So, do you prescribe to Malthusian Theory and its implications? If you don't know what it is or aren't willing to put forth any effort to find out on your own ... well ... I doubt your opinion is worth hearing.
Poll
Do you subscribe to Malthusian Theory?
| Yes | 18% | 18% - 9 | ||||
| No | 18% | 18% - 9 | ||||
| What the hell are you on about? (<-- just leave now) | 62% | 62% - 30 | ||||
| Total: 48 | ||||||
I just have to look at all the open space in the world that could be turned into producing land.
I'd be surprised if there are any more replies to this thread.
* edit
okay, proven wrong.
I'd be surprised if there are any more replies to this thread.
* edit
okay, proven wrong.
Last edited by Alexanderthegrape (2006-07-23 22:16:06)
I'm not saying we are unable to produce for ourselves now, but that at our rate of population growth, that we will quickly exceed our ability to not only feed ourselves, but fuel ourselves in the broadest sense of the word. Malthusian Theory addresses not only food but other resources as well.
Although humanity is by all implications heading towards overpopulation, there still is a lot of this world left to inhabit. Humanity, if we get our shit together, could still have room to grow and resources to support ourselves, while still helping to preserve the planet. But in the face of greed and corruption it seems like a thin line we walk. Whats best for the planet, and best for humanity, isn't always the most profitable for those in power.
Can I have a Amen?
I don't think we're capable of curbing population growth. It isn't going over so well in China. Methods in place there are the outrage of the international community and with good reason. That being said, it seems logical and inevitable that a point will be reached where the resources of this planet simply can no longer support the weight of the populous.
So, what then? Do we hope it's far enough in the future that "replicators" simply blink resources we need into existence?
So, what then? Do we hope it's far enough in the future that "replicators" simply blink resources we need into existence?
I say that we take a que from Israel and start building greenhouses and desalinaztion plants for the third world.
which is a bandaid on a bullet hole at best. To me, that's like saying the solution to the gasoline dependance of the world is better fuel efficiency.
What, you means it's not? ( kidding )
I'll have to read more on the topic to be on your level about it, reverting to lurker status on this thread.
I'll have to read more on the topic to be on your level about it, reverting to lurker status on this thread.
FWIW: I really have no opinion on this but here is a FACT to consider.....
If we took all the people ON THE EARTH, we can even round UP to 7 billion people. Divide everyone into 4 people families and give them a 2 story house on a 3/4acre lot, and have ALL THESE houses in Texas, if all these houses and all these people were theorhetically in texas, SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE.....there would still be 1/3 of the state left for commercializing, industrializing....etc. ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH would only occupy 2/3 the state of Texas. This is just to explain square footage (of course this scenario is not possible, need more room for job,fun,etc, but there is still even room for that).... if you still don't think there is enough room in the WORLD let alone Texas, for all of humanity, something is wrong with you.
Edit: Also Malthus' work was mainly directed toward micro social economic systems, not the entire world in the future. There is no way someone in 1798 could have predicted the huge population boom in the late 19th and 20th century. Yawn, topic over.
If we took all the people ON THE EARTH, we can even round UP to 7 billion people. Divide everyone into 4 people families and give them a 2 story house on a 3/4acre lot, and have ALL THESE houses in Texas, if all these houses and all these people were theorhetically in texas, SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE.....there would still be 1/3 of the state left for commercializing, industrializing....etc. ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH would only occupy 2/3 the state of Texas. This is just to explain square footage (of course this scenario is not possible, need more room for job,fun,etc, but there is still even room for that).... if you still don't think there is enough room in the WORLD let alone Texas, for all of humanity, something is wrong with you.
Edit: Also Malthus' work was mainly directed toward micro social economic systems, not the entire world in the future. There is no way someone in 1798 could have predicted the huge population boom in the late 19th and 20th century. Yawn, topic over.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-24 00:30:09)
That point is very far off, do some more research on just how much resources the Earth has. Of course oil will be gone within most of our lifetimes, but not for coal,gas, etc. The end is a reality, but it is certainly not for many hundreds of years.PuckMercury wrote:
it seems logical and inevitable that a point will be reached where the resources of this planet simply can no longer support the weight of the populous.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-24 00:32:04)
I've never been much into a fire fighting approach. If I see something coming, I like to prepare for it. A few hundred years is not that long in all actuality.
