Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 7:21:15 GMT -5
Says the asian. China is ridiculously overpopulated and even though there is land available in America does not mean we need to inhabit it all. Because you're looking at Shanghai or Beijing or Guangzhou. These people left the rural areas to chase the dream of being a successful city dweller. India, Philippines & Indonesia has this problem too. Yet vast areas of arable land are being mismanaged. The day that agriculture can be a profitable venture for families, we could see people moving out of these mega-cities. We don't need another business degree holder. We need teachers, farmers & engineers. I understand your point but look at it as reality vs theory. If we can relocate x number of people and move them to Y location while becoming more efficient at Z food distribution technique then earth can accommodate 5 billion more people. That's well and good in theory but as it stands now, for what we have, there are too many people and it will continue to become a bigger problem.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 8, 2016 7:52:34 GMT -5
Because you're looking at Shanghai or Beijing or Guangzhou. These people left the rural areas to chase the dream of being a successful city dweller. India, Philippines & Indonesia has this problem too. Yet vast areas of arable land are being mismanaged. The day that agriculture can be a profitable venture for families, we could see people moving out of these mega-cities. We don't need another business degree holder. We need teachers, farmers & engineers. I understand your point but look at it as reality vs theory. If we can relocate x number of people and move them to Y location while becoming more efficient at Z food distribution technique then earth can accommodate 5 billion more people. That's well and good in theory but as it stands now, for what we have, there are too many people and it will continue to become a bigger problem. I agree that it would be logistically/politically impossible. I'm just refuting posts that we're over populated. I'd be the standard evil dictator if given the chance. It really is difficult to make people do what you think is right without the occasional death squads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 10:01:36 GMT -5
no, you had it right. we do have too many people and it's because of our resources and technology. if age expectancy was what it was 100 years ago, we wouldn't have too many people. the issue is that the people we have are living too long which ultimately means we have too many people. age expectancy keeps going up and the population keeps growing. combine those two and the planet might possibly not be able to sustain the population in 100 years, which sounds like a lot, but not really when you realize it's in your grandkids' lifetime. We can sustain over 4x our current population in the US alone with our resources/technology that is currently available. With the advancements on the horizon we are talking 10x. Yeah, fuck all that noise. We have too many people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 12:14:41 GMT -5
Sustain that amount? Sure, from a resources standpoint. But from a quality of life standpoint: No. Fucking. Way.
Not everyone wants to live in LA and be stuck in traffic for most of their life. And not everyone wants to be slammed into sardine can like living situations because there are too many other people who need a roof. We have way too many people. WAY WAY WAY too many people. And this is coming from someone who lives in a state that has less than 2M people in it. But when I was born, there were less than 1M people here.
And you can probably guess which socio-economic demographic is reproducing the fastest. The demographic who's life is subsidized by the rest of us.
Like E said. Fuck all that noise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 13:10:03 GMT -5
3. Usher in a Golden Age of Tech - within mere decades, advancements in tech will render all we know about medicine, economics, education, industry, and entertainment utterly obsolete. The impact on our society is 100% incalculable, and even unimaginable. 3D printing. Nanotech. Organ regeneration. Transportation . . . like in the Star Trek sense of the world. Some radically advanced concepts are literally on our doorstep. #3 eliminates the financial cost in the traditional view. The whole reason for the free society in Star Trek is because of the precursor to the technological singularity. We are at the doorsteps, some of us may see it in our lifetime where basics services, goods, healthcare, can all be provided without human labour. Once that happens we become a society where we indulge our selves, live what we want. Whether it be the couch potatoes (IMO will wind up being a very small fraction of our society due to our biology), or expressing ourselves via art/entertainment, researching even more advancements, learning, etc... There will always be people who want to cook, who want to build, who want to teach, etc... So they will, and the little things in our lives, the things that keep us surviving, are all just provided. Don't worry guys, I got this.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Dec 8, 2016 14:06:59 GMT -5
Find an economically feasible way to desalinate water. We have massive oceans yet still have water scarcity in many areas.
