Thirty seconds to live - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

rudrigorc2

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote

advances in chemicals and genetics that allow us to grow much more food from the same amount of space.

I am sure using this has HUGE drawbacks but I just cant explain it. and sooner or later the nature will charge us very bad because of this unbalanced techniques. especially if by genetics you mean transgenics.

hashman

legendary

Activity: 1264

Merit: 1008

Quote from: usagi on January 12, 2013, 12:20:04 AM

...the hell they will have to go through of being forbidden to reproduce.

Eh? I think most people would disagree with you about "that hell", though of course "forbidden" is never a nice thing.

Remember the ultimate punishment described for original sin: go forth and multiply.
Notice also that birth rate tends to drop in places with higher consumer surplus.
Other than that, yeah this is a discussion worth having.

Quote

and advances in chemicals and genetics that allow us to grow much more food from the same amount of space.

I wish you were right about this one. Unfortunately it looks like the chemicals and genetics are instead often used to keep food out of peoples hands (Terminator genes, desertification, crops requiring more expensive chemical purchases) in the usual attempt to "make very rich people even richer". American agricultural science thousands of years ago was more advanced.

Schleicher

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 514

Quote from: usagi on January 13, 2013, 12:04:53 AM

There are going to be serious issues even if we transition to solar right now, because it costs more energy to build a solar panel using today's technology that will be realized by said solar panel in it's lifetime.

No, that's not true.
Energy payback time is less than 2 years for european panels. For chinese panels a little bit more.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Beans on January 12, 2013, 11:13:33 PM

It's disturbing reading posts from people who think our current reproduction rates are sustainable in the long term. I would prefer giving everyone the right to have one child, along with the ability to sell the rights to someone else. It would decrease poverty as well. If we wait until nature does it for us, there won't be much nature left.

Now this, my man, is an idea worth thinking about.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Easy: continue to make our technologies more energy efficient, as we have been throughout our existence. Our cars went from 5 miles per gallon to 50, or lightbulbs went from 100 watts to 10, our computers went from taking up buildings and using up kilowatts of power to fitting in our hands and using a fraction of power, etc. And we have yet to start seriously using our natural gas reserves, nuclear power is still practically in the "dirty coal-powered stream engine" stage, solar is still only beginning to be explored (I like where advances in solar stirling engines is going), and we have yet to tap into fusion power. We still have a very long way to go.

usagi

vip

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

13

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 11:18:48 PM

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 12:26:28 AM

The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.

+1

On that one, I'm fully with Myrkul !

Technology can bring the carrying capacity of the earth well beyond we think possible.

You had me right up to here.

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

The monetary system and corrupted values that it promotes make the actual "beleived carying capacity" !

Now, when you say "monetary system," do you mean the debt-as-money the world runs on now, or sound money, as well?

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Capitalism puts breaks on technological advancement, and whitout those outdated-capitalist constraint, we could have 100x more effectiver solar panel, lab grown meat that is exactly the same as the actual meat we eat, cure for cancer... etc..

Capitalism drives progress. Every time capitalism is suppressed, progress is stagnated.

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Remove $ and we can more than double the carrying capacity of the earth. We are not short on space to live, we are short on food and energy, because of the $ system.

Could you please explain how money limits food and energy artificially?

I agree, that technology can increase the carrying capacity of the earth. But that is in fact my point -- technology has (and may continue to) increase the carrying capacity of the earth.

But technology requires energy. For example take some supercomplex cryptography algorithm where brute force is written off because solving it would take more energy than exists in the solar system. It's like that. How can we use technology to solve the world's ills when there is not enough energy to apply that technology all over the world? There are going to be serious issues even if we transition to solar right now, because it costs more energy to build a solar panel using today's technology that will be realized by said solar panel in it's lifetime. The reason why it feels cheap now, is because of the reliance on fossil fuels which are a diminishing resource.

I don't know how to solve this problem.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 12:26:28 AM

The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.

+1

On that one, I'm fully with Myrkul !

Technology can bring the carrying capacity of the earth well beyond we think possible.

You had me right up to here.

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

The monetary system and corrupted values that it promotes make the actual "beleived carying capacity" !

Now, when you say "monetary system," do you mean the debt-as-money the world runs on now, or sound money, as well?

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Capitalism puts breaks on technological advancement, and whitout those outdated-capitalist constraint, we could have 100x more effectiver solar panel, lab grown meat that is exactly the same as the actual meat we eat, cure for cancer... etc..

Capitalism drives progress. Every time capitalism is suppressed, progress is stagnated.

Quote from: DoomDumas on January 12, 2013, 11:04:33 PM

Remove $ and we can more than double the carrying capacity of the earth. We are not short on space to live, we are short on food and energy, because of the $ system.

Could you please explain how money limits food and energy artificially?

