August 4, 2007 at 7:34 pm #8044charles broughParticipant
The environmental problems that cause so much world-wide concern may mean that the Earth’s resources are not less but that we are more. Decades ago, “over-population” was considered a big threat but the dire predictions that were based on it have never been born out. It might seem that with the right technology, we can pile up our numbers indefinitely. By living in high rise buildings, we would never even be limited in space. We could make room for one hundred billion of us. It all depends upon our technological ability to keep compensating for the continuing decline in per capita resources and the rising cost of obtaining them.
But suppose the scientific age began to falter, to slow down and even come to an end. Then, living standards would drop in direct proportion to the rise in population and the decline of science and technology. It is not as though this cannot happen! It has happened over and over again in world history.
One thing that could slow and then stop the growth of science and technology would be a continuation of the turning back to the old religions. The Age of Science came to fruition in the Age of Enlightenment. But by electing “born again” presidents, we are changing that. Pat Robertson-trained people pouring into the Federal bureaucracy is helping. No wonder scientists have to keep defending evolution. Science is becoming less and less effective in our society.
People are turning back to the old faiths because the stress level of society is rising. That has some thing to do with feeling over-crowded. Rats and mice have been shown to exhibit so much stress from feeling over-crowded that they experience a behavioral deterioration. It occurs not from lack of food but just being too close. I suggest that we feel crowded in direct proportion to how much we are ideologically divided. It is hard to feel close to someone who has an entirely different world-view and way of thinking.
November 4, 2007 at 1:51 am #77440
I hate religions that’s what stops science… BUSH IS STUPID HE VETOED THAT He won’t give funds to STEM CELL research AND SAVE other ppls lives but that was because that every christian follows the pope and sais killing lives is wrong but stem research can help other ppl who have lived with cancer there whole lives and haven’t found a cure but stem cell research can solve this. Also Christians are against abbortion i mean c’mon i mean kids are getting pregnant at a younger age. It’s not like u want to have a baby at TWELVE!!!!!!!! No offense if ur christian i mean the pope thinks that way and other ppl have different views on things..
November 4, 2007 at 8:45 pm #77462
Do we need a cure for cancer? Honestly… do we? Do we need to extend the human lifespan into the hundreds so that retirement capitals like Florida can make zillions more dollars off of our social security money, and our politicians can have a whole new segment of citizens to pander to?
Yes, lets cure diabetes, alzheimers, cancer, obesity… Lets make a little pill so our beloved baby-boomers never die! Then lets develop cybernetics! People are obviously worthy of the consideration being lavished on them by the medical industry, otherwise why would they go to all this trouble to find new and better ways to keep us alive?
Oh, maybe because we’re the rats in the wheel that keeps the economy turning, and keep making the rich richer. Don’t think that corporations haven’t figured out the value of a human life. The bottom line is how do we keep them alive so we can keep them producing and consuming. Good intentions went out the window ages ago. We’re weak and we’re becoming weaker. We’re being lulled into complacency. We’re livestock. Wake up and smell the maure!
Medical and societal "advances" no longer have the individual in mind. The "greater good" is fine, just as long as it makes the people in power richer.
At least religious people (or at least some of them) can legitimately cite moral convictions rather than parroting the mass-media which is funded by guess-who. Whether I agree with them or not, I can respect someone who believes that a human life starts at conception, and holds strong to their standards and fights for what they believe is right.
Yes many religions are corrupt and/or corruptible, but don’t think science isn’t. Don’t think that politics plays no part in either. Don’t think that a secular humanist is any less of a pawn than a religious person
Why should we want more people? Why should we want people to live longer? Why should we find ways to compensate for peoples’ idiocy.
"Oh it’s OK we have a pill for that, it’s only $200 dollars per bottle, fortunately you’re on welfare so it’s free"
November 4, 2007 at 11:33 pm #77474
Well some ppl like to live long lives others don’t some ppl are very religious others aren’t.