Reproduction is a major issue but fucking is fun and free. I agree we need to slow it down but how are we going to instruct some shoeless Joe that shits in the river he drinks from to NOT fuck and impregnate women? We have probably a billion primitive people that will never stop their cycle of reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Dec 8, 2016 14:10:58 GMT -5
1) when thinking about population sustainability it's best to think globally, but even if you don't, you have to believe that our technology would offset our consumption. a comforting thought, but not highly realistic... 2) your estimate is WILDLY optimistic and i'm sure is based on a number of assumptions. how much money have we, the tax payers, dumped into solar energy? and for what? less than 1% of electricity in the US is generated by solar. renewable energy policies are light years behind our thirst for consumption and i would assume your estimate would include some mind blowing, over night switch to renewable energy. of course energy is only part of the sustainability equation. food, water scarcity, waste, mineral consumables that are an every day part of life in the west are just as major. 3) to assume that somehow technology will mitigate our thirst for consumables and our propensity for waste, you have to believe that we are in some way willing to alter our standard of living. even if technology advances to the point that our consumption of consumables doesn't have to decrease and we develop more efficient ways to deal with our waste, surely you don't believe that both of those would come at no cost? if you had the choice to eliminate your use of fossil fuels at the additional cost of $5000 more a year, would you do it? $10,000? $20,000? we both know the answer to that question because we already know that we line up to buy goods produced by china who pay their employees pennies on the dollar to their american counterparts. we are in a downward spiral and if we don't control our population over the next millennia or two, nature will do it for us (natural disaster, plague, etc.). Holy fuck - how did you find this place? You've been gone for a long time!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 8, 2016 14:34:51 GMT -5
You can't fix something that's destined to die.
|
|
|
Post by mmaphreak on Dec 8, 2016 14:37:35 GMT -5
1) when thinking about population sustainability it's best to think globally, but even if you don't, you have to believe that our technology would offset our consumption. a comforting thought, but not highly realistic... 2) your estimate is WILDLY optimistic and i'm sure is based on a number of assumptions. how much money have we, the tax payers, dumped into solar energy? and for what? less than 1% of electricity in the US is generated by solar. renewable energy policies are light years behind our thirst for consumption and i would assume your estimate would include some mind blowing, over night switch to renewable energy. of course energy is only part of the sustainability equation. food, water scarcity, waste, mineral consumables that are an every day part of life in the west are just as major. 3) to assume that somehow technology will mitigate our thirst for consumables and our propensity for waste, you have to believe that we are in some way willing to alter our standard of living. even if technology advances to the point that our consumption of consumables doesn't have to decrease and we develop more efficient ways to deal with our waste, surely you don't believe that both of those would come at no cost? if you had the choice to eliminate your use of fossil fuels at the additional cost of $5000 more a year, would you do it? $10,000? $20,000? we both know the answer to that question because we already know that we line up to buy goods produced by china who pay their employees pennies on the dollar to their american counterparts. we are in a downward spiral and if we don't control our population over the next millennia or two, nature will do it for us (natural disaster, plague, etc.). Holy fuck - how did you find this place? You've been gone for a long time! haha! yeah man it's been a while. i was going to start posting on weekly and found it was gone. sherdog is too big so i somehow found this place. forget exactly how.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Dec 8, 2016 14:49:00 GMT -5
Holy fuck - how did you find this place? You've been gone for a long time! haha! yeah man it's been a while. i was going to start posting on weekly and found it was gone. sherdog is too big so i somehow found this place. forget exactly how. Pure energy, I guess
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 13:20:08 GMT -5
Find an economically feasible way to desalinate water. We have massive oceans yet still have water scarcity in many areas. Reproduction is a major issue but fucking is fun and free. I agree we need to slow it down but how are we going to instruct some shoeless Joe that shits in the river he drinks from to NOT fuck and impregnate women? We have probably a billion primitive people that will never stop their cycle of reproduction. Shit, with the way water shortages are trending, the whole "economically feasible" thing may go out the window. I don't think we are that far off-some zit faced 13 year old with a chemistry set is probably on the verge of figuring it out soon.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 9, 2016 15:09:05 GMT -5
