Room for one more? World population to reach 7 BILLION in next few days

reply to post by Gorman91

Then you speak of coal and oil, when there's literally the solar system's largest moon, titan, swimming in hydrocarbons.

I will eat my hat if we ever manage to import hydrocarbons from Titan in an economically/energetically effective way, except tiny research samples. Reality will not look like star-trek.

how is it not real? We already have biological entities that convert gases, materials, etc etc. Rachel armstrong gave a talk at TED talking about protocells that convert wood into carbon fossils, and in the lab, they have gotten them to do similar things. We've gotten to the point were we are even learning how to program life that has no dna, but does simple tasks we want done:

But what does this have to do with resources from space?

I see no reason why we cannot simply do these things to get resources here and beyond. We are no longer in the last century.

Spaceflight is still in the last century, and unless we get magical antigravity drives (we wont), it will be for a very long time to come.

And dont forget that even if some of these schemes may be technically possible, they are hardly economically possible. And humanity will sooner choose death of billions before paying billions.

You can see the problem in that big blue circle, but what you cant see is how that big blue circle is also causing issues expanding within all the other circles at an alarming rate.

I saw an advert on telly last night asking for 12 bucks to save the africans, and I remember feed the world and bob geldof and red cross and unicef and and every cnut with their hands out asking for money to save people.

Well my countries stuffed, there are job layoffs, medical cutback, the NHS aint what it used to be, I have to supliment my own medical treatment as well as paying tax and National Insurance.

It may be painful to see little children and adults starving on telly, or watching epidemics spread through poor places so turn the telly off.

You see these starving africans without sanitation and water. Do yo uthink that if you dropped a dozen white farmers over there they couldnt make something happen, look at Australia, one of the most uninhabiltal places and yet they made electricity and sunk water holes and irrigated. Oh, forgot, they did that, then the stupid mugabee kicked them out and stuffed up the farms. Cant be arsed workin...lets just get aid..

These lazy ass just sit there, breed and do nothing but put their hands out for Aid. Do they not know how to build reservoirs, irrigation, bricks, electricity. How to grow crops and diversify.

Give Dhumblin a gallon of water he will drink for a week, give him the tools to build a well he will drink for ever...no, get your own tools, dig with the tools god gave you, dig your own well and then, maybe then will you realise the hard work needed and take your toilets so far away from said drinking hole that you dont start cholera outbreaks, and ask the west for aid and concrete to fill in you r now infested well.

Room for one more 'contributor' sure, room for more leeches, nein.

reply to post by blah yada

You are saying that the fact they haven't utilised this high technology disproves overpopulation.

I say that the ability is in existence. The need, clearly, is not sufficient to the point governments are making it their goals within the next decade.

Governments, being governments, only exists by the consensus of the people. And when there's no food, no room, and no water, people tend to rip down those governments. These things are starting, but not even over food, room, or water. It's over money. Think about that for a moment.

Would it not be frugal to get a head start then. Where are all these hauliage space craft. Who owns them. Where and when were the launch tests and docking tests.

Has the economy ever done things on a head start? Or have they just waited until fires were burning to do anything. Once again, think for a moment. Since when has the oil industry cared that they are working with a limited resource? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the oil industry funded things that could cure our addiction to oil, but use them to get more oil.

There are no space docks, and none for which anyone to own. That's the point. So clearly the fragility of this world is not a present danger.

If we have this tech

We don't have it. We simply know how to make it.

why do we send up tiny unmanned Mars rovers

Because tiny rovers don't kill people when they have accidents millions of miles away.

which take years to complete a trip

Because it's cheaper.

and produce a measley payload

Payload is not the goal.

This is archaic tech next to the tech you claim has already been realised. Are NASA really that backwards?

It's not really. It's essentially the same tech at a different scale. Hell, we've known about planes that can fly for weeks utilizing nuclear reactors since the late 50s. But its too expensive and dangerous, so instead they put the tech on a submarine where nobody can worry about it.

All this exotic tech is a long way off and we will be far too busy fighting for survival on an infested Earth to ever make much of it happen.We will drown in our own excrement long before that.

This is not exotic tech. We use it every day for other things. We simply don't use it for things that will be problems down the road. Hell, what exactly is exotic about it? This isn't floating cities or the death star. This is basically as technological as a microwave. We did, after all, get to the moon on rockets that more or less were no different than the toys children use on fields today.

reply to post by Maslo

I will eat my hat if we ever manage to import hydrocarbons from Titan in an economically/energetically effective way, except tiny research samples. Reality will not look like star-trek.

Reality always looks like star trek. They thought it would take 300 years to have AIs, computers, and handheld gadgets. Now we have them 40 years later, most of which outperform star trek's technological capabilities.


