First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A brief history of mankind and his likely future.
454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Winter Springs, F...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
Looks like someone should give some consideration to The Venus Project.



18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

EJgarland1993 wrote:

Looks like someone should give some consideration to The Venus Project.





Who's doing the physical labor?

Immigrants?

Elysium
454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Winter Springs, F...
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

onibrotonel wrote:


EJgarland1993 wrote:

Looks like someone should give some consideration to The Venus Project.





Who's doing the physical labor?

Immigrants?

Elysium


Watch the video linked in OP and read this FAQ.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15
I'm liking where we're headed in our conversation, Desu. I'll have to address what you've said when I've a bit more time to (composing posts on complicated issues like this can take a while, especially when it's in response to someone), but tentatively I'll say that I'll have a look at this movie to see where your information is coming from.


serifsansserif wrote:

As per agriculture, I listed better practices that are taking hold.
I mentioned urban farming and "green" spaces.

heres some pics

NYC gives tax credits for green roofs, as do other cities like chicago.
an article on urban farming
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/dining/17roof.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
More on rabbits over chickens
http://magazine.good.is/articles/backyard-bunnies-are-the-new-urban-chickens
NYC started recently a project to try and capture compostable waste and turn it into something of use (fertilizer for growing food)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/compost/composting_nyc.shtml
And though can't find sheep over cattle, here's goats:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/12/goat-other-sustainable-red-meat/
(it's not the only city trying to figure it out, but it is one of the most difficult ones to make this a reality)
And vancouver is kinda the poster child for a long running urban ag project:
http://www.urbanfarmers.ca/


Interesting links, all. I shall have a look at these initiatives.


Then there's the development in technology. I think Blue Oni's post kinda covered a LOT of the areas that I hadn't.


Isn't it funny that I've now effectively been accused of sophistry by someone who just came out of left field and has offered absolutely no reason to believe that I am a sophist? I'm pretty sure I've consistently, logically, specifically, and honestly engaged Desu's points (and added my own for good measure), and further have offered empirical data and other sources to support the reasoning behind the arguments I've made. Is that a mischaracterization of my behavior? Am I instead making vague, unsubstantiated statements which do not form a logically cohesive narrative and exist only to sound impressive and persuade by deceit?

Because that's what I've been accused of.


Meanwhile I'm gonna go back to the 16 varieties of tomatoes, 4 varieties of peppers, artichokes, strawberries, blueberries, and 6 varieties of marigolds, 2 varieties of watermelon (plus one that's organic and grows in about a 18" round pot), cucumbers (also hybridized for compact spaces), and peas (heirloom varietiy design fir intensive gardening spaces and window boxes) that I'm starting in my apartment to sell to people interested in growing food and ornamentals in their own back yards and patios come spring.

And it's all done organically without all those fossil fuel resources you keep complaining we're wasting and "have no alternatives to".


The narrative has since shifted, and now it's "we do not and will not have sufficient output from alternatives to continue satisfying demand as we have been with fossil fuels". That much I can accept, present alternative energy production could not sustain the globalized industrial economies on their present scales. These economies would have to scale back until their energy needs could be satisfied by upscaling alternatives (and especially renewables).

The part where I get skeptical of the narrative Desu is presenting is at the next step: that alternative energy cannot sustain industrial economics at all. That industrial society is done for if oil should ever become too scarce. This part is supposed to be substantiated by a film I've been directed to. We'll see how that goes, I can't knock or praise a film I haven't seen yet.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

DesuMaiden wrote:



4. Abandon religions which assume infinite population growth and consumption is sustainable.

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity doesn't actually assume that.


Actually in the Bible it says "be fruitful and multiply. Have dominion over the fish and Earth" meaning and implying infinite consumption and infinite population growth. That's why I think Christianity and Islam needs to be abandoned. There are other reasons Christianity and Islam need to be abandoned as well. For example, Islam and Christianity are just plain wrong. The creation of man, according to these religions, is from Adam and Eve. But Adam and Eve obviously never existed. Evolution and biology prove that Islam and Christianity are false because evolution proves that human beings evolved from other animals, more specially primates and apes. Humans are technically apes. We evolved from apes that is a fact. And these apes evolved from earlier primates, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, bacteria and finally in the beginning human beings were just organic molecules that eventually became the first single cellular organisms. We know how human beings evolved and were created. This proves these religions to false, and therefore these religions need to be abandoned.