Find an economically feasible way to desalinate water. We have massive oceans yet still have water scarcity in many areas. Reproduction is a major issue but fucking is fun and free. I agree we need to slow it down but how are we going to instruct some shoeless Joe that shits in the river he drinks from to NOT fuck and impregnate women? We have probably a billion primitive people that will never stop their cycle of reproduction. Shit, with the way water shortages are trending, the whole "economically feasible" thing may go out the window. I don't think we are that far off-some zit faced 13 year old with a chemistry set is probably on the verge of figuring it out soon. Which gets back to my #3. Water is two hydrogen, one oxygen. Nothing more. We can make water. And within 100 years we will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 15:50:17 GMT -5
Most of earth's hydrogen is already in water
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 9, 2016 16:26:50 GMT -5
Most of earth's hydrogen is already in water Ok. *waits for point*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 8:16:51 GMT -5
Um...so you're going to extract hydrogen from water...to make water. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Dec 10, 2016 8:31:01 GMT -5
Most of earth's hydrogen is already in water Um...so you're going to extract hydrogen from water...to make water. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 10, 2016 16:46:42 GMT -5
Um...so you're going to extract hydrogen from water...to make water. Got it. I wonder if there's any other hydrogen in the universe, or if desalination tech might improve over coming decades.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Dec 10, 2016 18:35:21 GMT -5
Um...so you're going to extract hydrogen from water...to make water. Got it. That's exactly right. From filthy water, poop water, salt water
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Dec 10, 2016 18:43:33 GMT -5
Fix the world? Easy with a time machine.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 10, 2016 20:38:14 GMT -5
Fix the world? Easy with a time machine. Giving Jackal's mom a condom won't fix the world; just this forum. What'd you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 11, 2016 4:39:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 9:23:42 GMT -5
Um...so you're going to extract hydrogen from water...to make water. Got it. That's exactly right. From filthy water, poop water, salt water This is really to you and Baph both. The thing is, it's going to be much easier to remove the stuff we don't want from the water (shit, salt, whatever), than to remove the hydrogen from the water. There's a reason we can do fusion but not fission. Fission is hard, and demands a lot of energy. Yes, of course there is plenty of hydrogen in the universe, it's the most abundant stuff out there. But are you going to go to fucking SPACE to get some to make water? I'm just asking you guys to think rationally here. We have plenty of WATER here on earth. Rather than making water, it's going to be much easier and more financially feasible to fix the water we have, than to make new water. Occam's razor, fellas.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 12, 2016 13:28:01 GMT -5
That's exactly right. From filthy water, poop water, salt water This is really to you and Baph both. The thing is, it's going to be much easier to remove the stuff we don't want from the water (shit, salt, whatever), than to remove the hydrogen from the water. There's a reason we can do fusion but not fission. Fission is hard, and demands a lot of energy. Yes, of course there is plenty of hydrogen in the universe, it's the most abundant stuff out there. But are you going to go to fucking SPACE to get some to make water? I'm just asking you guys to think rationally here. We have plenty of WATER here on earth. Rather than making water, it's going to be much easier and more financially feasible to fix the water we have, than to make new water. Occam's razor, fellas. Me, personally? No. A SpaceX drone rocket within 30-50 years? A hydrogen harvester? Absolutely. And it's not an either/or situation. Purification and hydro recycling. Atmospheric capture. Evaporation and concentration devices. My point is that tech will develop to the point that solutions not currently feasible will be relatively simple within our lifetimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 12:52:01 GMT -5
I like Baph's line of thinking here. However I do have one thing to add, which might be more feasible than hydrogen mining asteroids.
Elon Musk has talked at length about his vision to harness solar energy outside of our atmosphere and then beam it back through the atmosphere in the form of microwaves that can be harnessed by tech on the ground without losing energy to our atmosphere. I imagine Space X rockets bringing Solar City solar panels into orbit and constructing a massive array that can capture solar energy unfettered and transmit amounts of energy that have not ever been attainable on the ground via solar.
