Create food and water in a lab using our current science. Solve the "overpopulation" issue.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Well call me a defeatist or whatever, but we're never going to be that organised, that effective in our management of resources etc. It's a pipe dream as far as I'm concerned, world peace is more likely and there's no chance of that ever happening either.

Unfortunately, I agree with you completely. It's because we're not fighting "evil" here, we're fighting what human beings have for millennia defined as "love." Finding the romantic love of your life, having and raising children who are expressions of that love and will someday take care of you in your old age. Fighting and dying for our tribe or nation so that people can do these things in peace and properity. That's always been defined as the greatest good. We've even heard our gods tell us to "be fruitful and multiply," not realizing that for a tree or vine to produce the best fruit, it has to be vigilantly trimmed.

Getting people to change that way of thinking will be essentially impossible, and the result will be that millions of people will die horribly and the Earth may be damaged beyond repair. I consider myself relatively fortunate that I won't live long enough to see the worst of it.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Well. Thats whats great about change.
If people refuse to change, they will perish.

Evolution demands change.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by SLO7H
"Maybe the overpopulation subject isn't all that too bad after all, the biggest problem is to give everyone food and water, and for now that's about it, (and when it comes to living space, we will eventually develop technology to move elsewhere in the universe.

Now, maybe you believe that each human being has value no matter what they do, just by virtue of their capacity
There's going to be a tipping point, and we're running up on it very soon. A point at which the sheer number of people and their impact on the environment is going to outpace our ability to technologically and economically deal with it. Knowing this, the only smart thing to do is start aggressively working to control our breeding so we can at least get an accurate idea as to the optimum (not maximum) carrying capacity of the planet.

edit on 12-6-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry, I didn't explain the part of the population good enough. I don't want us to increase the speed of the population, I just wanted to share one point of view, which is that the speed of our developing science is increasing rapidly, much because of the population growth.

However, I think that we should start making a rule. It might now be too popular, but it is necessary, every couple may only have 1 child, this will decrease the number of mankind to a more decent level.
This "law" or "rule" may then be set or removed whenever it is necessary (after considering what the level of population the world has at the time).

|.SLO7H.|

reply to post by AzureSky


Some wars are scams, not all, humans are a warlike species, always have been always will, there will always be conflict. Stop looking at world through the modern conspiracy view that the Rothschilds etc and the banks are to blame for everything. They're to blame for a lot but, we have progressed to this stage ourselves, look at history, it's there for you to see, yes, certain people have taken advantage of and exploited our wasteful and warlike ways but we have no one to blame except ourselves.

Also population does not regulate itself, if it did then there would be a lot less humans.

Originally posted by AzureSky
As it stands right now the world birth rates are declining, and the death rates are increasing (old age, sickness, etc). Populations are self regulating and will regulate itself on a sustainable number when the birth/death rate is directly even.

So what you would rather have is the world riding right on the knife's edge of maximum population capacity, with us all recycling and consuming our own waste and flesh without bothering to have the Earth take care of it naturally, and so if any massive weather problem arises or pandemic breaks out, millions of people will die from starvation or disease. Because that's what you're talking about by "self-regulation."

Why be so cruel, when we can take control of the situation ahead of time and prevent the suffering?

Originally posted by Blue Shift
So what you would rather have is the world riding right on the knife's edge of maximum population capacity, with us all recycling and consuming our own waste and flesh without bothering to have the Earth take care of it naturally, and so if any massive weather problem arises or pandemic breaks out, millions of people will die from starvation or disease. Because that's what you're talking about by "self-regulation."

Why be so cruel, when we can take control of the situation ahead of time and prevent the suffering?

With a mindset like this, you have two choices:

1. You feed the world. It increases in population.

2. You don't feed the world. It decreases in population.

So, which do you want? If you feed everyone, you're increasing the population. If you don't feed everyone 'millions of people will die from starvation or disease'.

You can't have it both ways. The only solution is to stop treating yourself as the planet's nanny and allow it to cycle on with the reality that all material things are scarce and scarcity determines population quantity through natural selection.

Grow your own food. Don't worry about everyone else. Eventually those who don't starve will catch on when they see you living fat and happy as they eat soybean burgers.

labs are more expensive to build and maintain than farms, scientists making lab sandwiches probably command higher pay than farmers too.

maybe if a lab was able to be 20x or 1000x more productive than a farm it would kinda sorta make sense.

i cant imagine them hauling in tons and tons and tons of raw materials, bulk chemicals i guess, mixing them up and shaping them into steaks every day, and having it be a net win. because the chemicals have to be isolated somewhere, which probably costs energy and surely depends on agriculture anyway.

the reason farming is good, is because it takes little effort, and the rain and the sun and the plants do most of the heavy lifting. the same thing with raising animals for slaughter, theres millions of years of evolution invested into making those cows eat and grow and reproduce.

why would you discard all that and make every piece of food more costly to produce? doesnt make sense.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


lol. Do you believe in Evolution? If so, yes, animals die out without humans to save them. So, when we're not killing them off, somehow, by our mere existence, then they die off on their own, when we could step in and at least attempt to save them.

