General Discussion

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)

30. IOW we can't do it, we can't do it, we can't do it.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:23 PM

Jun 2012

If we keep telling ourselves that, as a species, then we never will.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Population control will NOT save our environment; and why Stephen Hawking was right. [View all] Zalatix Jun 2012 OP

It's not an either/or proposition. wickerwoman Jun 2012 #1

Population growth isn't indefinite when the whole populace is prosperous. Zalatix Jun 2012 #3

I'm sure there are useful minerals on the moon/asteroids. wickerwoman Jun 2012 #5

Why should we ruin other worlds as we have our own? Skidmore Jun 2012 #11

LOL, you know how many stars are just in OUR Galaxy.. snooper2 Jun 2012 #22

Go with the energy source which contributes nothing to global warming golfguru Jun 2012 #7

Always available? Nukes are always available? RobertEarl Jun 2012 #42

i'm getting really sick of the use of the "breed like rabbits" crap. world fertility rate = 2.47 HiPointDem Jun 2012 #31

At the moment that's at least 1.47 more than is sustainable wickerwoman Jun 2012 #34

It isn't "breeding like rabbits". that phrase has so often been used to denigrate foreigners and HiPointDem Jun 2012 #35

Inability to provide adequately for children isn't a completely subjective stance. wickerwoman Jun 2012 #36

bill gates has three; but since he can "adequately provide for them" why peachy keen. albeit HiPointDem Jun 2012 #37

Sorry but I have better things to do than argue online with someone wickerwoman Jun 2012 #38

yes, i'm sure you have much better thing to do, like talk about poor people breeding like rabbits. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #39

She's already declared "victory". Zalatix Jun 2012 #45

2.47 =1.47 = 1.0 kids per 2 parents. That's an implosion, not sustainable. Look at Japan. Zalatix Jun 2012 #44

oops, sorry, misread you. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #52

Uh-oh, the Luddite brigade will flame you for supporting colonizing space. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #2

Better recycling of the resources we use, couldn't hurt, either. Zalatix Jun 2012 #4

Well, not exactly Scootaloo Jun 2012 #6

Propulsion technology is inadequate to even take humans to Mars Kolesar Jun 2012 #9

A manned Mars mission would only cost $30 billion. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #14

If you call the atrophied passenger that crawls out of the capsule at the end a "man" Kolesar Jun 2012 #21

Nuclear-electric engines would make it much easier. hunter Jun 2012 #24

We gotta dream! Kolesar Jun 2012 #25

The challenge is landing a craft capable of taking the crew back into Mars orbit muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #27

I think Odin2005 meant that $30 billion would be using conventional "chemical" rockets ... eom Kolesar Jun 2012 #28

Elon Musk designed Dragon to land on Mars bananas Jun 2012 #46

That lands unmanned, and does not take off again muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #48

Future versions will land and take off again. bananas Jun 2012 #50

Nuclear-electric makes it harder, and it is dangerous bananas Jun 2012 #49

The energy and effort to get something from an asteroid are magnitudes higher muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #10

"an effort far greater than anything that humanity has ever done" = the space age in general. Zalatix Jun 2012 #13

No, the space age was not that much of a technological leap, and has been tiny in scale muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #17

Never heard of a space elevator, I take it? Odin2005 Jun 2012 #15

Of course I have: muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #18

IOW we can't do it, we can't do it, we can't do it. Zalatix Jun 2012 #30

I favor unrestricted access to birth control for all eShirl Jun 2012 #8

women do that when they have political-economic agency, BOG PERSON Jun 2012 #47

Glad to K&R cbrer Jun 2012 #12

You lost me at ... GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #16

"Live simply, so that others may live". (Kopi, circa 800 AD) Zorra Jun 2012 #19

The plan is to seed a number of extraterritorial colonies with a small number of elites FarCenter Jun 2012 #20

GREETINGS FROM ALPHA CENTAURI Capt. Obvious Jun 2012 #23

Greetings from Tau Ceti! GliderGuider Jun 2012 #26

2 things-we quadrupled in 1/2 century, soon to reach 9billion & we're not adapting to earth in time stuntcat Jun 2012 #29

world population in 1960 = 3,039,451,023. If it had quadrupled over 50 years population would HiPointDem Jun 2012 #40

excuse me, in 3/4 century stuntcat Jun 2012 #41

i really despise the denigratory phrases like "sexing each other" "squirting out miracles" HiPointDem Jun 2012 #53

Especially since so many rich people have more than 2.47 kids. Zalatix Jun 2012 #56

You know I am all for colonizing space nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #32

All the money in the world will NOT protect the very rich? It does in Mexico. Zalatix Jun 2012 #57

No, that is not the kind of crash we are talking about nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #61

Population control, sustainability, space exploration, colonization and resource mining Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #33

Hawking was just being entertaining KurtNYC Jun 2012 #43

Physicist Bartlett: sustainable growth is contradiction Democrats_win Jun 2012 #51

duh. we'll have socialism once all the wealth is consolidated into 4 families' hands & HiPointDem Jun 2012 #54

Population control isn't enough by itself, but it's a NECESSARY part of the solution. Jim Lane Jun 2012 #55

Hawking was speaking about the threat to Humanity of alien invasion IDemo Jun 2012 #58

That doesn't contradict what I said. Zalatix Jun 2012 #59

The best form of population control is ending poverty. Dash87 Jun 2012 #60