This sort of system is the one that theorists suggest would allow us to capture levels of energy that we cannot fathom right now, levels of energy that would open up crazy possibilities like actually being able to fold space time and travel thousands of light years in a much shorter period of time.
As such, a system like this could eventually lead to the reality of "free electricity" - and levels of sustainable energy present within our grid/system would be exponentially higher.
This would make desalination of ocean water much more economically feasible.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 13, 2016 15:26:07 GMT -5
I like Baph's line of thinking here. However I do have one thing to add, which might be more feasible than hydrogen mining asteroids. Elon Musk has talked at length about his vision to harness solar energy outside of our atmosphere and then beam it back through the atmosphere in the form of microwaves that can be harnessed by tech on the ground without losing energy to our atmosphere. I imagine Space X rockets bringing Solar City solar panels into orbit and constructing a massive array that can capture solar energy unfettered and transmit amounts of energy that have not ever been attainable on the ground via solar. This sort of system is the one that theorists suggest would allow us to capture levels of energy that we cannot fathom right now, levels of energy that would open up crazy possibilities like actually being able to fold space time and travel thousands of light years in a much shorter period of time. As such, a system like this could eventually lead to the reality of "free electricity" - and levels of sustainable energy present within our grid/system would be exponentially higher. This would make desalination of ocean water much more economically feasible. The only issue with this is Elon is talking about it. As long as it is something he can hype up, it'll be a long time before someone actually does it. Too much money and adoration for him to play the hype game rather than do the actual R&D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 19:30:59 GMT -5
A long time before someone actually does it, huh?
Dude dreamed up the hyperloop less than three years ago. They are building one to connect Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Testing starts next year.
I own stock in his companies because he actually gets shit done.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 13, 2016 21:02:36 GMT -5
A long time before someone actually does it, huh? Dude dreamed up the hyperloop less than three years ago. They are building one to connect Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Testing starts next year. I own stock in his companies because he actually gets shit done. He could have put us on Mars already, but he likes the spotlight too much. They aren't building one in Dubai, they are doing a feasibility study there is all along with like a dozen other places. The big issue is making the vacuum tube needed, the longest they've done successfully was about 1 mile long and they need to be making them in straight sections of something like 150 miles to pull off what they want. We aren't going to see a proper hyperloop without a change in manufacturing technology (which is something that he doesn't want changed), but we will likely see a hybrid system which overall would be better and more practical for human travel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 10:11:27 GMT -5
A few things.
I don't think he could have put us on Mars already in the manner that he wants to. The Space X rocket needs to be able to land safely -every time- before his system could be implemented. Right now they still sometimes blow up. His grand scheme is solid, but the rockets need to be able to land and then take off again in order for it to work, as he says they'll be refueling in orbit around Earth. I'm sure he could have gotten people to Mars by now, but he's said that "being able to get home is important", and that's why it hasn't happened. I don't think he's sabotaging himself, I think he's just committed to doing it right- which doesn't always mean doing it fast.
As far as the hyperloop goes, he did the same thing he did with Tesla's battery system and made them available to other companies at no cost. Making it open source speeds things up, it doesn't slow things down. Just look at the advancements GM made on the Volt and Chevy made on the Bolt after Elon released his tech. It took those companies less than three years to implement the improvements in their own vehicles. And what I read about the one being built in the desert is that if testing proves it to be viable, they will open it up and cut the travel time between Dubai and Abu Dhabi down to 12 minutes. That's impressive. It might take another ten years before it comes to fruition, but it's happening.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Dec 14, 2016 11:17:35 GMT -5
I can never figure out what is more consistent:
Jackel not understanding what everyone else is talking about or Jackel being wrong on everything he says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 12:20:51 GMT -5
You also only have certain windows when you can launch to go to Mars. Off the top of my head I want to say they are every two and a half years or so. You wouldn't want to launch for Mars when Mars is on the other side of the sun...(well, maybe you would. Once you do the math and figure out where it will be when you are ready to land, but you get my point.)
|
|