But what if it was a kid that had cancer , the kid would want to have a longer life and what if he/she was your son/daughter would u just let her die or want ppl to create a cure for cancer.
November 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm #77486kotoreruParticipant
Well this is it, basically: "Would I want my children to die for the good of humanity?"
locobw, makes friends with , . ; : please…
November 6, 2007 at 12:07 am #77504
Hello good question….I thought we were already friends just debating on a topic. I’m just a kid i mean like anybody i talk to i’m mostly friends with
Also that’s funny how we’re debatin this over the internet. Well how old r u? Cause i’m like 12 7th graade live in TX
November 13, 2007 at 5:10 am #77699
So we could potentially develop technology to enable hundreds of billions of people living on earth.
The question is at what cost to the environment? What have we gained when the last tree is cut down to make way for an artificial hydroponic farm – or whatever?
Are we really the only species that matters? Won’t it be kind of lonely when the only other species we have to interact with are the bacteria that live in our gut?
Think about the rarity of life in our universe. Sure, maybe somewhere out there amongst the billions of stars, life has evolved to some point or another. But when you put it in that perspective, every living species is a miraculous phenomenon.
Who are we to decide what species live or die, when we can live just fine in relative harmony with nature?
It has been our sometimes-literal arms race between countries, cultures, and religions that has spurred us on to ever ‘better’ medicine, agriculture, and weapons. Some might argue that our technological achievements have allowed us to achieve better scientific understanding and ‘enlightenment’, but at what cost?
Ah, but bemoaning the state of affairs will accomplish very little. I just wish more people shared my views that we don’t need all the things we think we do. That so-called progress is not necessarily a good thing.
railroads: enabled the near-extirpation of the American Indian (and the buffalo). Enabled Hitlers war machine (and mass transport of Jews to camps). Initiated what we now know as industrial agribusiness.
fertilizer: Yes, we can grow crops AND algae blooms, while no longer having to give a hoot about the health of our soils. Guess what bombs are made out of…
pesticides: I don’t think i need to elaborate
nuclear physics: Hiroshima, Nagasaki… Cold War, excuses for invading foreign countries
Cotton gin: Ok, that was the beginning of industrial agribusiness I guess.
Anyway, call me cynical. I know these things have had a lot of good effects too, but I ask at what cost?
November 15, 2007 at 3:30 am #77786
You are right i mean to do we want to kill all nature i mean look what it’s doin to Ethiopia global warming is affecting them. Did we need railroadtrains,cars,
airplanes,boats,and for that matter did we ever need to travel by air,or sea. Also global warming is even affecting us in Texas i mean we’ve gotten more rain then we’ve gotten in years and my grandparents say Georgia is going through a drought.
I ask one question that’s been on my mind,how did we get like this,people who killl deers and bulls just for souvenirs I mean c’mon. Also look at Zimbabwe look what’s happening there,how did we get so greedy. Look at the country i live in,USA, and our health insurance i mean we’re killing our own ppl. But then again look at nature ppl cutting down tress for paper. I mean did we ever have to learn any of this, get an education all we needed was food, water , and a place to live not rocket science.
Did we ever have to start preserving natural habitats? Well maybe if ppl quit over hunting animals, and leave at least some other organisms alive. Did we ever have to have asthma,no, well we sort of created it i mean almost every kid has asthma because of pollution and all that. Do we ever have to save anyone’s life i mean , we all have live and die do we ever need kidney transplants,or heart bipass surgery. Everybody dies u can’t stop that.
Kids at my age don’t care about any of this although i play like every other kid. No other kid cares about this not even my mom. We all live in harmony but some day it’s gonna it us..hard. Look at america we’re a sucky country we’re in so much in debt.. we are goin into recession.
P.S: don’t think i’m a nerd or anything or a loner i play football,and other stuf like other kids.. watch: sicko the movie by Michael Moore
November 24, 2007 at 3:35 pm #78441mcarParticipant
The Law of Conservation of Matter answers.
