Is It Time To Consider The Commandment "Be Fruitful And Multiply" Fulfilled?

[not nom]

I see, so you're arguing that it's useless to expand off of Earth because it won't work.

no, I said it's useless to expand off earth to fix the problems under discussion, because it won't solve the problems under discussion in the least.

It is a huge challenge and will take a lot of work, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

and I don't see why you feel the need to tell me that, other than responding to a strawman of course.

I never said it will never work. I said it doesn't help in this context. and it doesn't.

I also don't see why we can't try to fix problems here while working on expanding into space.

lol! and where did I say we should stop anything? considering how much we spend on warfare, I say strike all that, increase space research and mission funds by a factor of 10 -- and then it will STILL not help with solving the problems discussed here.

 

[not nom]

No we aren't, we are using up resources that we ourselves are dependant on. The worst that can happen is we make the planet unlivable for ourselves. The planet itself will motor on quite happily and mother nature will correct any imbalances we may have wrought, no matter if it takes 10 years or 10 thousand years or even 10 million years. All the nuclear bombs on the planet couldn't completely eradicate life on Earth. There's plenty of life percolating around volcanic vents in the ocean to repopulate the Earth after we're gone.

So when arguing about the environment remember that its our survival you are fighting for, not the Earths.

:yes:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No we aren't, we are using up resources that we ourselves are dependant on. The worst that can happen is we make the planet unlivable for ourselves. The planet itself will motor on quite happily and mother nature will correct any imbalances we may have wrought, no matter if it takes 10 years or 10 thousand years or even 10 million years. All the nuclear bombs on the planet couldn't completely eradicate life on Earth. There's plenty of life percolating around volcanic vents in the ocean to repopulate the Earth after we're gone.

So when arguing about the environment remember that its our survival you are fighting for, not the Earths.

You don't have to be nitpicky. We are destroying an ecosystem that we are dependdent on, that a new ecosystem can evolve without us is probably in the cards but technically we are destroying a planetary ecosystem

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You don't have to be nitpicky. We are destroying an ecosystem that we are dependdent on, that a new ecosystem can evolve without us is probably in the cards but technically we are destroying a planetary ecosystem

I feel as though I do. I keep hearing people say we are destroying the earth but we aren't. We are destroying ourselves. If people would focus on the facts instead of trying to make something sound worse than it is, maybe the opposition would pay more attention. Exaggerating the issue is a common propaganda technique and is recognised as such. Using it detracts from your arguement even if the arguement is legitamate.

 

[Me Myself]

I feel as though I do. I keep hearing people say we are destroying the earth but we aren't. We are destroying ourselves. If people would focus on the facts instead of trying to make something sound worse than it is, maybe the opposition would pay more attention. Exaggerating the issue is a common propaganda technique and is recognised as such. Using it detracts from your arguement even if the arguement is legitamate.

Quoted For Truth.

We are destroying ourselves. Earth can get rid of us like a bad flue and the thousands of years it will take it to process plastic is like a day or two for Earth´s time.

 

[Falvlun]

There always seems to be confusion with some when it comes to commandments for pre-Christ Jews and New Testament Christians. Actually I believe that the Bible show we are all under a new law.

Okay... so why do you think the "be fruitful and multiply" commandment is still in effect? Was that law reaffirmed in the new law that was given?

I believe that the text shows that part of being in the image of Gos is that man was given dominion.

Precisely. God told humans to reign over the Earth. But, should we not strive to govern well? Do you think God really doesn't care how we reign? Do you think he would prefer kind, considerate, and responsible governors of the Earth he created, as opposed to irresponsible despots who snatch all they can grab?

I don't think we have reached that limit yet.

Do you have an idea in mind of what that limit would be? We added 1 billion people in 10 years. That is astounding.

Also, you kept mentioning that we have 7 billion people are alive today. We do... and it is estimated that nearly 1 billion of them are starving. Many, many more are in abject poverty.

Only about 15% of the world's populations live in a developed country, like the US. The other 85% reside in developing countries-- countries which are trying to become like the developed countries. Can the Earth sustain that 85% as they start utilizing resources on par with those in developed countries?

Can you imagine the strain that would put on resources globally? The Earth can't support as many people as it already has, if we want those people to have a relatively comfortable life, like we are able to enjoy.

 

[Magic Man]

no, I said it's useless to expand off earth to fix the problems under discussion, because it won't solve the problems under discussion in the least.

How would having more room not solve the problem of overpopulation?

and I don't see why you feel the need to tell me that, other than responding to a strawman of course.

I never said it will never work. I said it doesn't help in this context. and it doesn't.

If you think it could work, then why are you arguing?

 

[not nom]

How would having more room not solve the problem of overpopulation?

because the problem of overpopulation is not a problem of space, but resources

this is frustrating, really.

how would "building stuff on the moon" in the next 100-200 years equate to having more room, anyway? much less solve our impending resource shortages? let's fix those, then build solar panels around the sun and find ways to get the energy here, and THEN go settle in space or whatever... since I am a little kid I am dreaming of that, and then I learned dyson had a similar idea. it's a good idea after all, and kinda obvious. the sun is blasting incredible amounts of energy into open space, that what hits earth is a joke compared to that. we're totally farting around, and hawking is proposing let's fart around elsewhere, too, before our farting around here gets us extinct. nice suggestion, useless, next.