Well of course, its all relative, but technology will find some way to fix this problem (I hope...in 300-500 years). THink about how far technology has come in the past 50 years. How much can it keep going. A lot I think. We have time.PuckMercury wrote:
I've never been much into a fire fighting approach. If I see something coming, I like to prepare for it. A few hundred years is not that long in all actuality.
actually, when I look at technology in the past 50 years, it rather saddens me. In many respects, we've exponentially decreased our significant discovery rate. Computers specifically seem to be mulling along, but even they are approaching a wall until a quantum leap approaches to completely change the way we think about a computer. Diodes and transistors can only get so small and so compact before they can't be made any smaller due to manufacturing or simple heat dissipation.
I think to simply say, "We have time, future generations can look at it" is simply a lazy and irrisponsible approach.
To further my point about the stalling of technology, look at America's new space vehicle. The main engine above the SRB (which is itself decades old) is an engine design from the 50's. They will tell you it is being entirely redesigned, but that is only because the model is so old that no computer records exist as computers didn't exist in a suitible fashion at the time. So, by redesign, they actually mean copying data from the real world into a computer, then producing more.
Look at the car. It is the same basic design we've been running on for a century. Sure, we've come up with ways to make it more efficient or more powerful, but it's still an explosion pushing a piston turning a shaft. Nothing new there either. I could go on, but I don't think it would serve any purpose really.
I think to simply say, "We have time, future generations can look at it" is simply a lazy and irrisponsible approach.
To further my point about the stalling of technology, look at America's new space vehicle. The main engine above the SRB (which is itself decades old) is an engine design from the 50's. They will tell you it is being entirely redesigned, but that is only because the model is so old that no computer records exist as computers didn't exist in a suitible fashion at the time. So, by redesign, they actually mean copying data from the real world into a computer, then producing more.
Look at the car. It is the same basic design we've been running on for a century. Sure, we've come up with ways to make it more efficient or more powerful, but it's still an explosion pushing a piston turning a shaft. Nothing new there either. I could go on, but I don't think it would serve any purpose really.
That is not what I meant by future generations can look at it, I don't know why that is in quotes, thats not what I said at all. As for the car, it is based of one energy, OIL, we are coming to a point where there will be a new energy, there has to be. This will fuel more technology. If you think the last 50 years technology is sad...there have been thousands upon thousands of medical breakthroughs, space travel, weapons....etc. Ok so think back 100 years. Look how far we have come from a century ago. Maybe I'm too OPTIMISTIC (you read: lazy). I agree it would be irresponsible to place the burden on future generations. But me being a non-scientist, I can only sit back and comment. Technology will change, it just needs.....................PuckMercury wrote:
I think to simply say, "We have time, future generations can look at it" is simply a lazy and irrisponsible approach.
Time. Don't be so glum!
I was quoting that as a familiar and tired mind set, not attributing it directly to you - else I would have used
I have seen precious little to make me anything but glum for the future of this race sadly.
The quotes was more a grammatical device to imply someone speaking.you wrote:
I have seen precious little to make me anything but glum for the future of this race sadly.
People, I think we need to recognize Albert as a quality new member.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
That is not what I meant by future generations can look at it, I don't know why that is in quotes, thats not what I said at all. As for the car, it is based of one energy, OIL, we are coming to a point where there will be a new energy, there has to be. This will fuel more technology. If you think the last 50 years technology is sad...there have been thousands upon thousands of medical breakthroughs, space travel, weapons....etc. Ok so think back 100 years. Look how far we have come from a century ago. Maybe I'm too OPTIMISTIC (you read: lazy). I agree it would be irresponsible to place the burden on future generations. But me being a non-scientist, I can only sit back and comment. Technology will change, it just needs.....................PuckMercury wrote:
I think to simply say, "We have time, future generations can look at it" is simply a lazy and irrisponsible approach.
Time. Don't be so glum!
They say that if China had the same standards of living as the US, we'd need two extra Earths to supply all the needed resources. When you also take into account that China is much less environmentally friendly than the US, (and anyone else for that matter,) if they become the worlds next superpower we're all fucked.
As to the stalling of technology - in 1900, the western world believed that everything that could be invented was invented. 60 short years later we had flight, space travel, (poor) computers, televisions... you can never tell what's right around the corner.
Puck, your example of the car just shows how an existing invention evolves. New stuff can be quite random. We've also got to realise that some things can't change all that fast, not because we couldn't do it, but because different corporations rely on certain aspects of an item. Taking again the example of a car, what if we no longer had the combustion engine. Well, all of a sudden all the major fuel companies would go bankrupt. Likewise if we finally made those cool hovercars or flying cars - no more tires, no more work for the tire-guy.
Economics is all intertwined with current technology, so we have to have slow progress so corporations and economic entities can keep up and evolve with it.
Interesting topic dude, I'm enjoying this.
As to the stalling of technology - in 1900, the western world believed that everything that could be invented was invented. 60 short years later we had flight, space travel, (poor) computers, televisions... you can never tell what's right around the corner.