Reposted from your other thread.

Here's some info on Islamic Environmental Ethics. http://www.ceosyd.catholic.edu.au/Parents/Religion/Documents/20130715-doc-EnvironmentalEthicsIslam.pdf

And some from Christianity, for good measure.

Roman Catholic Church
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/renewing-the-earth.cfm

United Methodist Church
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/united-methodist-church-statement-environment

Church of England
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/36537/environment.pdf

Furthermore, evolution is not in contradiction with theological truths. The creation story in Genesis is an allegory, and should not be taken as anything else.
41848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15
All things eventually die; humanity will, also. Deal with it.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

EJgarland1993 wrote:

Looks like someone should give some consideration to The Venus Project.





A sustainable future is what I am hoping for. But from the looks of things, that is unlikely. It looks like a collapse is inevitable. The collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable. Nothing can stop this. But can man survive this collapse? Yes.

Christianity and Islam need to be tossed in the trash can. I have no reason to respect bullshit. These religions are pure unadultrated bullshit. Religion deserves no respect and neither do people who believe in silly superstitions. Religion is superstition. Prayer doesn't work. God is imaginary. As long as mankind clings onto archaic religions, there is no hope for future progress.

Capitalism and a money-based economy needs to be tossed in the trash can too. We need a resource-based economy like the Venus Project.

And I repeat this quote again because this is happening right now.


Man's knowledge grew, most significantly in the field of medical science. Accidents and diseases that help to keep natural populations in check were overcome or reduced in their effects by man's endeavours. Genetic defects that, in the wild, would have proved fatal and would have been eliminated by natural selection were perpetuated because their possessors were allowed to live and reproduce. World population increased exponentially and hardly a region of the earth's surface remained untouched by man.


With fossil fuels and advances in medical technology, human population was able to go on a vertical growth trajectory. But everything that goes up like this...



...has to come down. It is a law. It is a law as fundamental as gravity. It is a law as fundamental as thermodynamics. Nothing that grows like that stays high forever. It always comes crashing down. It comes crashing down because this kind of growth is unnatural and unsustainable.

And the outcome of this is simply a die-off or crash.


Ultimately the earth could no longer supply the raw materials needed for man's agriculture, industry or medicine, and as shortage of supply caused the collapse of one structure after another, his whole complex and interlocking social and technological edifice crumbled. Man, no longer able to adapt, rushed uncontrollably to his inevitable extinction.


The above is outcome of uncontrolled population growth. No we aren't going to other planets to colonize them. There is no evidence we will ever have the technology to colonize other planets. The amount of resources it takes to colonize other planets is simply beyond what this Earth can provide. What kind of jet fuel can we use to travel to other planets? Where is this technology? What is this technology supposed to be made from? None of these issues are resolved. Realistically speaking, we are stuck on Earth. There is no other planet for human beings to live on. That's a fact. Either surrender to the fact that the Earth is finite or perish like the dinosaurs.

No species lasts forever. The dominance of mankind is nothing but a brief blink of time in the history of the Earth. After man is gone from the Earth, the Earth will eventually remove all traces of human civilization. The only thing that would left would be some fossils of human beings, and that's assuming we bury our dead instead of cremating them.

We are facing an extinction level event right now. It is either adapt or perish. It is either we control our own population and stop it from growing or the Earth chooses to eliminate us altogether.

I have little hope for the African continent. Most likely the population will keep on growing until there is a crash or die-off. 2 to 3% growth rate per year is not sustainable, and no the African continent will never industrialize. There isn't enough resources on Earth for everyone to live the same quality of life as the average North American. It requires 3 extra Earths for that. It is not possible for the entire Earth to industrialize. That's a sad fact of reality. But we can still improve the quality of life around the world by improving education around the world by solving the issues of illiteracy, inequality towards women and poverty.

Human beings are not exempt from the same laws of nature that govern all other species. And man's greatest arrogance is his belief that he can outsmart nature and forever grow population and consumption on a finite planet. Nature is the ultimate judge of all things. And when nature decides to get rid of most of the human population, that day will come whether you like it or not. Like I mentioned before, no amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature that govern this earth. Human ingenuity is a joke when we run out natural resources to build anything with.