If you think it could work, then why are you arguing?

because someone claimed it could help in this context.

 

[not nom]

We added 1 billion people in 10 years. That is astounding.

Also, you kept mentioning that we have 7 billion people are alive today. We do... and it is estimated that nearly 1 billion of them are starving. Many, many more are in abject poverty.

Only about 15% of the world's populations live in a developed country, like the US. The other 85% reside in developing countries-- countries which are trying to become like the developed countries. Can the Earth sustain that 85% as they start utilizing resources on par with those in developed countries?

Can you imagine the strain that would put on resources globally? The Earth can't support as many people as it already has, if we want those people to have a relatively comfortable life, like we are able to enjoy.

wonderful post, I just wanted to see how it looks in huge letters.

if you are not worried, you are not paying attention.

 

[Photonic]

wonderful post, I just wanted to see how it looks in huge letters.

if you are not worried, you are not paying attention.

So in what way would expanding off-world not fix the situation?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So in what way would expanding off-world not fix the situation?

Timing. If population is expanding by 1 million per 10 years there is no way for off planet technology to provide a solution. Nature will most likely provide a solution for us in the guise of a pandemic or major war.

 

[Falvlun]

So in what way would expanding off-world not fix the situation?

It's a temporary band-aid. Sure, it would fix the immediate problem of resource depletion, but it wouldn't address the underlying issues. Issues like lack of self control or respect for any other living organism.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, it's not guaranteed that we will make it off Earth in time, nor is it guaranteed that we'd find another suitable home planet, let alone the multitudes required for an ever-expanding, uncaring population. Hedging our bets is probably a good thing. At worst, humans are able to expand into new worlds, while leaving an intact, beautiful world behind.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

nor is it guaranteed that we'd find another suitable home planet,

Not needed. Prior to expanding out of the solar system, which could easily take thousands of years, there is plenty of space here. Use the asteriod belt for raw materials and build space stations capible of holding millions of people. Create colonies on the Moon and Mars, maybe even some of Jupiter and Saturn's moons too. The solar system is a huge neighborhood.

 

[not nom]

So in what way would expanding off-world not fix the situation?

hey, the burden of proof is kinda on you. how would it fix it? but sure, I can rant regardless... but not to refute an argument that is just a bald assertion in the first place ^^

yes, now having a terraformed planet and a fleet of transporters would be nice. it would "help". but we don't have that. if we don't fix our situation, we likely never will have, not without murdering billions of people, or just letting them die -- it would suck either way. if we fix it, living off-planet is not required to survive choking on ourselves (which is what is happening), but a nice bonus.

if you move us, like we are, elsewhere, that won't help. it's like when someone doesn't know how to read, that reading it for them doesn't "fix the situation". it's just a crutch. that's what going elsewhere in response to this would be.

and I doubt it's feasible in the next few centuries. you gave no solid arguments to the contrary, so that's the default position. technology has advanced a lot and will make leaps we can't imagine yet, I don't doubt that... you could also say there have NEVER been so many hungry, thirsty and poor people on the planet. it's not just technology, it's logistic, economy, politics... tech gadgets for some, mostly as entertainment, aren't progress. our technology and what we invest in is actually embarrassing, not impressive.

so saying that will just suddenly change, without efforts on our part, or even some uncomfortable changes, is BS. if we don't make effort, why would future generations do? and by the time it impacts us, our choices will be drastically limited. then they'll just chant and say "it will be better in the afterlife", just like we now say it will be better in the future, and fizzle out. that's my worry. not that humans will go extinct, I doubt that, but that we get thrown back a big deal, by our hybris and greed and apathy.

 

[Photonic]

hey, the burden of proof is kinda on you. how would it fix it? but sure, I can rant regardless... but not to refute an argument that is just a bald assertion in the first place ^^

yes, now having a terraformed planet and a fleet of transporters would be nice. it would "help". but we don't have that. if we don't fix our situation, we likely never will have, not without murdering billions of people, or just letting them die -- it would suck either way. if we fix it, living off-planet is not required to survive choking on ourselves (which is what is happening), but a nice bonus.

if you move us, like we are, elsewhere, that won't help. it's like when someone doesn't know how to read, that reading it for them doesn't "fix the situation". it's just a crutch. that's what going elsewhere in response to this would be.

and I doubt it's feasible in the next few centuries. you gave no solid arguments to the contrary, so that's the default position. technology has advanced a lot and will make leaps we can't imagine yet, I don't doubt that... you could also say there have NEVER been so many hungry, thirsty and poor people on the planet. it's not just technology, it's logistic, economy, politics... tech gadgets for some, mostly as entertainment, aren't progress. our technology and what we invest in is actually embarrassing, not impressive.

so saying that will just suddenly change, without efforts on our part, or even some uncomfortable changes, is BS. if we don't make effort, why would future generations do? and by the time it impacts us, our choices will be drastically limited. then they'll just chant and say "it will be better in the afterlife", just like we now say it will be better in the future, and fizzle out. that's my worry. not that humans will go extinct, I doubt that, but that we get thrown back a big deal, by our hybris and greed and apathy.

