LOL, I meant Dr Smith... That would be pretty interesting though, having him walking around in Lost in space wouldn't it.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM
Last edited:
Mankind isn't so much a threat to the planet, but a threat to mankind being able to live on the planet.
The planet will survive without us. In a state different than we have now, which is a state different from, say, 50million years ago...
That sounds more like it, and I agree completely. Its the survival of our current state of living conditions that I'm concerned about for the longevity of my and my offspring's life.
I don't mind living in a tent, or a run down shack, but I am concerned about violence/violent people and their issues and how far away I can get from them.
I don't mind living in a tent, or a run down shack, but I am concerned about violence/violent people and their issues and how far away I can get from them.
It is much easier to notice negative acts than positive. It takes some effort to see the ninety five percent of a loaf of bread uninhabited by mold... it becomes "moldy bread" instead of bread with a little mold on it. I'm not naive nor do I live in Mr.Rogers' neighbourhood 😉. If you ask my wife, she will tell you just how often I air my disgust with humanity. I am more susceptible to notice cruelty than kindness, but that is because kindness is harder to notice. Acts that leave a positive or no impact on others are (should be) normal and who notices anything that works as it should.
But, man is capable of intolerable cruelty on a massive scale and the cruel and greedy of us seem to be more driven to satisfaction than the rest. But, painters still paint, musicians play on and poets cry on payday.
Another problem facing us is how we allocate rewards to and recognize outstanding individuals. I wonder who has more awards and earns more money, 50Cent or a any leading current theoretical scientist.
Forget the nice guy stuff...I change my mind. I just saw a bit of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crap for the first time. There is nothing left. Abandon ship!
I've been over that scenario in my daydreams and I don't like it. Makes me think of pioneer days in western NA. You live on a remote farm with your wife and kids and see men on horseback headed your way, no communication, just time to think as they slowly get nearer. That would be tense.
Wow, I haven't seen it yet and am not going to, I'm sorry for your loss of state of mind, sanity, and faith in humanity 😛
I must admit though it was only a matter of time, I too went through the same thing after watching The Matrix 2 & 3.
Yes a commune is the best, but that raises quite a few other issues. Firstly whats the size of this commune, secondly whats the best location to setup shop for this group of people.
Last edited:
Not necesserially, the Amish seem to be doing this commune buisness pretty well, so far, but that does pop up other issues like freedom of choice/freedom of will, and what level of control is adequate.
I think that depends very much on whether you are in any way considerate to the other animals we share the planet with....
right! made me cry and wonder about our future as a whole!
im a huge fan, and have watched the first 3 somany times, but, i have yet to see it again.
the southpark ep that deals with indy4 was so right!
Come to think of it eversince Season 9 of the simpsons I haven't really watched it much at all.
Does everyone go through that?
Does everyone go through that?
You night be interested in this: Crazy ants on march after Government slashes fighting fund | News.com.au
me neither, its been a pale and impotent parody of itself for years. basically since the movies come to think of it...
back when that quote was from and before it often made me cry with laughter, now its all predictable sap
ahh but... so is popular music, fashion, subculture etc, its all set on tumble and repeat... so I guess they dont have much to draw from
Last edited:
I just hope we have offworld colonies before all this........* Come to the off-world colonies* Blade Runner...................
_____________________________________________________Rick...........
_____________________________________________________Rick...........
Yes. It is my opinion that we are the apocalypse. Currently we are with so many that, if it were any other species, would be called a plague.
Relative to the age of the universe and the earth, we have been around only a very short period of time. In that respect we are destroying the earth in a tempo that is analogous to that of a swarm of locusts destroying crops... Hence my supposition that we are the apocalyose.
Given our relatively short life expectancies and the speed we experience the passing of time, we will not experience 21-12-2012 as an apocalyptic day. It will be more like passing the point of no return for our race unnoticed.
That's not too bad. It will give future generations time to think about what went wrong and what might be done to prevent it in the future when preparations are being made to colonise another planet.
Life has a way of coming back, simple lifeforms first, more complex later.
Did you ever view the documentary on how wildlife is thriving in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? It appears that the radiation is far less dangerous to wildlife than the presence of humans.
So, my guess is that wildlife will thrive again.
I wonder, though, what will happen to all the nuclear power plants in the long term, even if they were shut down before the disappearance of humans. Even with humans around they are barely under control, Chernobyl and Fukushima are painfully clear examples of that. Surely nuclear power plants will go leaky in a matter of years without maintenance.
In our perception of time: an eternity.
What would the Dinosaurs have replied if they were a developed race? I'd guess "We don't know."
Perhaps, perhaps not. The earth's existence will end, but if that is before our sun goes supernova or not, who can tell?
Last edited:
I have full faith in the free market, especially in regards to issues like this. As manufacturing processes improve, so does efficiency. Fewer raw goods are also required for a given amount of output. For example, the number of transistors on a wafer of silicon has been roughly doubling every two years. The mass production of "green" technologies like battery-powered cars and CFLs would not have been possible without this technological growth.