Furthermore, it obviously won't be environmentally friendly, and probably not even very energetically efficient. It will make the people whom have businesses stay in business. If oil companies are willing to produce gigantic 2 million pound, multi mile long drills that harvest entire mile long bulges of oil under the water, spending what may well be billions of dollars to get trillions in income, for no other reason than to be able to keep selling and stay in business, I see no reason why they cannot do the same thing in space.

But what does this have to do with resources from space?

Plenty of stuff. Magnus Larsson's Sahara villas on mars would protect from radiation and make drilling highly efficient. Armstrong's protocells would convert local dirt into usable forms for construction, on the site. And these can quickly produce means to do work, get resources, and move them into space.

Spaceflight is still in the last century, and unless we get magical antigravity drives (we wont), it will be for a very long time to come.

I don't see why. You could use large scale built-in-space transports, and use smaller easier to make craft to get things from planet to orbit, on both worlds. Why do you have this mentality that we would do this all in a single stage rocket or platform? Even NASA doesn't. Nobody does. Space flight is accomplished. Now we're moving onto space cargo, such as the X37, or the X-51. Military, cargo, passenger, construction, Earth orbit, long orbit, exploration. Tons of craft for tons of purposes. Next 30 years are going to be pretty amazing. And that's America alone.

And dont forget that even if some of these schemes may be technically possible, they are hardly economically possible. And humanity will sooner choose death of billions before paying billions.

Except it won't be billions when demand is high and people need it immediately. You'd be surprised how willing industry is to making something when a million rioters are on their way.

Originally posted by MisterBurns
You can see the problem in that big blue circle, but what you cant see is how that big blue circle is also causing issues expanding within all the other circles at an alarming rate.

I saw an advert on telly last night asking for 12 bucks to save the africans, and I remember feed the world and bob geldof and red cross and unicef and and every cnut with their hands out asking for money to save people.

Well my countries stuffed, there are job layoffs, medical cutback, the NHS aint what it used to be, I have to supliment my own medical treatment as well as paying tax and National Insurance.

It may be painful to see little children and adults starving on telly, or watching epidemics spread through poor places so turn the telly off.

You see these starving africans without sanitation and water. Do yo uthink that if you dropped a dozen white farmers over there they couldnt make something happen, look at Australia, one of the most uninhabiltal places and yet they made electricity and sunk water holes and irrigated. Oh, forgot, they did that, then the stupid mugabee kicked them out and stuffed up the farms. Cant be arsed workin...lets just get aid..

These lazy ass just sit there, breed and do nothing but put their hands out for Aid. Do they not know how to build reservoirs, irrigation, bricks, electricity. How to grow crops and diversify.

Give Dhumblin a gallon of water he will drink for a week, give him the tools to build a well he will drink for ever...no, get your own tools, dig with the tools god gave you, dig your own well and then, maybe then will you realise the hard work needed and take your toilets so far away from said drinking hole that you dont start cholera outbreaks, and ask the west for aid and concrete to fill in you r now infested well.

Room for one more 'contributor' sure, room for more leeches, nein.

That is the most bigoted pile of BS I have ever read. You clearly have no clue about the history of the African continent or it's people. The entire purpose of your post was to spew racist nonsense.

"the tools god gave you"........ what god? What tools?

Africa was raped by colonists. Or do you think people like Roger Casement made that up.

[You're bitchin about the NHS.Ha ha, can't you afford private healthcare?What's wrong with you dude?

Give Mr Burns free state healthcare and all's good. Cut back his NHS and he might have to supliment (sic) with some of his hard earned dole. Poor fella, the welfare state just doesn't seem to have enough teets to milk these days.Maybe gross overpopulation has something to do with that.Looks like you guys might need another draft, another Field Marshall Haigh and another Somme .That might clear out the scrounging freeloader classes in your country.

I lived in your country and paid for my healthcare.Why can't you?And don't give me some crap about grandad fighting Gery Bosch as a reason for why you shouldn't have to.I've heard that one too many times from your countries (sic)nether classes. How many countries do you have by the way?

Does it really get to you that your country is being taken over by the people it colonised and/or abused back in the day?The Africans, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Irish and the Chinese are taking you over and you can't stop it. Funny how all these "bloody foreigners" are filling up your best universities, and schools like Harrow and Eton and there you are cribbing about NHS.]

The text within parenthesis is not actually my opinion, rather a mirrored dose of your own garbage. It's not very nice is it?It's very easy to do though, and serves no purpose in a thread like this.

