disease, plague or other outside influence is about the only thing which might set the world right. so many are obsessed with children, wanting this or that, taking over this and that. the few that do care, can't/won't/aren't heard and are typically tramped into the muck, so to speak. if more people cared then there might be hope, but at the moment the true plague of humans is what is killing the world and sooner or later they are going to turn on themselves like a pack of starved coyote, until then we have to sit back and wait and try our best to do our part
This seems to be a rather popular talking point among the many environmentalists, hippies and vegans that I've met and subsequently done everything possible to avoid. I don't believe that the Earth needs to be saved from humanity as much as humanity needs to avoid self-destruction. The Earth, though, managed fairly well on its own without us. I can only imagine that it will continue to soldier on long after we are gone. (if we ever leave) Personally I'm rooting for a Warhammer 40K -esque scenario minus the fanatical religious overtones. Maybe a little more Star Trek.
Oh, I don't automatically assume that people are environmentalists, hippies or vegans simply by asking the question. There were plenty of people I became mildly acquainted with before I found out firsthand what every topic of conversation turned to when speaking to them.
As to reducing the population we seem to be doing a good enough job with that as it is.
No! God says, He will destroy the earth and create new heaven and earth, where there's no more sea and there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God will give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever...
i think that when the human species puts its children first above itself and grows the future generations up with a guaranteed birthright to health and safety, then yes, the fighting will stop and new technology and science and learning will re grow the broken trees and earth and clean the filthy waters and seed the clouds to drop the cleansing rain upon the parched earth and so on and so forth......
I highly doubt it. We're pretty much fucked. Unless by some miracle (or alien invasion) we'll be able to forget our differences and work as one that is. But considering how unlikely that is I think it's reasonable to say that we're fucked.
In my view, Humanity may have begun as a natural, coexisting part of this world but now we're overwhelming it to the point that we're threatening its survival...and considering there are no other inhabitable worlds within our reach for us to escape to should this one perish (meaning this is all we have), it's not very smart of us. And I say "us" and "we" because we're all part of the problem (some more then others) and we all (that's right, every-one of us) carry the responsibility of ensuring the health and safety of our world for us and coming generations.
Some damages that have been caused by us, like land/water/air pollution, the effects it has on the environments and the holes in the ozone would still take hundreds of years to heal/dissipate even if all civilizations as a whole agreed and put a stop to it tomorrow; that's how bad it is right-now. We could ALL turn eco-friendly and there will still be pollution fall-out for generations. Why bother then, right? Yes, the effects will still be felt for a while yet, but at least the Earth will have a chance to heal and revitalize itself if every-single-person NOW does a small part in making the world around them just a little bit better. Recycle. Walk, bike, take the bus, car-pool. Turn off the lights in the rooms you're not using. Make sure the taps in your home are shut off and try not to let them run if you're not using them right away. Maybe switch your systems over to solar or wind power if you can. Buy and use products made from recycled material. The ways are endless and they're all so simple that the only excuse not to do at least one of them is pure laziness. Period. Might not seem like much, but if each of us did at least 1-2 of those things, on a whole it'd make a big difference.
As far as over-population goes, that's what disease and death is for. It's nature's way of 'thinning out the herd', sort of speak. Medicine and science are constantly coming up with new ways to combat them, but in the end Cancer is still something we haven’t yet been able to completely overcome (my father is currently battling prostate and bladder cancer) and is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide ever year, AIDS is another thing we've no cure for. Still, other diseases around the world there are cures for continue to kill anyway, so it's doing it's part in trying to keep tabs on us, we just keep breeding faster then we're dieing.
That being said, probably a considerable way to combat overpopulation is controlling the numbers of babies being born each year and mandatory sterilization in overpopulated areas. There are already some places in Asia where a couple is only allowed to have 2 children, maximum, and any further pregnancies are fined and aborted...but I can't remember the names of these places for the life of me! I watched a whole documentary on it...argh! Well, I'll reference back to you if I manage to find them, but it was really quite interesting and clever, I thought so anyway.
Anyhoo, sorry for the rant; I just really like discussing topics like these and hearing all the different views.
MemmilFeatured By OwnerNov 20, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks for great comment!
I agree with you on all these issues, but in my opinion those small eco-friendly acts are a bit stupid. Sure it might make a difference if each and everyone of us would start using them but it is not enough. Commands should come from highest authorities possible if we really want to change. They should be orders, not just slight recommendations! But maybe "leaders" have counted that enough change can be achieved in slow and human way?