Humanity is essentially a cancer on this planet, because there are currently no forces that control our population, so our population grows without any limit. That appears to be the case until we run out essential natural resources like fresh water, arable land, metals, oil, food and etc and experience a die-off. All cancers die when the host is killed. And when the host--the biosphere of the planet-- is dead, humanity (the cancer) dies with it. That's what we are facing right now.

Man believes he can live separately from nature, and that he is above the laws of nature. But man is subject to the same laws of nature as all other species, and his survival is dependent on the Earth's biosphere. Unless mankind surrenders to the fact he lives on a finite planet and he must live in balance with all of the other animal and plant life, there can never be true happiness.
5619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
Though I agree with the inevitability of the Human race becoming extinct. The scenario of resource depletion on Earth is unlikely. It will happen yes, but I believe by that time the Human race will be far more technologically advanced. Receiving resources from colonized planets or asteroid mining as one hypothetical approach.

Humans are the creators of their own demise, not nature. We are better at killing ourselves then nature is at killing us. The mass die off has a greater chance of happening presently. We had one 70 years ago during WW2, during that eras population.

I believe humans will cause themselves to go extinct through War, not through nature.
Posted 2/2/15
as long as the sun, trees, air and water still exist. humans will find a way to survive, somehow.
10047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/15
Perhaps we are leading towards self-destruction, but increased concern for the environment, which is necessary for survival may shift perspectives of many people. Thus, the reduction of waste and balancing out our output. However, the unfortunate truth is that regardless of reduction of waste, humans will always create waste, and so will other species. Just by being alive it is necessary to produce waste AKA the conversion of energy. Therefore, it is pointless to sit and type on your computer about how cancerous humans are. If humans are cancerous, then all life is cancerous, even the earth has to use energy to maintain itself, otherwise it would cease to be an inhabitable planet as well. In fact, there are many ways from which humans can go extinct outside from using all our resources. Nevertheless, it is true that we use too much resources, but how long has society been concerned about waste and environment? In other words, humans are currently working towards a better, cleaner future with less waste and sustainable resources. Therefore, why are you speaking about things that have already been known, and pretending like you're some prophet of environmentalism? The only things cancerous here is your bleak outlook because if you really cared about the environment you wouldn't be here complaining about it!

9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

BlueOni wrote:
Interesting links, all. I shall have a look at these initiatives.

Agriculture is an area that interests me a fair amount.


BlueOni wrote:
Isn't it funny that I've now effectively been accused of sophistry by someone who just came out of left field and has offered absolutely no reason to believe that I am a sophist? I'm pretty sure I've consistently, logically, specifically, and honestly engaged Desu's points (and added my own for good measure), and further have offered empirical data and other sources to support the reasoning behind the arguments I've made. Is that a mischaracterization of my behavior? Am I instead making vague, unsubstantiated statements which do not form a logically cohesive narrative and exist only to sound impressive and persuade by deceit?

Because that's what I've been accused of.

I have? O.o

BlueOni wrote:
The narrative has since shifted, and now it's "we do not and will not have sufficient output from alternatives to continue satisfying demand as we have been with fossil fuels". That much I can accept, present alternative energy production could not sustain the globalized industrial economies on their present scales. These economies would have to scale back until their energy needs could be satisfied by upscaling alternatives (and especially renewables).

The part where I get skeptical of the narrative Desu is presenting is at the next step: that alternative energy cannot sustain industrial economics at all. That industrial society is done for if oil should ever become too scarce. This part is supposed to be substantiated by a film I've been directed to. We'll see how that goes, I can't knock or praise a film I haven't seen yet.


See, I don't necessarily disagree with him that we do have a population problem. I honestly believe that we need a lot less humans around. I'm just not happy with the methods of getting rid of people. No matter what you choose, it's kind of a no win situation. I agree with your point that industrialization is by far one of the best ways to raise people up and with a higher life expectancy (usually through lowered childhood mortality rates), typically, people reproduce less. I also see these third world countries as prime locations to invest the hell out of developing clean energy, fund research into creating cleaner and more efficient cities and roadways, and all the "ideal" things that we want to live an ecologically sound and sustainable lifestyle. The main reasons for these places to be the starting point isn't wholly altruistic either (I love altruism, but you typically have to coat it in some form of profit and gains to get people interested).

