You suggested we shouldn't use nuclear because then humanity will grow, which is apparently undesirable. If anyone deserves a profane response here, it's you.What the fuck?
You suggested we shouldn't use nuclear because then humanity will grow, which is apparently undesirable. If anyone deserves a profane response here, it's you.What the fuck?
As it says in the holy book, population growth is the metric by which we measure the good.If anyone deserves a profane response here, it's you.
I'm not going to only give this a cheap one-liner, as you've flipped the argument in a deceitful way. There is an ocean of middle-ground between "population growth is so bad we need to reconfigure our entire society to avoid it" and "population growth is the only metric worth considering" that you have strategically ignored.As it says in the holy book, population growth is the metric by which we measure the good.
A creation myth meant to explain among other things why there are a bunch of people said that? wow, very persuasiveBut also: "Be fruitful and multiply."
if you think that was strategic rather than flippant, wellthat you have strategically ignored.
If you'd prefer to regress to witch burning, you're welcome to. There is, at minimum, a correlation with population growth and moral improvement over time.Indeed, the moral condition of the species has not seemed to improve overmuch by population growth.
It almost certainly isn't - or if it is, there's nothing useful to do once we're there. Which is why people are pouring orders of magnitude more resources into travelling to Mars.I'm not saying it is. But it's probably about an order of magnitude technologically simpler to get to and survive on Venus, than Mars.
In that case what's your problem with Communism?I don't believe that they have in any meaningful way. I believe every generation grows and reproduces, consumes and creates.
You assume here that we will manage conversion of the world well. I think one of the things we're staring at is that we are not doing so currently, and may well continue not to. In which case the world may become a great deal more barren, and we will be the losers too.But people have this image in their head that if people continue to multiply it will create a barren wasteland, but that's not actually the logical consequence. That's just dystopian fiction.
If you'd prefer to regress to witch burning, you're welcome to. There is, at minimum, a correlation with population growth and moral improvement over time.
This website would not allow me to contain the answer to this question in a single post.In that case what's your problem with Communism?
In a geological timescale, we've flipped from deforesting like half of the inhabited world to actively bringing species back from extinction in a blink of an eye. How many thousands of years did it take for other major changes to stabilize?You assume here that we will manage conversion of the world well. I think one of the things we're staring at is that we are not doing so currently, and may well continue not to. In which case the world may become a great deal more barren, and we will be the losers too.
It's insane how much of a non sequitur that is.LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.lmgtfy.app
So there is no practical timeframe for this. It's all hypothetical and making assumptions about the rate and direction of technological advancements.Before humans go extinct, so a long time hopefully, but it depends on how fast technology advances, and even politics. For example, China after getting invaded by the Mongols, and fighting them off decided to destroy their navy and sailer expertise. So if they become a geopolitical hyperpower, and do this with rockets, and space travel, we die after a great filter kills all human beings because w didn't travel to space. That filter could be a nuclear war, a disease, or just Yellowstone erupting but we could live underground, and just use vertical farming, and aquaponics.
I didn't say we didn't need to solve climate change, I have stated that we need to build more nuclear power, then someone stated unlimited consumption is bad, so then I stated we should go to space, and implied it's where we can find more resources.So there is no practical timeframe for this. It's all hypothetical and making assumptions about the rate and direction of technological advancements.
Dude, space is the most hostile of all environments. It's not our savior. The idea that we can beat climate change by just packing up and moving to another planet is a fool's errand because fixing the climate would ultimately cost less than a single colony on Mars.
And there are so many other barriers besides that. You can't handwave it away with aquaponics.
That's at least 5 billion years from now. The chance humanity as we know it will still exist that far into the future is practically nil.Also, let's face it, this planet will one day die. Due to the Sun growing larger and larger. That's going to be climate change on steroids.
Probably because a forest sustains all manner of other forms of life, whereas rampant urban expansion viciously stamps them out.Why is an environment catered to people considered evil, but if trees grow and reproduce and create their own ideal environment we call that a forest and love it?
Kicking the can down the road by any other name.I didn't say we didn't need to solve climate change, I have stated that we need to build more nuclear power, then someone stated unlimited consumption is bad, so then I stated we should go to space, and implied it's where we can find more resources.
Giving up is not a solution.Also fixing climate change is easier than going to Mars, and putting underground buildings, but that's only the economics and technology analysis part of it, the political analysis means fossil fuel interest groups, and their lobbyist who does it for a living will always have the upper hand over activists who rely on donations.
In several billion years, at which point whatever the dominant species on this planet is, it will not be or look like us.Also, let's face it, this planet will one day die. Due to the Sun growing larger and larger. That's going to be climate change on steroids.
homeless hunts > witch hunts according to you, ok. That's really shaking my confidence that there hasn't been a great deal of moral improvement due to population growth.It's insane how much of a non sequitur that is.
That's fine, but it illustrates the point that it's really not just about consuming, reproducing, etc. There are other values about how we look our societies and how we interact with the world.This website would not allow me to contain the answer to this question in a single post.
We have brought back zero species from extinction. We have saved a few from near-extinction, but then we near exterminated them in the first place, and the list of species we did exterminate is vastly larger than those we pulled back from the brink. Nor is clear many of those species will survive long term anyway, because they've lost so much genetic diversity that they are acutely vulnerable to disease and inbreeding.In a geological timescale, we've flipped from deforesting like half of the inhabited world to actively bringing species back from extinction in a blink of an eye.
As we know it I will agree with you, humanity could be very different as time passes. But I think humanity will still be around if we pass through all the great filters well enoughThat's at least 5 billion years from now. The chance humanity as we know it will still exist that far into the future is practically nil.
It's not kicking the can down the road, our fertility rate is decreasing as a species as I stated earlier, there will be sustainable growth.Kicking the can down the road by any other name.
Giving up is not a solution.
In several billion years, at which point whatever the dominant species on this planet is, it will not be or look like us.
Will space colonization ever happen? Probably. I won't say never because that's a very long time. But it ain't happening in our lifetimes.
I went there once to see, but there were a bunch of attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion in the way.Me, I've always been partial to watching C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.
So you believe, legitimately, that human population can continue to expand endlessly without problems?But people have this image in their head that if people continue to multiply it will create a barren wasteland, but that's not actually the logical consequence. That's just dystopian fiction.
That remains unlikely as the cost of getting it installed in the first place would be phenomenally expensive and we would need to find work-arounds for about a million problems. Anyone on that base would have to volunteer to spend the rest of their lives living in a bunker to protect them from the radiation of Mars' weak magnetosphere, eating whatever they could grow in gardens fertilized with their own shit like in The Martian, and never going outside, all in an environment with less gravity than our bodies evolved to work with. That's assuming we get microfusion to work as a source of renewable power.if you mean a base on Mars and or the Moon yes it will happen within our lifetimes.
Reasonably sage advice when the most advanced technology available was the wheel and crossing a country required months, and the oceans required years. Now both can be traversed in a matter of days if not hours. There is a point where wisdom stops being wisdom.But also: "Be fruitful and multiply."
"Make sure that our tribe has more people than their tribe, so that we can kill them and take their stuff before they kill us and take our stuff."But also: "Be fruitful and multiply."