. Don't think I advocate more cars and buildings. It's just that the tiny crowded ball argument is wrong, and dangerous, as it can be used to build a nasty antihumanism.<<< I would argue that treating our resources as essentially endless because of the sheer size as compared to the individual fails to take into account that there are now 7 Billion people on this earth. Each and every one of them deserves a better life, they deserve to be able to have a luxurious bath, flush toilets with water, wash hands with water, eat processed foods which take a lot of water to make, wash their cars with water, drink pure water and at the end of the day consume around 315 litres of it. Of course, today not everyone lives like that except for wealthy countries (the statistic is based upon the US) but I think everyone wants a standard of life like that. If somehow, tomorrow 7 billion people started consuming water like that then we would drink up 2 205 000 000 000 litres of fresh water in a day, but the total possible water supply we can access (and this includes the glaciers) is only 3.5 × 10^19 litres... That's quite an easy way to run out of water. Now if you do the same with energy, with waste, with consumption and so on what you have is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. The way we live today just can't last. I think that you can solve this problem using technology, but its roots lie deep in our societies. What's frightening over here is that there is no way out for us. Unlike our ancestors we simply can't burn and move on. The earth is where we have to make our stand. I really think that it's important for people to start taking the gravity of the situation seriously. We need solutions, and we need them fast. Our time is running out. I think that there is no greater form of humanism than realizing that all of these people need to be saved from such an horrible end and devoting your entire life to creating a better future.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
The earth is where we have to make our stand Why? We have a whole solar system right on on our front porch. but the total possible water supply we can access (and this includes the glaciers) Water doesn't just get used once and then disappear forever. Now, one could certainly make an argument against (say) sucking water out of the Oglalla Aquifer faster than it gets replenished, but that's a localized problem. We aren't going to "run out of water". Really.
- GeneTraylor 15y ago
 >>> Why? We have a whole solar system right on on our front porch <<< This is an honest question, not a rebuttal. How would you get those resources here, or us over there? >>> Water doesn't just get used once and then disappear forever. Now, one could certainly make an argument against (say) sucking water out of the Oglalla Aquifer faster than it gets replenished, but that's a localized problem. We aren't going to "run out of water". Really. <<< Well it would have been labored to add that although it would take a large amount of energy to purify water, or perhaps desalinate our oceans, the loop can be closed. The problem really is that it takes resources to keep that loop closed. I think that all of our issues today boil down to how we convert energy to extract work, if we do manage to make something like fusion work then all of these concerns could be undermined with technology, but how do we get from here to there?
 - randallsquared 15y ago
 How would you get those resources here, or us over there? There are a number of high-startup-cost, low-running-cost schemes for putting stuff in LEO, and as someone once said, LEO is halfway to anywhere in the solar system, energy-wise. Some possibilities are laser launching, space elevators, launch loops, and electromagnetic guns. Some of these have much higher startup costs (to be effective for human launching, a gun would have to be very, very long and possibly cost the most of any of these, but shorter ones could launch material at very high acceleration with much less up-front cost), and some of them have awful failure modes (the space elevator could spread destruction in a narrow path wrapped all the way around the earth if it failed in the wrong way, via separation from the counterweight), but they're feasible. The cheapest ways of getting to orbit, therefore, approach the cost in electricity of the task, which is less than 10 KwH per kilogram, or about $2USD per kilo. A recent flight from coast to coast cost more than that for me.

lkozma 15y ago

Even if the resources were enormous, exponential growth would still have to level off sooner or later.

netcan 15y ago

Population growth has some worrying trends if you start thinking in historical time frames. If we continue to grow as is, until we reach some sort of natural barrier we double the population ever 50-60 years. What will the world look like with 25bn (100yrs) or 100bn (200yrs)? What will it look like @ 1 trillion (say 300- 400 yrs)? Somehwere between 50 & 500 years from now we may know the limit. That's not that long in historical terms and it will probably be a recognizable world. Most of the same countries & cultures will probably still exist. Elvis might still be popular. If growth does stop what will stop it? Culture (ie middle class western Europe) or something "natural" like famine?

dapyx 15y ago
The population growth rate is decreasing (the average number of children per woman is down from 5 in the 1950s to 2.5 today) and in much of the industrialized world, it's already going down. The population is still increasing, but much of it is no longer due to a high birthrate but due to an increase in lifespan.
- drewjoh 15y ago
  Link: http://7billionactions.org/data http://7billionactions.org/data