I read a study saying that we are heading to the situation that more people die from obesity in the 1st world than from hunger in the 3rd. With all our itelligence and self-awareness we can't even control ourselves.
The divide between the haves and havenots is totally unnatural, viewed from a natural evolution. I don't particularly view that as an 'accomplishment'.
But we are probably straying into political stuff now.
Jan
The divide between the haves and havenots is totally unnatural, viewed from a natural evolution. I don't particularly view that as an 'accomplishment'.
But we are probably straying into political stuff now.
Jan
We are, but don't have to be political.
Personally I see that supporting over 300 million tons of hungry humans without having already eaten the planet bare is doing pretty well. We have to control ourselves or we will eat ourselves out of house and home. We're learning to renew and conserve. I can't think of another species, except krill, who can do what we've done. Agriculture powered by fuel allows us to do it.
Personally I see that supporting over 300 million tons of hungry humans without having already eaten the planet bare is doing pretty well. We have to control ourselves or we will eat ourselves out of house and home. We're learning to renew and conserve. I can't think of another species, except krill, who can do what we've done. Agriculture powered by fuel allows us to do it.
It's probably googleable, not all that interested in "accurate numbers" to be honest
To me it is not a question o how many people the earth can support, but how many people can the earth support indefinitely.
Personally, I believe we passed that point around 1960.
Species after species in the ocean has been pushed to extinction. How long can we continue? another 100 years, and then?
Personally, I believe we passed that point around 1960.
Species after species in the ocean has been pushed to extinction. How long can we continue? another 100 years, and then?
Possible, but I doubt it. As long as we can manage our waste, we should be able to grow what we need. At the rate we're going, we'll eat up the oceans soon, so we'll have to grow it.
DNA "expresses itself" by copying; more specifically by being copied with the assistance of RNA...it is the template of life. There is no growth, cell division, sexual reproduction or inheritance until a strand of DNA is unwound and reconstituted or recombined. Copy errors occur for many reasons and ionizing radiation is certainly one of the primary drivers but the mechanism like all others is imperfect, otherwise we'd be stuck at a world of single celled amoeba or something even more primitive. The magic of life is self-replication but without copying mistakes it is a dead end.
No pano, I don't. Look at the protein harvested from the ocean and calculate the acreage necessary to replace it with 3-5% protein grains. The numbers don't work.
Second episode of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secrets_of_Quantum_Physics
is about how quantum mehanics influence biology and it was told how quantum tunneling is one of the means of mutations in DNA. If a different isotope of one element (I no longer remember which) was introduced to the DNA the tunnelings stop due to much greater energy required for tunneling to happen IIRC.
is about how quantum mehanics influence biology and it was told how quantum tunneling is one of the means of mutations in DNA. If a different isotope of one element (I no longer remember which) was introduced to the DNA the tunnelings stop due to much greater energy required for tunneling to happen IIRC.
Organic food would support 2 billion at best. We mostly eat oil or so I thought. The Harber process can use wind power to produce the ammonia we can use for the basics, it also suits how wind farms produce power as we can make it when the wind blows and transport it as finished product. If looking at the history of that, it is both light and dark. One problem is phosphorus. Taking the P in English was people who harvested it for the phosphorous. When they became rich some pretended to be wine merchants due to moving barrels around. I read a company is providing toilets to harvest it again. They also harvest common legal drugs to recycle. The guy said Pig P is his next idea.
We may find what we call errors are not that. It's an easy mistake to make. It could be factors we don't see force the situation. It's a subtle and important difference. The errors we see like Down's are just that and do not work. If one looks at cancer it is the natural state of a cell. The cell can not protect itself from cancer. It's neighbour does that. Where cancer takes hold is where something blocks the defence. A piece of radioactive material for example. From this we have to infer the body when ideal is like an ideal society.
One mathamatical problem I have with humans is how did a viable tribe start? We could specualte 20 minimum for a chance of beneficial mutation to keep the chance of bad mutation suppressed. Apes do not tollerate weekness, they would not allow a mutation good or bad. Humans are week and helpless more so than all animals I can think of. A human can not exist by laws we hold to be true. Human evolution as told is a perpetual motion machine of sorts. This science is smug and is false I suspect. I don't infer the old stories more corect either. However one statement in that is other mistaken. It is not implied we had a starting point of two.
Pierson's Puppeteers. Colleen and I were talking Cerberus or her dog Layla. I was drawing the windpipe of a three headed dog. No, it's not workable. Nature wouldn't do that. And yet we do get two headed people. Alas not workable either.
We may find what we call errors are not that. It's an easy mistake to make. It could be factors we don't see force the situation. It's a subtle and important difference. The errors we see like Down's are just that and do not work. If one looks at cancer it is the natural state of a cell. The cell can not protect itself from cancer. It's neighbour does that. Where cancer takes hold is where something blocks the defence. A piece of radioactive material for example. From this we have to infer the body when ideal is like an ideal society.
One mathamatical problem I have with humans is how did a viable tribe start? We could specualte 20 minimum for a chance of beneficial mutation to keep the chance of bad mutation suppressed. Apes do not tollerate weekness, they would not allow a mutation good or bad. Humans are week and helpless more so than all animals I can think of. A human can not exist by laws we hold to be true. Human evolution as told is a perpetual motion machine of sorts. This science is smug and is false I suspect. I don't infer the old stories more corect either. However one statement in that is other mistaken. It is not implied we had a starting point of two.
Pierson's Puppeteers. Colleen and I were talking Cerberus or her dog Layla. I was drawing the windpipe of a three headed dog. No, it's not workable. Nature wouldn't do that. And yet we do get two headed people. Alas not workable either.
