Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

Poor analogy. A better one would be that you don't know how much money you had in your pocket, but you had recorded the serial numbers from some fraction of the bills that were there. When you look in your pocket later, you see that some of those recorded bills are missing. You then know, at a minimum, how much money might have been taken--but you can't get a maximum value.I think* the article you cite is suggesting that were are greatly underestimating the number of species undergoing extinction.Edited by Michael, : to get that quote back in thereEdited by Michael, : *qualifier added

---

Creationism doesn't mean that you have to be wrong about everything. --Dr Adequate

regardless of your possition in theology or relegion, scientific data and evidence in archeology prove that the earth corrects imblance of its struture.usually a devestation precludes the correction.there are tons of different ways the earth could be destroyed or man at least returned to the stone age. some of these more easy to see would be :global warming: carbon is mined from below the surface of the earth, and released into the atmospher at an alarming rate, the excess greenhouse gas causes an imbalance in the recycling of carbon in the natural order.as ice melts faster from the caps the sea is being thinned of its salt content. the north atlantic drift which brings warmer water to the north also stabalizes the temperature of the region, so if the flow was to stop (balance of salt and freshwater compromised) the temperature change would be drastic.if this was to happen, the ensueing chaos could possibly be similiar to what happened after the hurricane in new orleans. instead of people banding together, they took an "eveyrone for themself" approach and rapes, murders and looting was broad.another approach to a possible world disaster would be the release of atomic bombs or a nuclear war.perhapts an undocumented mass slamming into the earth. something say, half the size of our moon.should we all give up on life then?no.if you see that something is umbalanceing the earth, should you ignore it?no.we must be responsable patrons of the planet that we live if we wish to have half the success of the dinosaurs before us.the (majority of) the world basis value in terms of money. and until man realizes that money does not make the world go round, there is no hope for our future anyways.to stop living, stop science, stop hope, stop religions, stop anything, due to the fact tommorrow all could be gone is foolish.
if you can help change something for the better of mankind, do it....at least, thats my opinion.Edited by tesla, : typoes (some anyways lol)

In 1789, Thomas Malthus predicted that the planet would be completely stripped of its natural resources, causing worldwide famine. I think we see how that turned out. Part of the problem I see with his assessment is that he neglected to predict the enormous impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agriculture. Innovative technological advances have allowed for a surplus, farmed on considerably less land than just a century ago.Nevertheless, this Malthusian theory is still a very popular one, widely propagated today by his successors. While it is unquestionable that there are people on the earth than ever before, I doubt that the earth is not in any immediate danger of being too overcrowded -- even by 2050. Of course, however, this does not give human beings free reign to do as they wish. We should still protect the environment and recognize the symbiotic relationship we share with nature. Everyone should be conscience of the environment, but not at the price of rhetoric.The UN states that that the earth can sustain 9 billion people in relative comfort. I think what people tend to do is look at cities that are exploding in population, like, Sao Paolo, Beijing, Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Calcutta, and such, as a model in the presumption that the earth is like this everywhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that people are boxing themselves in. All the best jobs with the highest market value and the strongest economy are in the major cities. The metropolitan cities have all of the comforts that we do not need.Take the United States for example. The US population is the third highest in the world, at just over 280 million residents. And we say to ourselves, wow, that sounds like a lot! Well, it is a lot, but then again, so is the mileage of this nation. Models have been made showing that every single American can live in the state of Texas, each family with 2 acres of land. (I don’t even own a fifteenth of one acre). Don’t believe it? Have you ever driven through Texas? There is so much land just off the interstates that you can literally drive for hours and barely see any development at all.Even the heaviest populated country in the world, China, has a lot more room to expand. If you look on the map and take note of where most of the cities are located, 75% of them are their eastern seaboards where trade and commerce is highest. The reason why China has forcefully limited one child per familial unit is because they area Communist nation. Their economic system cannot support their current volume because they have limited themselves for a century. Interestingly enough, China’s economy has boomed in recent years because they are finally figuring out that adopting Capitalist ideals works well. Millions have been lifted out of poverty that otherwise would have died under their old regime.In essence, these figures do not account for human ingenuity, which should never be discounted. For a more detailed argument, go here. Its a very interesting article. Species are always disappearing. Its a sad fact. Plus, now that we have cloning, instead of cloning more people, which would obviously make the world that much more populated, why not clone endangered species? The California Condor, which at one time, was so endangered that its numbers were diminished down to literally 7, has been placed in the Grand Canyon natural refuge. Their numbers are increasing exponentially. We just have to continue with conservation, or come to the realization that some species are not meant to survive. Remember that whole survival-of-the-fittest thingy? Who was it that said that again???? Ah, right... Charles Darwin. What??? What does that have to do with anything? There will always be war as long as the human condition has its predilections towards sin. It appears to continue as we speak. People live arguably more comfortably than they ever have in the past. There will be natural disasters. And there will be survivors. And if there isn't, so what? Does it matter either way? Isn't that what extremist ecologists want after all?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I think if something that big hit us, it would pretty much wipe us out!

