How Western Civilisation Could Collapse (BBC)

access said:
remember, colonizing space just means transferring resources from this planet to space, which give you the same problem, limited resources.
Click to expand...

Huh, no it doesn't? It includes the usage of resources outside of Earth.
 
access said:
remember, colonizing space just means transferring resources from this planet to space, which give you the same problem, limited resources.
Click to expand...

Wut? The whole point of colonisation is the opposite: you range out to new frontiers in order to find more resources for the place you originated from. Yes, there is an initial resource investment from the colonisers, but the intention is that this investment is quickly repaid in spades.

NASA has estimated that Earth plus the asteroid belt (ignoring all the other planets) can support up to 10 quadrillion people. That's 6 orders of magnitude more than the less-than-10^10 we currently have on this planet.

Asteroid resource extraction will be a game-changer that will essentially assure a post-scarcity society, if we aren't there yet by that time.
 
yes, when you have a handful of people maintaining multiple machines yes sure, not move millions of people to space
 
The_Assimilator said:
Incorrect. When demand outstrips supply, the focus turns to refining the technology responsible for that supply so that the product can be produced at a lower cost, which both allows more people to afford and buy the product, as well as gaining that product a larger share of the available market.
Click to expand...
Currently we have a oversupply and not enough demand. We are able to produce a shīt load of cars, but their aren't enough buyers. Now manufacturers can compete in the race to the bottom like they are currently doing and cut cost(get rid of people) to try and make their products cheaper. But that isn't sustainable in the long run, the more they cut the more they would need to cut. The solution world wide is to give people(not machines) real jobs or money for nothing if you really want to experiment with runaway inflation and having the robots work for us.
A free market will take care of this, it has natural ups and downs, the bubble will pop things will get ugly for a while and then people will rebuild.
 
rietrot said:
Lol quoting a bunch of bs form news sources that's basically some tree huger journalist's opinion doesn't proof anything. Try again using facts, numbers and stuff.
Click to expand...

Sure, as opposed to the BS sprouted in the video you posted, I wonder if you actually bothered to read the comments below it.

Educate yourself on the health issues:
Discussing population control has become a taboo topic. Yet, this taboo has major implications for public health.
Click to expand...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539046/

and the environmental issues:
http://www.igi-global.com/book/environmental-issues-surrounding-human-overpopulation/162654

There are a number of reasons that world population growth continues to be taboo or at least sidestepped by international bodies addressing climate change and population matters.

First, actions to tackle rapid population growth are highly contentious, involving sensitive, personal matters of contraception, abortion, reproductive and sexual health and rights. While most women in more developed countries use contraception, an estimated 200 million women worldwide say that want to delay or prevent pregnancy and are asking for access to modern family planning methods. Making methods of birth control available in principle to couples is one thing; promoting, facilitating and subsidizing their access and use among individuals and couples by governmental authorities are another matter.

Second, many of those concerned about climate change, including environmentalists, climate scientists, leaders of nongovernmental organizations, politicians and journalists, are reluctant to become embroiled in controversial population issues, especially those relating to birth control and immigration. Rather than address world demographic growth and perhaps offend or, worse, alienate many of their donors and supporters, these “leaders” prefer to focus on technological fixes, which are viewed as the only appropriate and workable solutions to global climate change.

Third, a stabilized or declining population is feared by many people, especially those in finance, construction, manufacturing, farming, food processing and the military, thinking it will sap a nation’s economy and strength, inducing recession and eventually a depression. Low birth rates, especially below replacement level, are deemed a matter of national concern. For them, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — translates into more people and higher demand for goods and services, greater material consumption, additional workers and military recruits and thus higher profits. Consequently, environmental concerns, in particular human-induced climate change, are minimized as unproven and exaggerated.
Click to expand...
http://www.passblue.com/2014/09/16/climate-change-and-world-population-still-avoiding-each-other/

Clearly at the end of the day, people (the public) politicians and scientists are simply too afraid to make decisions regarding or addressing the issue of overpopulation.

Everybody acknowledges it, from the U.N down, but nobody wants to deal with it, they are too concerned with profit margins and causing offence to their support base. Pathetic.
 
It's much easier to increase the carrying capacity through technology than to enforce social rules, and fits in with the human narrative. The same applies to climate change.

Austerity simply cannot and should not be enforced on people.
 
Last edited:
also keep in mind, earth is pretty forgiving with regards to carrying capacity compared to a small enclosed environment, just look how delicate bio domes are, which is what it would essentially be in space. one mistake in space can kill all in the environment.

we cant even control ourselves on this planet, to move millions of us to a highly strict environment seems almost impossible. then again, maybe the strict rule to live by is what's needed. and as said, leaders have other things they care about at the moment.
 
access said:
also keep in mind, earth is pretty forgiving with regards to carrying capacity compared to a small enclosed environment, just look how delicate bio domes are, which is what it would essentially be in space. one mistake in space can kill all in the environment.

we cant even control ourselves on this planet, to move millions of us to a highly strict environment seems almost impossible. then again, maybe the strict rule to live by is what's needed. and as said, leaders have other things they care about at the moment.
Click to expand...
Man is incredibly adaptable. Small enclosed environments will grow as the needs of space man grows.
 
Garson007 said:
Man is incredibly adaptable. Small enclosed environments will grow as the needs of space man grows.
Click to expand...

eventually, but to get to a scale that allows multiple mistakes(as people do) will take a moerse long time. I remember watching a docu about bio domes and earth and whats required for a man made environment to be as forgiving, or even close. I think the final thought was it would be easier to terraform a planet/moon and just transfer life there instead of trying to sustain it in the harshness of space for that many people.


I'm also interested to know how our bodies will function and grow considering earths gravity is what made us function the way we do.

like tv series, the expanse, the belters are all frail compared to earthers.
 
Aquila ka Hecate said:
Plus the fact that many religious systems forbid contraception and abortion. But I guess that's part of what you're saying.

The real root of the problem is, as always, too many people for the system, aka overshoot of carrying capacity on the current scale of the system, which is planetary.
Click to expand...

Abortion as a method of birth control?!! :sick:
 
Nanfeishen said:
Sure, as opposed to the BS sprouted in the video you posted, I wonder if you actually bothered to read the comments below it.

Educate yourself on the health issues:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539046/

and the environmental issues:
http://www.igi-global.com/book/environmental-issues-surrounding-human-overpopulation/162654


http://www.passblue.com/2014/09/16/climate-change-and-world-population-still-avoiding-each-other/

Clearly at the end of the day, people (the public) politicians and scientists are simply too afraid to make decisions regarding or addressing the issue of overpopulation.

Everybody acknowledges it, from the U.N down, but nobody wants to deal with it, they are too concerned with profit margins and causing offence to their support base. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Jeez again some historic events mixed in with emotional garbage and opinion. If you want to proof the world is overpopulated throw some numbers around. Apart from the mention of historical events your link offers zero facts. It does correctly claim that people have moved on from the overpopulation myth, not because it is somehow ''taboo" lol, but because it is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X