Lets all mutate ourselves and form the X-Men coalition for mutant kind. LMAO
Members of our group
1. Cancer man
2. Little man
3. Down man
4. Albino man
5. Auto immune man
There are many other mutations out there as we are still looking for recruits. LMAO
Members of our group
1. Cancer man
2. Little man
3. Down man
4. Albino man
5. Auto immune man
There are many other mutations out there as we are still looking for recruits. LMAO
That seems a bit harsh. I notice proptotype humans gets missed. It always does. It's not an easy question.
Not everything is biological. Albino skin and/or eyes pop up regularly in humans but cannot sustain itself, not because of biological survival factors but because it cannot make it in that particular culture.
Interestingly, protecting your culture from 'contamination' is in itself a survival stategy at a higher level.
That turns us back to the question what self-conciousness actually did for us, what other specis cannot do. One school that is increasingly gaining foothold is that our conciousness allows us to believe in fictional, imaginary entities. The Ford Motor Company. The Kingdom of The Netherlands. The Audio Engineering Society. All imaginary legal entities, not natural 'beings'. By believing in FMC, 100,000 or more people can work coordinated toward the same goal. It is hard to envision any method to organise 100,000 people for a common goal, unless you can make them believe in the same 'thing'. Religions are similar. Imaginary entities. People can belief so strongly in these imaginary entities like the United States of America or The Islamic Republic of Iran that many thousands upon thousands are readily willing to let themselves rip apart by bullets or blow themselves up in the conviction they are 'protecting' this imaginary entity.
This belief in an imaginary entity requires conciousness and being impressionable by concious reasoning. And we are the only species that have it to the required degree.
Jan
Interestingly, protecting your culture from 'contamination' is in itself a survival stategy at a higher level.
That turns us back to the question what self-conciousness actually did for us, what other specis cannot do. One school that is increasingly gaining foothold is that our conciousness allows us to believe in fictional, imaginary entities. The Ford Motor Company. The Kingdom of The Netherlands. The Audio Engineering Society. All imaginary legal entities, not natural 'beings'. By believing in FMC, 100,000 or more people can work coordinated toward the same goal. It is hard to envision any method to organise 100,000 people for a common goal, unless you can make them believe in the same 'thing'. Religions are similar. Imaginary entities. People can belief so strongly in these imaginary entities like the United States of America or The Islamic Republic of Iran that many thousands upon thousands are readily willing to let themselves rip apart by bullets or blow themselves up in the conviction they are 'protecting' this imaginary entity.
This belief in an imaginary entity requires conciousness and being impressionable by concious reasoning. And we are the only species that have it to the required degree.
Jan
Thanks Jan. You saw what I didn't. Only the X-Men were on my radar.
There is way to prove the imaginary entity that should be OK for anyone. It's the willful way things happen. Hydrogen is as good a place to start as any and oxygen no worse. If you never looked at anything else it could be a life's work. The specific heat capacity of water is something so important it alone could be a life's work. How the Oceans make that real on Earth is no small thing. For something with no origine and all a great accident it has qualities that might as well be magic. You need no deity to marvel at it ( soz, X-Men again if I am right ).
Then take the way Earth is protected by the magnetic sheild and can by gravity and that alone keep air on the planet inside a vacuum. It has no easy explanation ( in a perfect system yes, the planets ruin that ). Fussion reactors prove how hard that stuff is to do. We could be forgiven for thinking destiny knew our names or at least was kind.
There is way to prove the imaginary entity that should be OK for anyone. It's the willful way things happen. Hydrogen is as good a place to start as any and oxygen no worse. If you never looked at anything else it could be a life's work. The specific heat capacity of water is something so important it alone could be a life's work. How the Oceans make that real on Earth is no small thing. For something with no origine and all a great accident it has qualities that might as well be magic. You need no deity to marvel at it ( soz, X-Men again if I am right ).
Then take the way Earth is protected by the magnetic sheild and can by gravity and that alone keep air on the planet inside a vacuum. It has no easy explanation ( in a perfect system yes, the planets ruin that ). Fussion reactors prove how hard that stuff is to do. We could be forgiven for thinking destiny knew our names or at least was kind.
Its a philosophical thing. If Planck's constant had been just a tiny bit different, the universe would have been very different and we surely would not have been here to discuss the merits of green coupling caps.
Some people use that to say, see, even Planck's constant has been tuned with high accuracy so we could arise.
I believe this is wrong reasoning. The universe being what it is, gave rise to some living entities on this backward planet in a fringe galaxy. If the universe had been totally different, who knows what would have arisen. Maybe no life, maybe much more advanced, very weird (to our standards), maybe mental organisms, who knows. Get a set of different initial conditions and the sky is the limit ;-)
On a lighter tread: The Supreme Being took 5 days to create the universe. On the 6th day he created Man. After some R&R he looked down to see how Man was doing. He was shocked to see the total mess, and burst out in tears. And that my friend was the Big Bang ;-)
Jan
Some people use that to say, see, even Planck's constant has been tuned with high accuracy so we could arise.
I believe this is wrong reasoning. The universe being what it is, gave rise to some living entities on this backward planet in a fringe galaxy. If the universe had been totally different, who knows what would have arisen. Maybe no life, maybe much more advanced, very weird (to our standards), maybe mental organisms, who knows. Get a set of different initial conditions and the sky is the limit ;-)
On a lighter tread: The Supreme Being took 5 days to create the universe. On the 6th day he created Man. After some R&R he looked down to see how Man was doing. He was shocked to see the total mess, and burst out in tears. And that my friend was the Big Bang ;-)
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.