5 ms·

This is not incidental. Space between atoms is also huge. And the space between electrons and core relative to core density. The world as a whole is largely emp

This is not incidental. Space between atoms is also huge. And the space between electrons and core relative to core density. The world as a whole is largely empty at microscopic and macroscopic level. And in fact when it's in balance, it looks like that at every level. So when some wise guy tells you "well so what if we're 8 billion, Earth has plenty of land for more people" think about that. We're not in balance, and reality has a way of getting back to balance one way or another. If not through wisdom and intelligence, then through brute force. Emptiness is an abundance of environment. It's all it is. Then you have the freedom to play. If your environment is scarce, your resources are scarce, then existence becomes an increasingly desperate play in which no one wins. BTW when looking for "aether"... consider the stupidity of a water wave... looking for and not finding the water it's a wave of. It's all I'll say, if you need more, ask me.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I'm sitting in the middle of one of the densest metropolises in the hemisphere and yet there are probably only three other people within 10m of me. This space is also mostly "empty" of people even when dense with them in relative terms. This framing of "balance" and "reality" has some unsettling undertones imo, in a world where resources are plentiful enough in raw terms but there are other barriers to people accessing them. What's your suggested path back to "balance?"
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  For instance, consider how the average dissipated energy density by a human being is roughly an order of magnitude larger than by the Sun !
- russdill 4y ago
  We are getting so far off the path here, but to give you an idea of how much of the earth human activity is taking up, wild mammals account for a mere 4% of mammal biomass. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png/1920px-Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Di... The Earth is big, really big, but 8 billion humans and their livestock are also a really big number.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    You might think it’s a long way to the chemist, but that’s peanuts to space.
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      I wish I could grab a towel and go explore it.
  - cal85 4y ago
    That diagram is illuminating. But where are all the domestic chickens? Surely they make up more biomass than e.g. pets?
    - bloak 4y ago
      The diagram only shows mammals.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  What I was trying to say is that a human habitat is a vastly more complex network of relationships than merely the land we occupy, in which we feel relatively by ourselves within 10m of each other. For example how much forest should there be between two cities, to produce the oxygen you're breathing right now? Many magnitudes higher than those 10m. I'm still barely scratching the surface. As for suggestions... I don't even feel like going there today, I'm merely acknowledging my observations about realities that I believe are not up to our opinions. Reality is hugely empty, and when it's not, it's turbulent, vicious, and violent, like the center of our Sun. A neutron star. A black hole. These are concepts of "density" and properties of the resulting system, which we can apply not only in physical context, but also biological, and social. All systems are alike in some basic fundamental ways.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    70% of the oxygen on Earth comes from algae in the sea, not forests - which notably, also aren't really "carbon sinks" either since trees breath O2 and emit CO2 as well sometimes. But it's also weird to say that you'd need more forest then that, as though it's mutually exclusive. Our suburbs can be extremely green filled, as can our cities, but probably more notably is the simply wrong element of it: the Earth is at no risk of running out of oxygen due to "too many human beings". PS: Of note [1] it's not a super reliable source, but this eyeballs that you'd probably need about 10,000 leaves or 700 house plants[2] (keeping in mind a houseplant is very small, so a large tree probably does substantially better). [1] https://gizmodo.com/how-many-plants-would-you-need-to-generate-oxygen-for-y-5955071 https://gizmodo.com/how-many-plants-would-you-need-to-genera... [2] https://medium.com/@candidegardening/how-many-plants-would-it-take-to-produce-enough-oxygen-for-one-person-7312743ed70b https://medium.com/@candidegardening/how-many-plants-would-i...
    - jlawson 4y ago
      The point is not about literal forests, it's about the fact that just because there is 10m between people doesn't mean that you can therefore tile the world with humans 10m apart (or even closer). You need empty space, huge amounts of it, to make life not horrific. Whether that space is forests or ocean isn't the important aspect. What's important is that just because there is 'empty' space doesn't mean that filling it with more people won't have an impact on how people live.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

giraffe_lady 4y ago

I'm sitting in the middle of one of the densest metropolises in the hemisphere and yet there are probably only three other people within 10m of me. This space is also mostly "empty" of people even when dense with them in relative terms. This framing of "balance" and "reality" has some unsettling undertones imo, in a world where resources are plentiful enough in raw terms but there are other barriers to people accessing them. What's your suggested path back to "balance?"

BlueTemplar 4y ago
For instance, consider how the average dissipated energy density by a human being is roughly an order of magnitude larger than by the Sun !
russdill 4y ago
We are getting so far off the path here, but to give you an idea of how much of the earth human activity is taking up, wild mammals account for a mere 4% of mammal biomass. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png/1920px-Distribution-of-earths-mammals.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Di... The Earth is big, really big, but 8 billion humans and their livestock are also a really big number.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  You might think it’s a long way to the chemist, but that’s peanuts to space.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    I wish I could grab a towel and go explore it.
- cal85 4y ago
  That diagram is illuminating. But where are all the domestic chickens? Surely they make up more biomass than e.g. pets?
  - bloak 4y ago
    The diagram only shows mammals.
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
What I was trying to say is that a human habitat is a vastly more complex network of relationships than merely the land we occupy, in which we feel relatively by ourselves within 10m of each other. For example how much forest should there be between two cities, to produce the oxygen you're breathing right now? Many magnitudes higher than those 10m. I'm still barely scratching the surface. As for suggestions... I don't even feel like going there today, I'm merely acknowledging my observations about realities that I believe are not up to our opinions. Reality is hugely empty, and when it's not, it's turbulent, vicious, and violent, like the center of our Sun. A neutron star. A black hole. These are concepts of "density" and properties of the resulting system, which we can apply not only in physical context, but also biological, and social. All systems are alike in some basic fundamental ways.
- XorNot 4y ago
  70% of the oxygen on Earth comes from algae in the sea, not forests - which notably, also aren't really "carbon sinks" either since trees breath O2 and emit CO2 as well sometimes. But it's also weird to say that you'd need more forest then that, as though it's mutually exclusive. Our suburbs can be extremely green filled, as can our cities, but probably more notably is the simply wrong element of it: the Earth is at no risk of running out of oxygen due to "too many human beings". PS: Of note [1] it's not a super reliable source, but this eyeballs that you'd probably need about 10,000 leaves or 700 house plants[2] (keeping in mind a houseplant is very small, so a large tree probably does substantially better). [1] https://gizmodo.com/how-many-plants-would-you-need-to-generate-oxygen-for-y-5955071 https://gizmodo.com/how-many-plants-would-you-need-to-genera... [2] https://medium.com/@candidegardening/how-many-plants-would-it-take-to-produce-enough-oxygen-for-one-person-7312743ed70b https://medium.com/@candidegardening/how-many-plants-would-i...
  - jlawson 4y ago
    The point is not about literal forests, it's about the fact that just because there is 10m between people doesn't mean that you can therefore tile the world with humans 10m apart (or even closer). You need empty space, huge amounts of it, to make life not horrific. Whether that space is forests or ocean isn't the important aspect. What's important is that just because there is 'empty' space doesn't mean that filling it with more people won't have an impact on how people live.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]