Then why attempt to say I can't fix it?

Is it your goal to make sure that happens? If you don't want it, why get in the way of those that try to fix it? I've got plenty of scientific evidence backing my argument that it is indeed completely possible, and in a short time frame. It's a benefit of being a physicist.

Is there some scientific evidence you have that I don't that says it's impossible?

 

[not nom]

Use the asteriod belt for raw materials

sure, will take energy though. it's not like we can just stroll over there. even that stuff may be centuries in the future. I mean, it actually taking place in scale.

just now, a russian probe took off, looking to take 200 grams of soil from phobos. and do you know how long it took to plan that mission, how many man hours, how many resources? I don't either, but I bet you, even if the probe took back 200 grams of diamonds, it wouldn't be exactly a profit.

and build space stations capible of holding millions of people.

you are missing the whole ecosystem. all our biosphere experiments failed so far.

even building a single (very tall and wide of course) skyscraper in the ocean might be able to hold millions of people easily. because millions of people isn't much. that's just another medium city, you know? china now has a city with 42 million people or something to that effect.

Create colonies on the Moon and Mars, maybe even some of Jupiter and Saturn's moons too. The solar system is a huge neighborhood.

you say that as if it was a mouse click in an RTS game. no offense, but I think you're being simplicistic.

we are leaking. we are a boat that is leaking. we need to stop that leak. we need to stop being insane, before the underdeveloped countries catch up and become just as insane.

we DON'T just need a new place where we can put people, even if that would solve the problem of them maybe not volunteering. we need to be sustainable with what we have. that doesn't mean not expanding what we have, but it means staying sustainable with however much we have, at any given point in time.

 

[not nom]

Then why attempt to say I can't fix it?

Is it your goal to make sure that happens? If you don't want it, why get in the way of those that try to fix it?

by asking you for an argument? how is that getting in the way? how are you trying to fix anything? by being smug and facetious and fallacious? hahahaha.

to just saying "time to get off this stupid rock", in a debate that was after all a question to religious people, that's your idea of working on the problem? LMAO.

I've got plenty of scientific evidence backing my argument that it is indeed completely possible, and in a short time frame. It's a benefit of being a physicist.

haha?!? you're not a logician though, or you would know how hilarious that appeal to authority is. if you got the above, post it. otherwise, lol.

Is there some scientific evidence you have that I don't that says it's impossible?

to refute your appeal to authority? you still think you have anything, don't you.

 

[Falvlun]

Not needed. Prior to expanding out of the solar system, which could easily take thousands of years, there is plenty of space here. Use the asteriod belt for raw materials and build space stations capible of holding millions of people. Create colonies on the Moon and Mars, maybe even some of Jupiter and Saturn's moons too. The solar system is a huge neighborhood.

True, but is that the sort of existence you'd want the human race existing in? I don't think that's a good long-term plan, unless sheer survival is the only thing you are aiming for.

Battlestar Gallactica (Yes, I know: nerd-ville) portrayed this scenario very well. The colonists were able to survive on their various ships, some of which even had green spaces and such. But they yearned for a planet, some good dirt to squish between their toes. Psychologically, the lack of a solid, living planet was really rough, and people started going off the deep end.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

we DON'T just need a way where we could put people. we need to be sustainable with what we have. that doesn't mean not expanding what we have, but it means staying sustainable with however much we have, at any given point in time.

Did you miss all my other posts? I couldn't agree with you more. Space is NOT the answer to our problems, mostly due to time. The post you quoted was merely pointing out that we have an entire solar system of resources to explore before needing to look outside of the solar system for viable planets.

I still say that nature will eventually regain its balance, probably through pandemic or war. Possibly through climate change itself. As the planet warms and the northern lands become more livable there will be more places for humans to settle. Look at Canada and Siberia; lots of space.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

True, but is that the sort of existence you'd want the human race existing in? I don't think that's a good long-term plan, unless sheer survival is the only thing you are aiming for.

Battlestar Gallactica (Yes, I know: nerd-ville) portrayed this scenario very well. The colonists were able to survive on their various ships, some of which even had green spaces and such. But they yearned for a planet, some good dirt to squish between their toes. Psychologically, the lack of a solid, living planet was really rough, and people started going off the deep end.

I don't buy it, although I thought Battlestar Gallactica was the fracking bomb! Humanity can adapt to anything and how is living in a space station any different that most downtown condos? Folks from the country don't know how city folks live in such a mess, and we dirt dweller don't know how those spacers can deal with never seeing a sunset.

Nor is it a long term plan, does humanity even have one? We like to think our plans are long term but looking back at history shows they are constantly changing and never remain on track.