Stormfront is out the door and keep going right until all you can see is frightened, bitter, bovver booted, uneducated thugs. Combat 18 is right next door, but you already know this don't ya tough guy?

reply to post by Gorman91

I don't see why. You could use large scale built-in-space transports, and use smaller easier to make craft to get things from planet to orbit, on both worlds. Why do you have this mentality that we would do this all in a single stage rocket or platform?

I am aware of that, and indeed there are many realistic ways to make spaceflight cheaper and more efficient. I just believe your optimism is way over the top. Even with resuable spacecrafts, fuel depots, self-sufficient habitats, VASIMRs or NSWRs, spaceflight will still be only for top 0.01 %.

Except it won't be billions when demand is high and people need it immediately. You'd be surprised how willing industry is to making something when a million rioters are on their way.

More than a billion starving people prove you wrong. People who lack basic needs dont tend to rebel (or if they do, not successfully), they just tend to die. And not to mention that protests may change something only if economically viable alternative exist. If it doesnt, then you may as well protest against nature itself.

according to 'new scientist' the prediction that the 7 billionth human will be born in the next week or so is very inaccurate. its based on outdated and inaccurate census data, and could be out by a few years. the truth is no-one actually knows when the 7 billionth human will be born, could be tomorro, could be in 2020, could of already happened.

This number is THEORETICAL only.
No one knows for absolute certain how many people are alive in the World.
People are born everyday, People die everyday.
It occurs so often every minute worldwide, that it's impossible to keep track of.

Well damn this thread got a little weird... I'm getting the f outta here!

Originally posted by superman2012
Well, with 7 Billion people on Earth, everyone can move to Texas and have approx. 1070 sq ft. Each. Everyone. Texas. Each. I don't have the numbers for how much they would consume though...but i am pretty sure that it is very doable. I am sure everyone one Earth could move to the US, live in Texas, and use the rest for farming, aquaculture, etc.

Yeah with the combo of Aquaculture and Hydroponics you can make enough food
for the whole planet in an area the size of West Virginia.

Of course you want it local where the ppl are, to explain to the small minds out there that
complained at me last time thinking I wanted all food production in WV.

In Wisconsin a man grew 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres year round using
compost for heat.

This method can be done on non-arable land even.

As for electrical power 1% of the jet streams would replace all current elec. power used on earth.

Geothermal could power several earths at current usage rates.

The Antarctic Circumpolar current has the equivalent of over 100 times the flow
of all rivers on earth and the device called the Aquanator or equivalent could tap it.

There are many other currents like it.

Solar thermal from the many deserts around the world would power several earths.

For building materials try Cob, some cob buildings in the UK have been in use for 400+ years.

Cob likely wouldn't work in permafrost, but almost anywhere else.

No need for AC or heat with Cob with thick walls, stays around the same temp year round.

Nanotech housing will happen eventually, but for now Cob is fine and it would make jobs,
and basically end home loans if ppl would do it as a Co-op project like habitat for humanity.

3 stage transition on fuels:

1) Algae oil as done by valcent technologies @ 100,000 gal/acre/ year in the desert using
bio waste from humans and livestock.

2) Biological hydrogen as outlined on wikipedia once vehicles are made to use it in larger numbers.

3) Electric cars running off hybrid super capacitor batteries based on nano tech advances.
A current car by Audi gets 375 miles on one charge and it can rapid charge, this will get better
as nanotech gets better. The two prior are used til Super cap tech is perfected and affordable.

We have the answers for all our problems, we have for several years.

These answers do not make the 1% filthy rich though, and loosens their grip on control.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


You obviously didn't know what you were talking about. You simply kept saying "UK is over-populated!" with no facts at all.

reply to post by blah yada



Okay it seems that your not understanding me or yourself. My logic is skewed based on what? My previous posts on this THREAD or your FIRST REPLY?

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

You obviously didn't know what you were talking about. You simply kept saying "UK is over-populated!" with no facts at all.

I live in London along with another 7 million people.... i see with my own eyes the over-crowded streets... so yes i do have the facts right in front of me!!

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

You obviously didn't know what you were talking about. You simply kept saying "UK is over-populated!" with no facts at all.

I live in London along with another 7 million people.... i see with my own eyes the over-crowded streets... so yes i do have the facts right in front of me!!

edit on 18-10-2011 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)

Your telling me that you can see over 6 million people simultaneously? I'll dismiss myself from this thread. Better yet, I'll just refrain from replying to you.

reply to post by Maslo

I am aware of that, and indeed there are many realistic ways to make spaceflight cheaper and more efficient. I just believe your optimism is way over the top. Even with resuable spacecrafts, fuel depots, self-sufficient habitats, VASIMRs or NSWRs, spaceflight will still be only for top 0.01 %.