On 31 Dec, 1972 DDT was banned in the United States. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes. Since the ban, 2 million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than 50,000,000 needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people that Hitler and the environmental movement pushed hard for it. They said it was carcinogenic, but it wasn't and everyone knew it at the time of the ban. Environmentalists argued that it was unsafe, but it was so safe you could eat it. In fact, people did just that for 2 years in 1 experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than 100 farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban, because they were unaccostumed to handling really toxic pesticides. And while DDT was never banned in other countries, they were told if they continued to use it, their foreign aid would be cut off. But the unarguable point, based on UN stastics, is that before the DDT ban, malaria had become almost a minor illness with about 50,000 deaths world wide. A few years later it was once again a global scourge.50,000,000 people have died since then. It is arguably the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century.I HAVE discussed why Environmentalists are a threat and I suggest we figure out ways to keep them from being in positions of authority.Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

---

We never seem to acknowledge that we have been wrong in the past, and so might be wrong in the future. Instead, each generation writes off earlier errors as the result of bad thinking by less able minds-and then confidently embarks on fresh errors of its own. --Michael Crichton

Exactly as he predicted.Compare the state of the world now to 1789. Examine the current trends across the globe. Extrapolate only a few more decades.

quote:

---

In 1789, Thomas Malthus predicted that the planet would be completely stripped of its natural resources, causing worldwide famine. I think we see how that turned out.

---

Not even close to what he predicted. People eat better China now than they ever have. And what will we see? People eating better, living in more comfort? 22 decades after his prediction and we continue living... Productively, at that.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Great topic... I've actually been thinking about starting a DDT thread but keep forgetting.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

The key thing to remember is that some people took his predictions seriously enough to actually try to ameliorate the consequences, led in particular by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. It was the development of high yield crops spurred directly by the recognition that Malthus' predictions were accurate that provided the breathing space we have seen so far.The problem is that in addition to higher yield crops, the Green Revolution also relied on higher energy inputs per yield. That is the key issue facing us today, the availability and cost of the energy required to sustain the high yield production.It is only because Malthus predictions were accurate, and that people realized his predictions were accurate and then acted based on those predictions that we have been able to sustain the population growth so far.Unless we respond to the issues presented by Global Warming in the same way that we responded to Malthus predictions by taking them seriously and investing in the steps needed to ameliorate the consequences, we cannot expect to see similar results.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Actually I happen to agree that the process of banning DDT was handled poorly, however the Environmentalists do not have the potential for destroying all human life on this planet as the End Time Believers do.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

That would be a great new topic.Perhaps you can start that thread without using unattributed cut-and-paste material from industry-funded web sites.Tal seems to think that unsupported, plagiaristic posts make his case, which suggests how weak his case really is.If you start that thread, it will be a pleasure to help expose the right-wing, industry-driven revisionist history of DDT and its hazards. We can look at the lies and the liars who tell them.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

In particular we can point out that it was the large scale agricultural spraying of DDT that was banned and that it is still not just legal, but recommended by WHO for indoor and small scale use in endemic areas. sourceEdited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

It is so nice NJ, that you are a glass half full kind of person.It is definitely true that we have more than the 1789 population liveing well.We also have more than the 1789 population starving.We also have much, much less available untapped land resource (among others) to use. In fact there is very nearly none.We have much, much, much less ocean resource to use. In fact the available spare amount is negative -- we are way over exploiting the sea.The Malthus limit isn't reached like the edge of a cliff at one calendar day sometime. We are over it but we are running on momentum.Edited by NosyNed, : spelling

Maybe its just our time to go and Mother Earth is purging us out of existence.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

If we ignore the futurists, then sure, very likely.But that is up to us. As long as we don't accept the End Time bullshit, we may well be able to continue. The key though is to recognize and prepare for the problems we will face.One point is to acknowledge that we are dependent on irrigation, genetic crops, high energy input farming and fertilizers.We need to understand the question of water availability as well as the problems of salt accumulation and soil depletion and subsidence.We need to understand what the effects of higher energy costs for both production and distribution of foodstuffs will be.We need to understand the full life cycle of the fertilizers.We need to understand how being dependent on limited number and variety of crops sources can effect us.As long as we waste effort debating who instead of addressing what, purge is a definite possibility.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!