But if we shouldn't save them, then what we do to kill them shouldn't matter either.

I think energy is as important as food and water when it comes to increasing population and if FREE ENERGY were ever to be released everything else would fall into place.

Free energy would solve every problem we have because although it is not the root of all problems it is connected in a way that if it was available we could address every other problem we have on this planet.

Think about it...

Water - Free energy would allow you to make Terra changes easily.

Food - See above.

Shelter - See above.

Health - How much healthier do you think we all would be if we stopped burning oil?

We can't have free energy because that is how TPTB control our every day life.

FREE ENERGY AND LOVE - After that everything else falls into place.

reply to post by knowledgedesired


you assume that " free energy " can be delivered , gratis - to invividuals

While I agree with the sentiments that we need to live in harmony with nature - I think the one child rule is wrong. It reminds me of The Handmaids Tale. I don't think think that governments should have the right to govern people in that way.

I think that our population fluctuates. Famines will strike. Hurricanes will destroy. Earthquakes will shake and disease will take the weak. Not much to be done except enjoy your ride. If your on the internet, your one of the lucky ones.

Free energy will never happen until they figure out how to put a meter on it and make it "not free" anymore!

Great, now do you have a solution to the garbage disposal problem?
Do you have a solution to the sewage disposal problem?
Do you have a solution to the water contamination problem?

And tell me, why does anyone want more people in this world?
What do we need them for?
2 billion on Earth would leave lots of room and lots of oxygen for all creatures big and small?
Earth in balance.

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
I think energy is as important as food and water when it comes to increasing population and if FREE ENERGY were ever to be released everything else would fall into place.

Free energy would solve every problem we have because although it is not the root of all problems it is connected in a way that if it was available we could address every other problem we have on this planet.

Think about it...

Water - Free energy would allow you to make Terra changes easily.

Food - See above.

Shelter - See above.

Health - How much healthier do you think we all would be if we stopped burning oil?

We can't have free energy because that is how TPTB control our every day life.

FREE ENERGY AND LOVE - After that everything else falls into place.

That is so true, thanks for sharing this!
If we had free energy, it would be much much more easier to solve the world issues.
Now it is a conspiracy theory that the world powers know how to get free energy (or already has it available already), but they wont share or tell because they want to make money. Now I don't know if some of that is true, but it sure is interesting.

|.SLO7H.|

Originally posted by AriaStarr
While I agree with the sentiments that we need to live in harmony with nature - I think the one child rule is wrong. It reminds me of The Handmaids Tale. I don't think think that governments should have the right to govern people in that way.

I think that our population fluctuates. Famines will strike. Hurricanes will destroy. Earthquakes will shake and disease will take the weak. Not much to be done except enjoy your ride. If your on the internet, your one of the lucky ones.

Free energy will never happen until they figure out how to put a meter on it and make it "not free" anymore!

I see what you mean, and I feel that way too. But sometimes you come to a point where you might not have any other choice, now that 1 child rule will only be active as long as it is needed, after a while it should be removed.
I don't like the attitude that most people have, that we should just sit back and watch what happens, and let whoever becomes a victim die, that is wrong in my opinion.

Wouldn't it be more popular to have a 1 child rule, rather than either killing, or letting people die?

|.SLO7H.|

reply to post by SLO7H


I'm not exactly sure what is suppose to be done by people with no money, no education, and no means in which to fix any of these ecological problems. What attitude are the majority of the world suppose to have when the majority of the world are not the ones holding the power?

I think individually, educated people will do their part. I recycle. I don't stand in the shower any longer than necessary. I turn off my lights when I go to sleep. I buy energy saving appliances. I traded in my older vehicles for the new cleaner ones. However, I'm not responsible for fixing these problems! If I'd went to college and came out with a degree in said area, that would be different. But I'm not in those areas of study, I'm in an entirely different area. So other than being aware, and the small part I already do, I'm not sure what anyone expects of the average person. I never was only having one child though, and I'd break the law to make sure my child isn't an only child. I know how lonely an only child with one or both parents working is. I don't know if I'd want a world forced into that.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but countries have imposed this 1 child law on their populations before, right? Also, in Russia right now, their paying parents to have more than one child because their population is in a decline.

Russia Population Decline

Association is common among all human beings. We look around our environment and take for granted that everyone else in the world is in similar circumstances to ourselves. Not starving just wasteful. Not uneducated just irresponsible. Not insignificant just unheard.