Yes, and those are the ones who will pay it to keep their business viable. It's not like I'm saying we can do this tomorrow. While the technological know-how exists, it would take 2-3 decades to actually get it working. It's not like the early Americans built all their roads in a day. They took time.

More than a billion starving people prove you wrong. People who lack basic needs dont tend to rebel (or if they do, not successfully), they just tend to die. And not to mention that protests may change something only if economically viable alternative exist. If it doesnt, then you may as well protest against nature itself.

This is untrue for many places. It's simply the mentality of the people. Fact is, those who lack any real value on the potential of the human being tend not to revolt, versus those whom have high value of what a human can become. This is why the Muslims were the first to revolt in this recent global wave of revolution. Because, at this point in time, they had the highest value on the human being's potential, as well as the most agreement, and highest density, of this meme. Next came the ultra-individualistic types, and likewise now Europe and America are having revolts. Soon there will be other groups, as the movement generates memes that quickly spread and affect other groups. It can in many ways e said that the current meme of this revolution is fundamentally Abrahamic in origin. And it is of not chance that its enemy is those whom are viewed as in contrast to this meme.

In terms of space travel, the fact is those billion people starving, to the people capable of spaceflight, do not matter. A billion starving Africans and Asians doesn't affect America. It has no incentive to them. So why would the starvation of those outside spaceflight capable nations be proof that it's not a motivator?

reply to post by DaveNorris


New Scientist is owned by Reed Elsevier, who also have been noted for their role in the Arms Trade.It is non peer reviewed and has a habit of sensationalising stories to sell copies.

It has been known to promote ascientific concepts using sensationalism and apparent contradiction as a marketing tool.eg the 2009 article "Darwin was wrong".Clearly they were trying to get creationists and evolutionists together on the same hook.Richard Dawkins has called them out specifically on this.The puplication has been criticised by many other reputable scientists.


It's a bubblegum publication for those who fancy themselves as a bit of a science buff. Self respecting scientists do not get their knowledge from the same magazine rack as Vogue, Playboy and the National Enquirer.
It has been dicredited many times by many prominent people in the field.

If you have a link to said article, could you post it up.I'd like to compare it to the work of Zachariah & Vu, Hern, Von Forester etc. It seems that a glossy mag is boldly trashing their many years of research and proof.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Some cool stuff there.Thanks.
These are all great ideas, if we act on them now.However their implementation on a global or even natioanal scale is quite a way off and it will get harder to implement them with every doubling period. If we can curb growth rates and implement these technologies now, we will create a platform for responsible sustainable growth in the future.

reply to post by Vandettas


I gave you the facts. Have a read back. I listed pop density, self sufficiency etc with sources.

reply to post by Flighty


It is an approximation,and historically an accurate one. Of course we can't exactly figure out the population, we round off the figures. They are not precise figures but they are pretty accurate.even if you allow yourself a margin of error of 1bn, and assume that todays population is not 7 bn but maybe 6bn, we are still in deep s**t if the growth rates aren't controlled.

Your post seems to be suggesting that this entire thread is a waste of time and everyone is wrong, and nothing can ever be learned through demographics.Let's forget about taking a census.Hell why do we even count beyond what we can see.Counting anything past 100000 is a waste of time, right?

reply to post by Vandettas


You are saying that overpopulation is an illusion created by living in a crowded area of Britain like Birmingham for example, and that we are not taking into account the wide open spaces of say, the Yorkshire Dales. You are speaking as though these are virgin lands just waiting to be exploited.

They are not. They are already being utilised to keep the population concentrations going. Some places are water sources and can't tolerate urbanisation.Where do you think the 14 million people in London get their water?The Thames? NOOOOOOO.Last time I checked, a lot of it was coming from Snowdonia in Wales.

You are taking a micro view instead of a macro one.You are focusing on particular regions of a sovereign country and treating them as if they are in no way already interelated and codependent.This is why I said your logic (in this instance) was skewed.
I'm not doubting the concept of the technology you have been suggesting, in fact I've gleaned quite a bit from the links you put up(thanks), but I believe we are along way off realising it and that irresponsible growth rates will impede such progress more than encouraging it.

If you haven't lived and travelled in Britain, it's hard to appreciate how urbanised it really is. Major cities in the US are hundreds of miles apart, London and Birmingham are 75 miles apart.That's about 20 million people right there.Smaller cities like milton Keynes and Oxford lie between.Leicester is 22 miles from Birmingham and Nottingham is 32, or 15 from Leicester.

It looks on the map like there's endless greenery lying unused.It is being used and yet the UK is only 61% self sufficient.

Even london looks like a small smudge on the map.But just look at what it consumes.