One popular economic model used to illustrate the macro economy in the long run is the Solow model of economic growth. Here, per-capita wealth is measured in capital per worker. The principle is that any nation will quickly catch up to the per capita wealth of developed countries as long as it has a sufficiently high savings rate and low levels of corruption, etc. Relatively high savings rates= relatively high investment in new capital production. If a country saves too much of its total income though, it won't have enough left to consume goods.
Thus, after reaching the "golden rule" level of savings, the only per capita GDP growth comes from technological development (please read up on the model if you'd like to learn more). In this model, technological growth should be maximized in order to improve the well-being of individuals. In other words, it's foolish to do anything to hamper long-run technological growth. I believe that we should relax government regulations that are supposed to promote green living and redistribute wealth while instead focusing on building better technology that we enjoy! 🙂
Another point is that total world poverty has been diminished greatly with the development of China and India. Economic growth in Asia has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty (something like 50% of the world population). This is something no government could ever do. While wealth distribution might be more uneven at points, almost everyone is better off than they were 50 years ago (Africa is a big exception, but other factors are often suggested here).
People have lamented over the rapid population growth on our planet for centuries, however I believe that there is nothing to fear as long as governments do not hamper technological progress. In other words, 50 years from now we will be wondering why we even had this discussion.
One popular economic model used to illustrate the macro economy in the long run is the Solow model of economic growth. Here, per-capita wealth is measured in capital per worker. The principle is that any nation will quickly catch up to the per capita wealth of developed countries as long as it has a sufficiently high savings rate and low levels of corruption, etc. Relatively high savings rates= relatively high investment in new capital production. If a country saves too much of its total income though, it won't have enough left to consume goods.
Thus, after reaching the "golden rule" level of savings, the only per capita GDP growth comes from technological development (please read up on the model if you'd like to learn more). In this model, technological growth should be maximized in order to improve the well-being of individuals. In other words, it's foolish to do anything to hamper long-run technological growth. I believe that we should relax government regulations that are supposed to promote green living and redistribute wealth while instead focusing on building better technology that we enjoy! 🙂
Another point is that total world poverty has been diminished greatly with the development of China and India. Economic growth in Asia has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty (something like 50% of the world population). This is something no government could ever do. While wealth distribution might be more uneven at points, almost everyone is better off than they were 50 years ago (Africa is a big exception, but other factors are often suggested here).
People have lamented over the rapid population growth on our planet for centuries, however I believe that there is nothing to fear as long as governments do not hamper technological progress. In other words, 50 years from now we will be wondering why we even had this discussion.
Last edited:
How is "ancient structure" being defined? The very ancient weren't building durable structures; they hadn't the means. My short list might include the Great Pyramid and Sphinx, Parthenon, Colosseum, Great Wall, maybe even Gila Cliff Dwellings in New Mexico. None of these discovered by archeological excavation.
Just as it did for many of our smaller civilizations in the past, peak wood (easter island, mayans), peak food (the great famine of ireland = killed 1 million people, yet we never hear about it?)
Civilisations: why they fail | COSMOS magazine
Mayan civilization collapsed because of resource depletion, not disease or warfare | Technology - Oneindia News
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
Nobody ever learns, remember that, its still a flaw of our genetic code. Even if we lived 300 years instead of a mere 80-90 we would be far better off than we are today.
By the time future generations are populous enough to cater towards an intellectual think-tank they will probably not have enough resources to do anything of use for us to get off of this rock by the time the first generation dies off and a new one is born.
As soon as one generation learns from their mistakes we end up giving birth to another one that needs to be taught again, and education on topics such as the holocaust, financial sanity (no credit cards, no $50,000 cars, $3,000 tv sets, $10,000 kitchen "refreshers") are never fully carried over, every child today has been educated in the finer arts of buisness and trade, not how to survive when it all collapses, they are one trick pony's and cannot adapt quickly enough.
Yep, but I would keep an eye out for rabid dog packs, don't forget that man's best friend will go hungry too unless it becomes cannibalistic.
I hope that for the majority the people in charge of such power plants either under the direction of a government or working independently will have the common sense to safely shut them down and prepare them for long-term storage.
But yes, the long-term condition of such plants are that their tops will collapse or be blown out by the buildup of hydrogen gas eventually, if the fuel isn't removed and the reaction isn't safely shut down.
This as far as I can see will pollute underground aquifers, rivers, and the surrounding downstream atmosphere from the plant.
But I doubt it will cause a serious issue on a global scale even when there are so many of them in the world today, I doubt that the reactors will still be around once everyone who can safely disable them have gone, because I bet that there will still be enough people willing to die for the sake of the rest of us inorder to either clean up the reactors or to shut them down and remove the fuel, ontop of that post-collapse most likely people will have other issues to deal with than a slight increase in the global background radiation.
I don't think that this global civilization has any idea what its doing, without anything serious we are merely procrastinating and using up resources, we are still in cruise mode, ailbeit the needle is edging towards the greener economy portion of the econogauge.
The big question is, on my mind, just how far will all of this civilization take us down the rabbit hole before we all burn out? What's the point of working anymore if you require 10 years of college before you get your first job?
It used to be that kids would have their first job at age 10-16, then it became 16-18, then it became 18-21, now its 16 for mcdonalds and after you get your degree for college goers.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.