48 replies to this topic

[SquigPie]

Sargeant Rho, on 5 Oct 2010, 16:13, said:

Not what I ment. I mean we are the only species that spends thousands of years trying to find better ways to kill others of our very own species.

That's because the only species that threatens us are ourselves, thus we get better at defeating our own species.

[Ion Cannon!]

SquigPie, on 5 Oct 2010, 13:50, said:

Put more seriously: Evolution IS an arms race, predators evovle better ways to hunt down prey? Prey get's faster! Prey get's faster? Predators get sneakier. A good example was the dinosaurs, they kept getting bigger and bigger to keep up with the constant evolution.

Thats not what Evolution is, you say it like its intended, deliberate. It isn't, evolution is a random mutation, which may be beneficial or it may be an adhereance, it may not do anything. The species that gets the best random mutation survives basically. It's all about luck.

Now what humans do is deliberate, intentional. We develop better and more efficient ways to kill each other. Its not luck, we spend billions of pounds and man hours to develop weapons.

[SquigPie]

I know that very well, but evolution will eventually lead to the luckiest race winning, thus it may be percieved as an "accidental" arms race, it may be by chance, maybee not, ever heard of something called fate?

Man does so deliberatly, are you honestly gonna tell me that if cats got human level intelligence one day they would all unite in love and peace? Hell no! Mass dog genocide! Racism between housecats and wildcats, Giant farms with mice and birds! Our intelligence merely allows us to stop depending on luck and start depending on effeciency.

Edited by SquigPie, 05 October 2010 - 16:21.

[Encrypted]

This is very interesting, If this planet could be reached by humans in the future what would that mean for humanity?

[SquigPie]

Encrypted, on 6 Oct 2010, 11:13, said:

This is very interesting, If this planet could be reached by humans in the future what would that mean for humanity?

well, it's seems like a pretty insane place. Crazy ass winds and only a limited area to live on, so we would have to take precautions (spelling?).

Edited by SquigPie, 06 October 2010 - 09:43.

[Destiny]

Humans colonizing other planets will reach that XXX Federation vs Earth Alliance eventually.

[Sgt. Rho]

Humans colonizing even Mars will probably lead to Red Faction Guerilla

[n5p29]

and made the Adeptus Mechanicus?

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Teraform Mars... Sounds like a plan, or move to that planet.

[Encrypted]

In our system alone there are two close by masses that could be colonized. The Moon and Mars would make good starting points considering the over population that we are currently experiencing. Even being so close by there would probably be division among different colonies - greater distances would probably lead to severe isolation, even if there was communication. Still improves the chances of humans surviving long into the future though . Dont really want to bring religion into this but would it start to make some biblical accounts a lot less relivent. What would the bible mean to someone on another planet? Seeing as most of the "events" are in relation/perspective to/of the earth.

[SquigPie]

Encrypted, on 7 Oct 2010, 7:56, said:

In our system alone there are two close by masses that could be colonized. The Moon and Mars would make good starting points considering the over population that we are currently experiencing. Even being so close by there would probably be division among different colonies - greater distances would probably lead to severe isolation, even if there was communication. Still improves the chances of humans surviving long into the future though . Dont really want to bring religion into this but would it start to make some biblical accounts a lot less relivent. What would the bible mean to someone on another planet? Seeing as most of the "events" are in relation/perspective to/of the earth.

It's always been one of the greater questions within SF, what would aliens think about religion? Would they be atheistic, religious or something in between.

But let's not bring that up, it'll end out badly if Nip pops up.

[BeefJeRKy]

Encrypted, on 7 Oct 2010, 8:56, said:

In our system alone there are two close by masses that could be colonized. The Moon and Mars would make good starting points considering the over population that we are currently experiencing. Even being so close by there would probably be division among different colonies - greater distances would probably lead to severe isolation, even if there was communication. Still improves the chances of humans surviving long into the future though . Dont really want to bring religion into this but would it start to make some biblical accounts a lot less relivent. What would the bible mean to someone on another planet? Seeing as most of the "events" are in relation/perspective to/of the earth.

We aren't overpopulated less. However we have very bad consumption habits. I remember reading something about the Earth being able to sustain something like 18 Billion humans if we stopped eating meat. As for space, there's always vertical expansion

[SquigPie]

scope, on 7 Oct 2010, 23:46, said:

Encrypted, on 7 Oct 2010, 8:56, said:

In our system alone there are two close by masses that could be colonized. The Moon and Mars would make good starting points considering the over population that we are currently experiencing. Even being so close by there would probably be division among different colonies - greater distances would probably lead to severe isolation, even if there was communication. Still improves the chances of humans surviving long into the future though . Dont really want to bring religion into this but would it start to make some biblical accounts a lot less relivent. What would the bible mean to someone on another planet? Seeing as most of the "events" are in relation/perspective to/of the earth.