These areas typically are insanely cheap to buy property in. There's no preexisting infrastructure, or nothing comparative to that in first world countries that can cause the same issues of "adapting the old to the new" that exist here (in some areas, we'd be dealing with "pre-New Deal" conditions, in as much that we'd be able to develop the roads, the electricity, the dams and irrigation, etc, instead of as I think I mentioned above that just getting food waste pickup in NYC is problematic because it has to integrate into the current system. There you're building from scratch), and quite frankly, cost of living is probably cheap enough there that you could pay people pennies to the dollar there, still give them a head up on their current lifestyle and make it work...(again, not ideal, we all want "fair wages", but.....)

It's doubtful though that it would happen, but it's not impossible. Look how quickly Dubai sprung up from nothingness. Rather than buying a luxury palace of a city, spend the time and money developing sustainable cities.

As for nuclear... I think France and a few other European nations get almost 75% of their electricity via reactors..

(and now that I've done a quick googly searchie thing. we'll post some stuff in another comment)
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15
We have hope fella , cmon off it now , do what the others have mentioned and practice what you preach

you don't even read much of what the others have been telling you, and what you do recognize you ignore thrice the amount.


. and do please stop ragging on religious groups like christianity and other groups you clearly don't understand. Being an athiest is your choice and that is that, but its not everyones. have respect for others who might be turned away from your discussion cause it sounds trollish
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

genesis435 wrote:

Finally, someone that is willing to put BlueOni in her place, talk her lingo, talk specifics. As for the others trolling you, they're just following their leader, their capitalist crusader.


I feel rather insulted somehow. :(

She's just reiterated ad elaborated on points I couldn't be arsed to do myself that I started talking about on page one.

and I don't care for the "putting her in her place" bit. It's not a contest. It's the internets. You lose when you try too hard to win. :P

*sigh*

Well, I'll just post my pretty pictures and graphs...


[

Top ten countries using nuclear power

And a graphy of wind production:

And some countries using hydro power:

GO PARAGUAY!!!
s'more nukes

SAUCE!!! : http://lamarotte2.blogspot.com/2011/03/electric-leaders-nukes-and-h2o.html
EU Sola lazor powah!! (and other green energy info stats and such) : http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/market/mkt_policy.php

The EU missed their goal of 21% of their energy coming from renewables in this graph.. they only had 19%...
MOAR SAUCE!!!! : http://www.ecofys.com/en/news/eu-missed-target-of-21-res-in-the-electricity-mix-in-2010/
/quote]
5 minutes. Google. FTW. XD

EDIT: also, for as awesome as this has been, overpopulation has been a huge discussion for at least half a century now. What do you think the movie Soylent Green was about (and that was predicted to be taking place seven years from now). hell, I think there was also what's his name... Malthus? wasn't he in the early 1900's or a bit earlier?

I'm not denying it being a growing concern... I really do get that. I'm just not happy with your doom and gloom approach to it all.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/2/15 , edited 2/2/15

serifsansserif wrote:

Agriculture is an area that interests me a fair amount.


It shows.


I have? O.o


No, not you. You found the post I was talking about later on, though, so you may have already realized this. The person who claims I've been "put in my place" has effectively accused me of sophistry.


See, I don't necessarily disagree with him that we do have a population problem. I honestly believe that we need a lot less humans around. I'm just not happy with the methods of getting rid of people. No matter what you choose, it's kind of a no win situation. I agree with your point that industrialization is by far one of the best ways to raise people up and with a higher life expectancy (usually through lowered childhood mortality rates), typically, people reproduce less. I also see these third world countries as prime locations to invest the hell out of developing clean energy, fund research into creating cleaner and more efficient cities and roadways, and all the "ideal" things that we want to live an ecologically sound and sustainable lifestyle. The main reasons for these places to be the starting point isn't wholly altruistic either (I love altruism, but you typically have to coat it in some form of profit and gains to get people interested).

These areas typically are insanely cheap to buy property in. There's no preexisting infrastructure, or nothing comparative to that in first world countries that can cause the same issues of "adapting the old to the new" that exist here (in some areas, we'd be dealing with "pre-New Deal" conditions, in as much that we'd be able to develop the roads, the electricity, the dams and irrigation, etc, instead of as I think I mentioned above that just getting food waste pickup in NYC is problematic because it has to integrate into the current system. There you're building from scratch), and quite frankly, cost of living is probably cheap enough there that you could pay people pennies to the dollar there, still give them a head up on their current lifestyle and make it work...(again, not ideal, we all want "fair wages", but.....)