It is also a bit hilarious how people are awarded for inventing cures against different diseases. Hopefully no-one will develope medicines against cancers and AIDS! Diseases are natural way to cut down population and shouldn't be resisted too much. Humanity makes everything so difficult... Sure we have to care about each others but sometimes it would be better if we were able to think in numbers instead of emotions. May sound a bit cynical but this is what I think. :S
Its actually a very interesting subject that you've brought up and my answer is that I feel the effect that humans have is not as big as some think. I agree with you on the fact that many waste good supplies, food, money, water, ect that could be used for better things and that many people over use medicine and antibacterial stuff. In my opinion stuff like hand sanatizer (srry for my spelling) in many cases is a waste. If you have a minor cold you will live and you don't have to take a lot of meds for it. But you also have to remember the world has a way of balancing things out. For example if we were really creating global warming by producing more co2 then the plants on earth would be growing a lot faster and in more areas because plants use co2 to live, and the more plants the more oxygen is produced. What I'm trying to get at is unless we do the extreme and destroy everything then Earth as a planet will be fine. I also believe we should cut back a little and re-evaluate what we need and what we want because we need to be more aware of what is around us and keep the world a nice place for future generations. I hope that helps you cause I know I've probably contradicted myself a few times (getting a bit tired lol)
MemmilFeatured By OwnerNov 19, 2012Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Different diseases are a natural way to cut down population /both humans and animals) but we're resisting. Maybe we should stop? But if a disease takes over the whole world and kills everybody it's not good either.
Distant future it could be possible. You merely need a more than capable synthesization process for most things we need, a capably dependable supporting environment(difficult) and the right propulsion capacity.
NASA is currently preforming a series of space warping experiments to see if their new White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer can detect a space alteration of several nanometres. When successful, this device will be used to test miniature warp drives. It's by no means a fast process, but if all goes well, we might yet see a functional warp drive prototype in a decade or two. [link]
As for a synthetisation, it may be closer than we think, though not in the sense of being able to generate matter at will. (That would break the laws of physics.) What we can do is build a 3D printer to assemble objects we need from resources we can bring along. A lot of refinement is required before we can make anything though. The Fab@Home project is on to a good start with 3D printing already. [link] They've created some objects using their machine, including cookies and batteries. [link]
The supporting evironment, now that's the real challenge.
...Warp drive... You have GOT to be joking...? That is pretty shocking. But we have to go from there to something that can safely transport a craft. Is THAT possible?
Synthetisation was always going to be the easiest bit.
The supporting environment may not be hugely necessary if warp drives work to the extent needed. That was for long term voyages(those thousands of years hopefully reduced to a few hundred with further speed breakthroughs) or population supporting space or other planet based stations.
Warp drives were considered impossible after the math on the Alcubierre turned out it required more mass than there is in the universe, but Harold White's design found a way around that. With that, warp drives went from being purely hypothetical to a test rig being designed. Of course, we don't know yet if the Alcubierre drive is even possible, but it should if our understanding of space-time is accurate.
Now, take note that this warp drive does not actually speed the craft up, it merely "moves" space by compressing and stretching space-time. This could actually work, hence why they are going to do the experiment. If it's possible to warp space itself in this manner, it's only a matter of time before we can build a large enough one to do this on a sufficiently large scale.
Of course, safety is the biggest concern here. We don't know what effect such a space-time manipulation will have. Some speculate the craft will be consumed by a high energy reaction, while others say nothing of the sort is even possible. Space compression is, needless to say, a dangerous technology should it exhibit destructive properties.
Whatever the outcome of this experiment, it is almost certain we will learn something new about the nature of our universe.
Yes. Both synthetisation and a supporting environment are factors mitigated by having a functional warp drive, but they are nonetheless important technologies for the colonisation of hostile systems. Beyond space stations, I'm mainly thinking of those companies who are dreaming of going into the asteroid mining business. They're going to need suitable environment technology to support a mining crew in a hostile environment. Unless of course, we replace miners with robots. That could work as well.
By the time we reach 9 billion (from memory about 2050) we will need an extra 3000 cubic ki8lometres of water, about 200% of our current food production
Some scientists have been saying for decades that we'll run out of food and water at a certain date or when we hit a certain population number - and every single time they're wrong. Mainly because they grossly underestimate human capabilities and technological capacities.
Warming, whether man-made or otherwise will see the loss of about 1/3 of our species by 2050
Except that more species survive better when it's warmer.
In fact, every time our planet warms up the biomass expands as well - sometime exponentially. The fossil record shows this to be true. And of course, one need only visit a greenhouse to see how much plants and animals love hot and humid weather.