November 24, 2007 at 6:29 pm #78449
What is law of conservation of matter? Why does it answer it all. I don’t get it?????????????????????????????????? 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕 😕
November 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm #78452
it’s physics… matter cannot be created or destroyed. I don’t do enough drugs to understand his cryptic posts so I’ve stopped trying.
November 24, 2007 at 10:14 pm #78462
Oh yah i learned that in the 6th grade. Oh yah i don’t get that and by the way that isn’t funny, i just hope that wasn’t a joke.
December 15, 2007 at 11:20 pm #79665smalikParticipant
We take more land then we are supposed to.
December 15, 2007 at 11:42 pm #79666smalikParticipantquote locobw:
I must indeed agree with you.
October 22, 2008 at 6:43 pm #86663
I miss Charles, he at least had some fun topics to discuss.
March 10, 2009 at 11:28 pm #89603NatureTalkParticipant
I saw a fascinating interview on TV a few months back (sorry, forget the guest, a population expert) who said that populations will rise throughout this century, probably to 8-9 billion.
After that, he expects population to drop. As example, native populations in Europe are dropping. When folks reach a certain level of wealth, they stop making so many babies.
In his opinion, we face an era of great risk through this century. After that, if we make it, he predicts a bright future.
March 11, 2009 at 5:36 am #89615alextempletParticipant
Very possible. It all depends on whether or not most poorer countries can develop themselves, or if their own corruption and the rest of the world’s apathy will continue to hold them back.
March 16, 2009 at 11:31 am #89718futurezoologistParticipantquote :quote :
Seems like we are going into the meaning of life here…
By your logic then: Do we need food or water? Why do we need to survive? If we have no reason to survive other than to survive and reproduce then why survive?… Think harder. Think past what you have been told or past the simple puzzle pieces you have assembled in your head.quote :
Yes. Or maybe you should have asked: Are humans curious? …same answer – same questionquote :
Ahh i love primordial instincts. "im really strong, i can catch many buffalo"
If by definition a nerd is one who thinks about things then i am definately a nerd. Dont let cultural notions and attitudes sculpt your ideologies, keep thinking and learning.quote :
-Lack of exercise
Note that the environment is 1 factor.
Where are you getting all these little things from? Science is 10% persuasion 90% evidence – not the other way around.
Sorry if i get a little worked up on doomsday-negative nancy issues.
September 25, 2009 at 11:54 am #93036
In some countries ,like china, government is trying to control the population cause they’re faced with lack of sources and in some European countries they’re encouraging couples to have babies!
What happens to be the reason? The weather!? 🙂 really, is there a reason related to geography or not?
September 27, 2009 at 8:10 am #93096JackBeanParticipant
No, the reason is, how much developed is the country and the density of population.
About the first, someone already spoke here. E.g. the European countries (the native population) is decreasing, as we do not have so many babies etc…, on the other hand, the Arabian world is still growing, and their population is also growing in the Europe…
About the first, if you had population of China (1.3 billions or more now?) spread all over the world, than you won’t have any problem with the same number of people, whit which they have problem now. If you put the whole population of US to e.g. New Zealand, than you will have definitelly problems, althrough Americans live now quite well 😉
September 30, 2009 at 11:44 am #93199
Well, don’t you consider china a developed country?
I guess it’s mostly based on the cultures & the culture of a country is related to geography things. Those from warm places are usually much lazier! (I’m not joking)
October 2, 2009 at 11:46 am #93287JackBeanParticipant
I hope, you’re not Chinese, but no, I don’t. Maybe the big cities on the east coast, but if you take the country as whole, I think it’s more like developing country…
Yeah, at least in Europe, it’s true (Italien, Spain × Scandinavian:), but what about e.g. Japanese or other Asian tygers?
October 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm #93431
I’m not chinese
I’ve got absolutely no idea about those countries!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.