Puck, your example of the car just shows how an existing invention evolves. New stuff can be quite random. We've also got to realise that some things can't change all that fast, not because we couldn't do it, but because different corporations rely on certain aspects of an item. Taking again the example of a car, what if we no longer had the combustion engine. Well, all of a sudden all the major fuel companies would go bankrupt. Likewise if we finally made those cool hovercars or flying cars - no more tires, no more work for the tire-guy.
Economics is all intertwined with current technology, so we have to have slow progress so corporations and economic entities can keep up and evolve with it.
Interesting topic dude, I'm enjoying this.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Jeez, thanks. I try. Glad to be on with you guys, you all seem to be cool minded, most of the time . I enjoy to keep the violent arguing to a minimum. But some days I am a little...well impatient. Glad to be here. My forte is in firearms so got any questions, I have 98% of the answers. Also anything dealing with Criminal Justice, Law, etc. That is my second love.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
People, I think we need to recognize Albert as a quality new member.
LOL, nice. Yes sometimes, ok most of the time it does seem pretty bad, but you gotta stay on the bright side otherwise nothing will ever get done. Sad people only write books and movies.PuckMercury wrote:
I was quoting that as a familiar and tired mind set, not attributing it directly to you - else I would have usedThe quotes was more a grammatical device to imply someone speaking.you wrote:
I have seen precious little to make me anything but glum for the future of this race sadly.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-24 15:39:42)
“Necessity, the mother of invention”
2 points if you can name the author.....5 points if you can name the publication.Snipedya14 wrote:
“Necessity, the mother of invention”
The companies would go bankrupt if they didnt' adapt, sure.
I certianly didn't mean to imply that everything that could be invented has been, far from it. I feel that we're holding ourselves back too much because of money and economic mirages. While there may be a major cut to the economics of the petroleum industry, think of the boon to any number of other industries with the capital that would be liberated at a global level for alternative spending. To be honest, I think a number of industries need to go bankrupt if they continue business in the manner in which they currently do.
As for recognizing Albert as a quality new member, I did that when I engaged him in a point counter point rather than dismissing his post altogether.
To return to the car, the elimination of the combustion engine is not even necessary really. A hydrogen model still utilizes combustion and the same basic principles apply, simply with a shift of fuel sources. Petroluem is still used in many aspects of manufacturing from lubrication (stop giggling, I mean it) to various plastics. Plastics for that matter will continue to excel I feel.
I do not think that we have to buffer technology to match economics at all. Economics will level itself, it always has and always will. It rather has to. It is an incredibly resiliant mechanism.
For instance, say a technology comes out which everyone wants, however it is in its infancy and you have not yet developed means for mass production. Despite the revolutionary nature of the technology or however cheaply the cost of production is, it will have to be initially quite expensive to balance out demand. As production increases, price can decrease and economics continued unfettered.
I certianly didn't mean to imply that everything that could be invented has been, far from it. I feel that we're holding ourselves back too much because of money and economic mirages. While there may be a major cut to the economics of the petroleum industry, think of the boon to any number of other industries with the capital that would be liberated at a global level for alternative spending. To be honest, I think a number of industries need to go bankrupt if they continue business in the manner in which they currently do.
As for recognizing Albert as a quality new member, I did that when I engaged him in a point counter point rather than dismissing his post altogether.
To return to the car, the elimination of the combustion engine is not even necessary really. A hydrogen model still utilizes combustion and the same basic principles apply, simply with a shift of fuel sources. Petroluem is still used in many aspects of manufacturing from lubrication (stop giggling, I mean it) to various plastics. Plastics for that matter will continue to excel I feel.
I do not think that we have to buffer technology to match economics at all. Economics will level itself, it always has and always will. It rather has to. It is an incredibly resiliant mechanism.
For instance, say a technology comes out which everyone wants, however it is in its infancy and you have not yet developed means for mass production. Despite the revolutionary nature of the technology or however cheaply the cost of production is, it will have to be initially quite expensive to balance out demand. As production increases, price can decrease and economics continued unfettered.
Status quo sucks doesn't it. Its hard to change. People don't understand, people don't want to change....until they need to.PuckMercury wrote:
I feel that we're holding ourselves back too much because of money and economic mirages.
and even then, "need" becomes an absurdly relative term anymore.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Status quo sucks doesn't it. Its hard to change. People don't understand, people don't want to change....until they need to.PuckMercury wrote:
I feel that we're holding ourselves back too much because of money and economic mirages.
Bingo. Man you respond fast.PuckMercury wrote:
and even then, "need" becomes an absurdly relative term anymore.