It's doubtful though that it would happen, but it's not impossible. Look how quickly Dubai sprung up from nothingness. Rather than buying a luxury palace of a city, spend the time and money developing sustainable cities.


I'd say that's a reasonable assessment of the immediate challenges. It's also true that raising developing nations to developed standards of living entails greater strain on resources, which is why finding new and efficient ways to accomplish the same tasks (even something as outwardly mundane as testing/developing new solvents could do a lot to forward this) and establishing the infrastructure to recycle and recover as much as possible from waste materials is vital. There's a lot of good materials sitting in landfills going to waste (millions on millions of tons of steel and aluminum, for instance). Emphasizing recovery of these materials from landfills would not only free up land, it would mitigate the impact of resource scarcity.


As for nuclear... I think France and a few other European nations get almost 75% of their electricity via reactors..

(and now that I've done a quick googly searchie thing. we'll post some stuff in another comment)


Well, the thing with nuclear is that it's a stopgap, not an endpoint. It's still reliant on a non-renewable resource, and it has a lot of the environmental weaknesses of hydroelectric power since it requires enormous quantities of water. Nuclear propelled merchant fleets are one thing, land-based nuclear power plants another. Ideally in the end nuclear plants will be replaced with rooftop solar arrays and wind backed up by something minimally damaging (maybe a limited quantity of nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams).

Still, the point remains that alternatives to fossil fuel-based energy production are present and being developed. This is an ongoing project in several countries (many of them in Europe).
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/15

BlueOni wrote:

It's doubtful though that it would happen, but it's not impossible. Look how quickly Dubai sprung up from nothingness. Rather than buying a luxury palace of a city, spend the time and money developing sustainable cities.


I'd say that's a reasonable assessment of the immediate challenges. It's also true that raising developing nations to developed standards of living entails greater strain on resources, which is why finding new and efficient ways to accomplish the same tasks (even something as outwardly mundane as testing/developing new solvents could do a lot to forward this) and establishing the infrastructure to recycle and recover as much as possible from waste materials is vital. There's a lot of good materials sitting in landfills going to waste (millions on millions of tons of steel and aluminum, for instance). Emphasizing recovery of these materials from landfills would not only free up land, it would mitigate the impact of resource scarcity.


As for nuclear... I think France and a few other European nations get almost 75% of their electricity via reactors..

(and now that I've done a quick googly searchie thing. we'll post some stuff in another comment)


Well, the thing with nuclear is that it's a stopgap, not an endpoint. It's still reliant on a non-renewable resource, and it has a lot of the environmental weaknesses of hydroelectric power since it requires enormous quantities of water. Nuclear propelled merchant fleets are one thing, land-based nuclear power plants another. Ideally in the end nuclear plants will be replaced with rooftop solar arrays and wind backed up by something minimally damaging (maybe a limited quantity of nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams).

Still, the point remains that alternatives to fossil fuel-based energy production are present and being developed. This is an ongoing project in several countries (many of them in Europe).

recovery of materials is largely in part delayed because of the cost of recycling versus the cost of new. Secondarily the OTHER big problem is the infrastructure needed to capture those materials and in some cases find a way of best use.

Composting is providing an interesting problem as I'm kinda tangentally involved (basically the local mayor asked me to put my name on a grant due to the efforts in a local community garden I'm kinda head of) in our town's efforts to get composting of municipal food waste somehow. The money for the composters is out there. There's interest in having it happen, but the materials have to be devoid of chemical sprays, etc. and it's looking like it's going to require special training for the workers doing the pick up, and if you go through an outside company, there's next to nobody in the state (NJ) that really deals with it, so it's hard to find someone that takes it...

The restrictions on what goes in is VERY similar to the new "failure" of recycling, which, although single stream, now requires so much sorting and cleaning by the individual resident that it ends up in rejection of most materials... (and the new special bins have to be very specifically placed facing in particular direction and only so far away from the curb, otherwise it still requires a person to get out of the truck and align the bin properly, which ends up causing MORE work and MORE money to be spent on it)...

if you don't develop a user friendly system, you're basically dooming the effort to failure.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.