Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KingSparta]

MHorton

Are You A Real-Estate Agent?

[Michael Horton]

well, now that I've seen the light, I'm thinking about making that my new career. And when not at work, my new hobby--procreating. Lot's and lot's of procreating. Job security, you see.

[KingSparta]

I guess you can sell to your kids but you must wait about 18-21 years befor you start seeing a profit

thats if you don't take the free condoms

[Scronch]

MHorton: > Most of the land that's uninhabited is uninhabited for a reason.

 You're not getting it.  If we have an unlimited supply of free, clean energy, all of these issues go away.  Sea water can be de-salted and purified.  Huge complexes can be air-conditioned.  And the most environmentally-friendly technology can always be used, because efficiency doesn't matter.

Look again at NASA's nighttime collage.  Perhaps 90% of the land in the U.S is uninhabited.  Of course there are areas that need to remain untouched.  For God's sake, fly over Wyoming or Colorado or New Mexico, and you will see enough land to support billions of people.  I'm not saying I want that.  I am saying that JimH's original proposition, "Population is at the root of every environmental issue", is wrong.

If this isn't clear now, then I give up.

Scronch

[Michael Horton]

You're right--I'm just not getting it (not the first time)

Too many "ifs" about the energy sources

"unlimited supply of free, clean energy" seems about as much in the realm of science fiction as the idea of simply breeding thinner human beings so that we each take up less space

"Sea water can be de-salted and purified" etc. tax issue. last time I checked, there were 2 operational in the world, providing water inefficiently to a very small number of people. effect on local ocean life when countless in use for burgening human population?

no consideration of "web of life" factors as more and more species are displaced by human sprawl

much of uninhabited land is farmland, ranchland--occupying it removes it from these other somewhat important uses

no consideration of overcrowding on our collective psyche (too many rats in a cage syndrome)

idea just doesn't seem fully thought out--but the confines of this format don't help

whole thing reminds me of yeast baking --keeps growing and growing just fine, till there's an unexpected bump, then it all caves in

I really do appreciate the effort that you've made in explaining your thoughts on the subject

guess I'm too dense or unreceptive, or something

plus, I'm no longer willing to write anything in a serious vein (as you may have guessed)

I give up too.

[sekim]

Scronch

What happens to the existing inhabitants?

[Scronch]

Large yeast blobs spread across the land and devour them.  Land masses become gigantic pita breads, and the oceans turn into frothing waves of India Pale Ale.

As I said, free, clean energy won't happen in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen.  You need to think about it a long time to fully appreciate the impact.  Look at everything we do today, and consider the impact the change would make.  MH, don't talk about efficiency.  It will be meaningless.  It would take more humans than the planet could feed to impact the oceans significantly.  All you're doing is removing the water, which later goes back.  Not that much of the uninhabited land is farmland or ranchland.  I'd say less than 40%.  And with free energy, new methods would reduce the needed farm acreage probably 10-fold.  Besides, you can grow as much food as you want on huge space platforms--the current limiting factor, the cost of the energy to transport things up and down, will no longer matter.  Effects on psyche: I suppose the murder rate will be the built-in correction.  But you and your friends could always take your private shuttle and abandon the planet altogether.  It would be a new world; whether or not a brave one would have to be seen.

Scronch

[JThomas]

It is sad that this thread got started.  It makes the Agnostics seem like they have something to decide, and the faithfull weak for being silent(sorry I wanted to vent).

My faith is in Christ and I am willing to say that.  I think humans need to consider the fact that they are part of a plan.  I don't think that plan called for the destruction of butterflys or the destruction of human life.  But the plan is in place.  It includes all, but we need to set an example for our young, not destroy them.  As the child said to his father as they were going down through the woods, "Dad, take the correct path, I am following you all the way".

People make alot of mistakes, but because we are human, we try to find things to keep us from the responsibility of our actions.  The fact is that if the only children born were of love, that nobody would need to worry about butterflys.

Thanx
John

[Scronch]

>I always feel bad when my pollution-spewing SUV smashes some
>of them each time I drive 5 miles for a gallon of milk.

That was a joke.  I agree with what you have said.  I'm trying to limit the scope of my discussion to my disagreement with Jim's original proposition.  I am certainly not an atheist or one of those "holier than thou" agnostics (oops, more name calling...)  Kierkegaard spent a lifetime studying the issue, and concluded that it all comes down to faith.  Camus' absurd does little to change that.  I believe agnostics should quote that great American poet, Jim Morrison: "I sit on the fence, and my balls hurt."

Scronch

[sekim]

Scronch

Why isn't more research being done with hydrogen extraction from water? Clean, plentiful, what more could you ask for? Boils down to someone not making a buck.

[Michael Horton]

Scronch

Thanks for your post describing the future, food for thought. And the "Large yeast blobs . . ." sentence reminds me of conversations of old.

I didn't notice any agnostics in the thread, though. A couple of devout athiests, yes. Agnostics, no.