DoomDumas

legendary

Activity: 1002

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: wachtwoord on January 12, 2013, 11:14:10 AM

It's not primarily room to live but lack of resources (especially water) that will become a problem. I am convinced there will be wars over sources of water in my lifetime. This does not mean I will be in physical danger as I had the luck to be born in a wealth country (lowering the chances I'll be in harms way).

desalination and distilation of water = problem solved

Thanks to human knowledge and well applied science !

Beans

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

It's disturbing reading posts from people who think our current reproduction rates are sustainable in the long term. I would prefer giving everyone the right to have one child, along with the ability to sell the rights to someone else. It would decrease poverty as well. If we wait until nature does it for us, there won't be much nature left.

DoomDumas

legendary

Activity: 1002

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: benjamindees on January 12, 2013, 07:21:17 AM

Why Malthus got his Forecast Wrong

At the level of currently-economical renewable energy technologies, you consume the equivalent of approximately 20 acres worth of sunlight, in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels won't last forever.

In the US, with relatively low population density, there are only approximately 6.5 acres per capita.

You can choose to fill the gap with land, with water, with investment in renewable energy technologies (both economical and uneconomical), or with some 80-odd human slaves.

But you will have to fill the gap, or accept lower energy consumption (and a likely lower standard of living), regardless, before the fossil fuels run out.

Quote from: Rassah on January 12, 2013, 01:46:18 AM

100 years later we have robotic tractors that require very few farmers to operate, and advances in chemicals and genetics that allow us to grow much more food from the same amount of space.

And we have a quasi-socialist mixed economy to manage them, just as Marx predicted.

Remove the word economy from your tought : problem solved. Solar panels more than double production per square inch, every year.. those technology are just not economicaly viable.. so remove the actual monetary sytem = problems solved !

DoomDumas

legendary

Activity: 1002

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 12:26:28 AM

The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.

+1

On that one, I'm fully with Myrkul !

Technology can bring the carrying capacity of the earth well beyond we think possible.

The monetary system and corrupted values that it promotes make the actual "beleived carying capacity" !

Capitalism puts breaks on technological advancement, and whitout those outdated-capitalist constraint, we could have 100x more effectiver solar panel, lab grown meat that is exactly the same as the actual meat we eat, cure for cancer... etc..

Remove $ and we can more than double the carrying capacity of the earth. We are not short on space to live, we are short on food and energy, because of the $ system.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth
SEPTEMBER 01, 1993 by DAVID OSTERFELD

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth/

herzmeister

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Rassah on January 12, 2013, 01:46:18 AM

and eat algae

but SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE !!!1! Angry

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

It's not primarily room to live but lack of resources (especially water) that will become a problem. I am convinced there will be wars over sources of water in my lifetime. This does not mean I will be in physical danger as I had the luck to be born in a wealth country (lowering the chances I'll be in harms way).

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 12:26:28 AM

The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.

At the same time there will be limiting factors: the rubber tension and pressure within is rising on inflation of the balloon.

This will lower the rate of reproduction / survival of offspring until reproduction.

Akka

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1001

This is oversimplified.

We basically have already 206 bottles, which are on average filled to ~75%.

Some of them are only filled 25%, while others are filled by over a 100% and can only survive by getting resources from other bottles.

The interesting part will begin when the average comes near to a 100%, while some bottles are still <50%. That will be fun.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: myrkul on January 12, 2013, 12:26:28 AM

The carrying capacity of the earth is not static. Technological advancements continually expand it. We aren't living in a glass bottle, but a rubber balloon.

True. Without nuclear energy we have already passed the carrying capacity of the earth. If we keep using polluting fresh water (with mercury) and keep polluting the air at this rate we will start to die off from disease at a faster rate. With nuclear we can have a much higher population without damaging the earth to the point where it damages us back.

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Why Malthus got his Forecast Wrong

At the level of currently-economical renewable energy technologies, you consume the equivalent of approximately 20 acres worth of sunlight, in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels won't last forever.

In the US, with relatively low population density, there are only approximately 6.5 acres per capita.

You can choose to fill the gap with land, with water, with investment in renewable energy technologies (both economical and uneconomical), or with some 80-odd human slaves.

But you will have to fill the gap, or accept lower energy consumption (and a likely lower standard of living), regardless, before the fossil fuels run out.

Quote from: Rassah on January 12, 2013, 01:46:18 AM

100 years later we have robotic tractors that require very few farmers to operate, and advances in chemicals and genetics that allow us to grow much more food from the same amount of space.

And we have a quasi-socialist mixed economy to manage them, just as Marx predicted.

gabbergabe

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Most of european nations have negative growth, some nations can disappear in next 100 years. If there is too much people in other countries or continents it is their problem, not ours! If they want to migrate to our bottle, well nothing a FAL FN or MG-42 cant solve!

Globally yes, the problem of human population is growing, locally we lost about million of people, roughly a 33% of our population. If accounted for whole country a large city is depopulated because more people die than are born. This is unaccounting the people who emigrated seeking adequately paid jobs elsewhere.

Topic: Thirty seconds to live - page 2. (Read 2781 times)