General Discussion

Uncle Joe

(64,594 posts)

33. Population control, sustainability, space exploration, colonization and resource mining

Reply to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:40 PM

Jun 2012

all need to be in balance to increase humanity's chances for long term survival.

Thanks for the thread, Zalatix.

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