Lambdadelta Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm refering to Lambdadelta's post #18: there's no conscensus if there are multiple opinions and explanation (as conscensus means one opinion they can all agree on) Sorry, but a few people spouting opinions without factual basis does not mean there is no consensus. Now Lambdadelta again, post #23: Believe it or not: we are going to die all. Because a human can't live forever, I assume most of us will die at ~90-100 years ;P Nice straw man. That's not what I was talking about and you know it. And actually there are planet Bs, NASA finds some adequate exoplanets several times , although I have to say they're really far away. So, yes, as long as we can't reach them, there are no planet Bs, right. There is no exoplanet to which we can reliably move the entire (or even a significant) human population in the foreseeable future. Again, there is no planet B. Threaten to report me if you will, but for so long as you continue to spout unscientific garbage that endangers the future of the entire human race, I will treat you as you deserve to be treated: with complete and utter disgust and contempt. Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikol Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lambdadelta should not be silenced because of her opinions, that is the essence of a free debate. There is no exoplanet to which we can reliably move the entire (or even a significant) human population in the foreseeable future.Again, there is no planet B. Last time I checked there is an entire galaxy waiting to be plundered and conquered so long as we have the will and technology to do so (most certainly before 100 years.) Plus have any of these sensationalist predictions of the "Apocalypse is nigh" actually had any merit? Or are they just democratic propaganda to slow our march of progress and to crack down on debate of the issue. Quote Ikol, Proud member of Terminus Est. Moderator of http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticsandWar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Lambdadelta should not be silenced because of her opinions, that is the essence of a free debate. There is no exoplanet to which we can reliably move the entire (or even a significant) human population in the foreseeable future. Again, there is no planet B. Last time I checked there is an entire galaxy waiting to be plundered and conquered so long as we have the will and technology to do so (most certainly before 100 years.) Plus have any of these sensationalist predictions of the "Apocalypse is nigh" actually had any merit? Or are just democratic propaganda to slow our march of progress and to crack down on debate of the issue. I welcome her opinion, nevertheless she should follow the forum rules and don't use such language. Quote I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Last time I checked there is an entire galaxy waiting to be plundered and conquered so long as we have the will and technology to do so (most certainly before 100 years.) Doubtful. Space is rather large, to say the least. It would take hundreds or thousands of years for us to get to the nearest star system with any technology we're even close to reaching. Plus have any of these sensationalist predictions of the "Apocalypse is nigh" actually had any merit? Or are they just democratic propaganda to slow our march of progress and to crack down on debate of the issue. The fact that you see this as "democratic propaganda" proves just how woefully ignorant and wilfully blind you are. Like lemmings marching off the cliff, the lot of you. Call it sensationalism if it makes you sleep easier at night, but it will be the end of our race if we do not halt this... and soon. The real debate is done. The verdict is in. The only people still disagreeing now are those who stand to make a profit from delaying or stopping action on climate change and those too ignorant to know better than to buy into the propaganda from the former group. Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataraxis Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I've always been concerned about the threat of a possible nuclear war, but a lot of people have said that humanity won't actually go extinct should some nuclear war happen. With that said, I think global warming will be devastating, but would not drive humanity to complete extinction. Put it simply however, it wouldn't be pretty. As the population declines as a result of arable land going further north, factories and most of the gas-emitting things start shutting down due to understaffing. Humans are remarkably adaptable (especially with our technological superiority) and should survive to a limited extent, since we also would import the domesticated animals and plants that we eat. However, many other animals aren't as adaptable and we would (and indeed, we are) be in a mass extinction. tl;dr: Humans live (numbers would sharply decline), a lot of species would get wrecked. Quote #6 in P&W Beta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambdadelta Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Well then. My input in this thread is clearly neither tolerated nor appreciated, so I will be taking my leave of it. Good day to you all. Quote There is no order and no meaning, there is only the truth of The Signal. The Signal ever transmits from here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. Can't Stop The Signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obongo the Paultifex Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Well then. My input in this thread is clearly neither tolerated nor appreciated, so I will be taking my leave of it. Good day to you all. It's really funny when people say that 9,000... Million... Of these Aren't going to have any adverse effect on our planet or our way of life. No seriously !@#$ you people condoning the ruin of the only trash sphere we have to call home for the next ~100 years if we're lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moloko Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Part of the solution is to stabilize the global population at only half, or possibly even a third of what it is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The only thing I'm terrified of is resource shortages, which we will soon face with water (in several parts of the world). The world is something like 2/3 water...we have an economic problem, not a shortage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The world is something like 2/3 water...we have an economic problem, not a shortage. It is about 75%, or 3/4. I believe that around 74% is salt water. We have all of the water we need, but it is expensive to get it. The salt would have to be removed, and it isn't cheap. EDIT: PLEASE INCREASE THE QUOTE LIMIT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I think when he said 100 years, he was talking about any given individual. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 It's expensive to get it...like I said, an economic problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obongo the Paultifex Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 It's expensive to get it...like I said, an economic problem. Except you know it's such a massive undertaking that nobody's going to invest the massive amounts of money and time to make an efficient means of purifying saltwater because it'd be much more efficient to conserve and treat fresh water. Meanwhile a third of the Earth's population is going to be in huge trouble in the next 20-30 years. Oh and the whole, "100 years" thing wasn't refering to Climate Change (it's not simply Global Warming anymore), it was my assumption that it'll be around that much time until we can start colonizing other planets reliably. I have no sources to back that up, that's just my hope. In other news, scientists were able to perform a controlled fusion reaction that produced as much energy as what went into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Well, then people can simply die because it is too expensive to desalinate our plentiful h2o. Hail capitalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry LeRow Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Well then. My input in this thread is clearly neither tolerated nor appreciated, so I will be taking my leave of it. Good day to you all. This is a debate forum. Your input is welcomed, but expect arguments against it. It is about 75%, or 3/4. I believe that around 74% is salt water. We have all of the water we need, but it is expensive to get it. The salt would have to be removed, and it isn't cheap. The world is something like 2/3 water...we have an economic problem, not a shortage EDIT: PLEASE INCREASE THE QUOTE LIMIT!!! The problem is that desalination is by far the most expensive method. Part of the solution is to stabilize the global population at only half, or possibly even a third of what it is now. Not NWO Quote I'm and INTJ (http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality). What are you (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Well, then people can simply die because it is too expensive to desalinate our plentiful h2o. Hail capitalism Best computer game ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentRiley Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 The Georga guide stones in the US say not to exceed 500,000,000 Population in balance with nature... ALL I know is that we exceeded that amount by a lot... and in the future when we hit 10 billion.. oh boy.. china's one child limit and their gender imbalance isn't working! D; 1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.3. Unite humanity with a living new language.4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.8. Balance personal rights with social duties.9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature. Quote It was not me who put those horrible pictures, or that horrible signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.