[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Its not population alone that is of concern, its also the rising aspirations of the populations. There was a time when a vast majority lived happily very prudently. Not so, today and tomorrow! Thanks to the mass media many more people are tempted towards consumer goods. Goods that require more water (to clean), more energy (to run) and ofcourse bandwidth.

I'd suggest that we as a people tend to idealize our perceptions of history... those times when things were shiney and happy may never have existed. All populations across all stretches of time have suffered with the life circumstances specific to them and their world. No single generation lacked problems, and to say that any one thing makes the current generation worse off is an inaccurate generalization.

We have a new set of challenges. We have serious issues with which to contend, and much of the time devoted toward happiness is spent experiencing a very real anxiety and concern for our future and the future of our children.

Is change needed? I'm not sure, but I do know that change is the only thing that ever happens anyway. The rest is inside of us; the rest is interpretatoin of that change. We determine what the world is, both physically and subjectively.

The world is what we make of it. It's just that there are more and more people "making" the world each day...

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Turtle

If we are to enjoy our future innovations (gills, bulbous eyes, hoofs, and all), we must control the population. I think this is the paramount 'need' for the future, and the least likely scenario to actually happen by purposeful human intervention.

That is certainly a valid observation and, if there were "a purposeful human intervention" which could accomplish such a thing, it brings up another issue I have never heard discussed anywhere. First, I will comment that hallenrm's diversion of attention is fundamentally a useless observation.

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Controlling populations therefore will not help in averting the crisis. What would be required is an enlightenment, that consuming more does not neccessarily lead to more happiness in life

The real point is that, without population control, no enlightenment can possibly avoid the crisis and leaving that control to nature will result in the most unhappy circumstances conceivable by mankind.

Originally Posted by smartypant

We are going to kill everything on the face of planet Earth and everything will fail. And I'm only explaining what will happen in about 30 years tops at the rate we're going.

Well, I doubt we will kill everything but I suspect what will survive will not be what we would expect.

If there were a means of controlling the human population (what people used to call "zero population growth") then a second issue arises: if zero is possible, then slightly positive or slightly negative are also possible. That means the mechanism, what ever it happens to be, can, over time, bring the human population to any number desired.

The question I would like to ask is, "what is the optimum human population of the earth" and why do you think that population is optimal? I will begin the conversation by stating two rather obvious limits. The number certainly needs to be above a few hundred as, if the number were only a few hundred, we could not possibly serve our own survival needs and continue to maintain the knowledge and understanding we have managed to achieve at this point. And the number certainly needs to be less than five hundred billion as that would pretty well exceed the room available to grow enough food (this is pretty generous as we are actually quite close to the limit right now). So the correct answer should be between three hundred and three hundred billion.

My personal opinion is that the optimum number would probably be in the range of a few hundred million: the minimum necessary to maintain our level of achievement (we could probably survive at ten percent that number but I raised it to yield a little margin for research and development). At that number, I think the earth could survive most all of our thoughtless acts (other than the thoughtless act of over procreating again).

For the fun of it, give me your thoughts -- Dick

[Bombadil]

Firstly I ask the question what are you suggesting for population control?
I have a slightly different suggestion to solve this problem though maybe more difficult to implement it I think it would have a somewhat more useful result.
Why not populate space maybe near by object such as meters, asteroids and planets or any other thing that might be hospitable.
This might be less practical in the shot run but I think it is a much better idea in the long run seeing as how such a endeavor would surely create a massive need for new technology and I think someone could be found that would be willing and able to fill such needs.
I know it is unpractical right now and until it is obviously profitable for someone unlikely to happen but it seems like a good solution to the problem if sufficient motivation can be found to do it.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by smartypant

..it's not like oldern days when you could just take things and say"Don't worry Ma I'm only using it to make a mind-blowing invention!".

oldern days? At what age were you making mind blowing inventions?

Originally Posted by smartypant

And I'm only explaining what will happen in about 30 years tops at the rate we're going.

That's quite an analysis and prediction for a 10 year old.

[smartypant]

That's quite an analysis and prediction for a 10 year old.[/quote]

Who said I was normal?? If I have such an extrodinary vocabulary (not many people have a variety of words like me (I'm not baragging though) ) and play level 5 music on an alto saxaphone and play badminton I don't think I'm normal. And I have only been playing for TWO YEARS!!! Some proffesionals can't accomplish a level 5 song even after they've been playing for 6 years! Not to say I think I'm Albert Enstein, (I dunno if I want to be HIM because he never even passed COLLEGE) but I CAN say this:
I respect people for there wits not grades! Einstein didn't pass college but he was smart enough to make the 'Relitivaty Theory' AND prove it!

(Please see)P.S. : I don't think I'm a genius. Actually I consider my self an average 10 - year old boy.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by smartypant

I dunno if I want to be HIM because he never even passed COLLEGE

False. He only failed admission to the Swiss Polytechnic at the first attempt, on his French essay and because they were very fussy about French in Switzerland. He was 16 and hadn't even finished high school. They said that they were impressed by his math and science scores but advised him to finish high school first and then come back. He did, and graduated there in 1900. He wrote the special relativity paper while working to obtain his Ph. D. from the University of Zurich, which he completed in 1906.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by smartypant

Einstein didn't pass college but he was smart enough to make the 'Relitivaty Theory' AND prove it!

Uhhh, theories are theories because the haven't been proven...

[Majestic13]

Boerseun, We will continue to invent better creations on older concepts. Like new or better feul for transport. We will only really step in a new direction or time period , when all the guys with the white jackets starts thinking outside the closet, otherwize we will be stuck with old technology in new colour.

Ai die Ingels

[Boerseun]

Maybe air-farming? Harvesting carbon and other thingies straight from the atmosphere?

That solves two problems at once! Cleaning the air, and supplying fuel!

The question is - how will it be done? And the answer is the topic to this thread...