We aren't overpopulated less. However we have very bad consumption habits. I remember reading something about the Earth being able to sustain something like 18 Billion humans if we stopped eating meat. As for space, there's always vertical expansion

If we stopped eating meat? Why?

Besides, doesn't meat include a lot of vital ingredients?

[Alias]

scope, on 8 Oct 2010, 8:46, said:

Encrypted, on 7 Oct 2010, 8:56, said:

In our system alone there are two close by masses that could be colonized. The Moon and Mars would make good starting points considering the over population that we are currently experiencing. Even being so close by there would probably be division among different colonies - greater distances would probably lead to severe isolation, even if there was communication. Still improves the chances of humans surviving long into the future though . Dont really want to bring religion into this but would it start to make some biblical accounts a lot less relivent. What would the bible mean to someone on another planet? Seeing as most of the "events" are in relation/perspective to/of the earth.

We aren't overpopulated less. However we have very bad consumption habits. I remember reading something about the Earth being able to sustain something like 18 Billion humans if we stopped eating meat. As for space, there's always vertical expansion

And as for water, well...

[Encrypted]

The Earth could sustain massive numbers although I doubt this would last for a long period of time. In the long term and even short term wouldn't that huge population come at a detrimental cost to all other organisms and the Earth in general? Something more than just stopping the consumption of meat would have to be done to make that number sustainable.

[SquigPie]

Encrypted, on 8 Oct 2010, 9:00, said:

The Earth could sustain massive numbers although I doubt this would last for a long period of time. In the long term and even short term wouldn't that huge population come at a detrimental cost to all other organisms and the Earth in general? Something more than just stopping the consumption of meat would have to be done to make that number sustainable.

Think of the animals! :(

Yeah, what we need is to colonize the moon, or possibly Mars, that would be awesome. And it would help the overpopulation a bit. (although it would also be expensive as shit)

[Golan]

Overpopulation isn't a matter of space but resources. Seeing how both Mars and the Moon suck at supplying us with the basic resources a human requires (like food, water and oxygen) colonizing them isn't viable for getting rid of our population problem. Also, colonizing other planets basically means getting a few thousand people there and then producing the other colonists *ahem* on-site, so it doesn't have a major impact on the situation on Earth.

We could sustain a lot more humans if we were to reduce our meat consumption as for every kcal of meat several thousand kcal of other food have to be used to grow that meat.

Edited by Golan, 08 October 2010 - 14:12.

[Camille]

and once again, money is the big stone wall that halts everything to crawl.

[Golan]

Why would it be? We simply have neither the resources nor the technology to colonize other planets ATM.

Oh, and no suitable planets either.

Edited by Golan, 10 October 2010 - 08:17.

[Destiny]

Last thing we need is a war, world war 3 isn't going to be like WWII, this time 'war won't drive technology progress'...frankly I doubt colonization is going to be impossible for a century or so. If I live to 2030 maybe...maybe...GDSS Philadelphia...

[Shirou]

SquigPie, on 8 Oct 2010, 7:47, said:

If we stopped eating meat? Why?

Besides, doesn't meat include a lot of vital ingredients?

This:

Golan, on 8 Oct 2010, 16:11, said:

We could sustain a lot more humans if we were to reduce our meat consumption as for every kcal of meat several thousand kcal of other food have to be used to grow that meat.

To put it into nutrient numbers of fertilised-Nitrogen that farmers put on land: Only 14% of it ends up inside of you if you eat only the greens. When eating meat, that percentage goes down to 4%. So 96% of the nutrients used to make your meat is lost.

Meat contains some stuff that is harder to get on a vegetarian diet. Important example is vitamin B12, something that you can only get from either meat, eggs or dairy products. Most western vegetarians are fine because of the prevalence of dairy in our diet. Vegan diets however often require the person to use B12 'fortified' foods like cereals in which the stuff has been put in artificially, or take straight vitamin supplements.

So yeah the first thing in a vegetarian society of 18 billion people will be a fucking giant vitamin B12 industry.

Edited by Shirou, 10 October 2010 - 09:50.

[Alias]

If the only red meat eaten was Kangaroo the world would be a better place.

They're wild, they only live off of native non-fertilised grass and they produce no methane.

[Encrypted]

We use herd animals to gain most of our meat right? This has benefits being a food source but generally isn't good for the area that it is undertaken in. The main herd animals being sheep, cows and pigs need a lot of space/pasture and if there are trees in the way of that area needed for pasture - the trees loose out and so do any endemic life they may have sustained. We treat animals that are not able to be "farmed", in a similar way, fish mainly, by over fishing and taking to much out. It is Ironic that we are looking for life "elsewhere" while destroying the life right in from of us.

[BeefJeRKy]

I do believe Chickens are also more "energy efficient" than cattle based meat in general. Also I was over-simplifying. Obviously it boils down to more than just cutting down on meat. You also need to reduce consumption in general whether it is food or other material things. The less things we buy the better (though admittedly this is something really REALLY difficult for me as I lurve stuff).