361–370 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. Maybe it will eventually reach the amount spent on causing brain damage to teenagers.
For the amount of downvotes I received, is this the best rebuttal anybody can come up with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
Not a Malthusian, but I’m very worried about the amount of resources we are using. We already lack the carbon budget and farming capacity for the world’s population to live to the standard of an average US citizen. There might be enough space and enough atoms, but we don’t yet have the capability to direct it into sustainable quality of life for all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
> Malthusians exist. As long as the population increases, Malthus is right. There is going to be some ultimate carrying capacity at some point. Ultimate amount of energy we can harness. It's just a question when. Certainly before our energy consumption is enough to literally boil the oceans. Plug in different growth rates and the answer could range from tens of years to hundreds of millions of years!
Wrong. As long as population growth remains positive without end in sight, Malthus right.
However, THE END OF POSITIVE POPULATION GROWTH IS IN SIGHT.
I mean, I said so in the comment you responded to, and you conveniently ignored it. Instead you went right for the Malthusian fearmongering talking points. "It's just a question of when" -- no, no it's not, not if population plateaus and then shrinks (negative population growth for a while is practically baked in now into the world's demographics).
> Plug in different growth rates and the answer could range from tens of years to hundreds of millions of years!
Why thank you. Hundreds of millions of years is more than there is time for life on this planet. Without our help, each successive glacial period was ending with CO2 lower than the end of the previous glacial period, and plants starve below certain levels (I think it's 150ppm for one kind of photosynthesis, lower for another) and was going to end up below those levels soon enough. Now, thanks to HUMANS life on Earth has millions more years in it because we've put a little bit of the Earth's sequestered carbon back into the carbon cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
If there were fewer people on Earth, then presumably there would be less deforestation, overfishing, greenhouse emissions, etc. I strongly reject the idea that the Earth can support the current human population at the current levels of consumption and pollution .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
Even if we had 16x less people, some rich bastard would claim ownership of the now excess resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
> But the malthusians want to reduce population by 16x This seems pretty extreme, but thank you for bringing the concept of Malthusianism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism ) to my attention. While i'm not convinced that it's likely to be the end of humanity (but rather the results of thousands of compounding factors), the irresponsibility in regards to unrestrained consumerism is something that i see ever…
> This seems pretty extreme
Well, yes, that's because it is. But some really do want that. See The Georgia Guidestones for more information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly believe the consuming less is not the way to solve the climate crisis. The reason is that it's thought from a perspective of the global north, that assumes we just need to restrict a little to achieve a lot. That is not going to solve the global climate crisis. The simple reason is that there are 7 billion people who are not living in the rich countries. These people have the right to access resources as m…
Reductions are not gonna work nor tech. Technology is just going to increase demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
Well, quite. Climate change also exists. So do resource limits. Something that doesn't exist is the science of living outside of an existing planetary ecosystem. Do some research on how much is understood about creating a stable ecosystem out of sand, metal ore, and water. You'll find it's a good approximation to zero. Flag wavers think it's all about building giant rockets, planting a flag - and boom. Colony! Astero…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the amount of downvotes I received, is this the best rebuttal anybody can come up with?
I think it sums it up nicely. The fact that a company makes a lot of money isn’t an argument against them and we spend a lot of money on many nonsensical things so spending more on something that drives technological advancement is a good thing.
I wasn't making an argument against companies making a lot of money. I was merely pointing out that the commercialization will be sinking capital investment far greater than just 2 billion, contrary to the poster's claim. I don't speak of the counterfactual, i.e., where that excess money would go otherwise, but I do share the OP's lament that we should be trying to fix problems on Earth. If Space tech can help in some way, I'm all for that.
> spending more on something that drives technological advancement is a good thing
Technologies are amoral. Whether or not the advancement or deployment of any particular technology is a 'good thing' is a matter of subjectivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthusians exist. They think we're running out of oil, soil and arable land, fresh water, and... just about everything. The logic is that since population growth is exponential, we really could run out of resources. And... that's both totally correct and totally wrong. Totally correct: because yeah, duh, if we had 1 trillion people... Totally wrong: because in fact the arc of evolution of fertility rates, population…
Well, quite. Climate change also exists. So do resource limits. Something that doesn't exist is the science of living outside of an existing planetary ecosystem. Do some research on how much is understood about creating a stable ecosystem out of sand, metal ore, and water. You'll find it's a good approximation to zero. Flag wavers think it's all about building giant rockets, planting a flag - and boom. Colony! Astero…
I seem to remember some guy saying something about that.
We’ve never let the fact that something doesn’t exist yet stop us. We are a species of inventors. We didn’t stay huddled naked in caves because they work and we got them for free. We aren’t meant to be like the rest of the ecosystem that mutely accepts its fate. We know we can die but we also reject the natural order of succumbing to predation, famine, disease and exposure. This planet is a cradle that we cannot lie in forever. Some day it will be dust and we will have to learn to walk amongst the stars.