Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources.
Well, name one.
Sorry, it's not my job to back up your assertions. You made the claim; either you can support it, or you can't.
It's worth noting that modern wealthy societies tend to have female fertility below replacement. So just make all societies of that form and eventually the problem will be encouraging enough births to keep the population from declining too much.
So your solution overpopulation is to just make all societies "modern" and "wealthy" in order to "reduce female fertility"?
I don't know how to respond to that other than to say "have a nice day!"
Perhaps. But there is absolutely nothing stopping us from launching probes laden with colonising microorganisms at potentially life supporting planets.
Nothing is stopping us but common sense. Why would we do such a thing? These "potentially life supporting planets" you speak of likely have microorganisms on them already. What possible benefit would inure to the human race it we sprinkled habitable planets with some extra "colonising" microorganisms?
This is feasible with current technology even if generation ships lie forever out of practical reach.
This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that our current technology allows us to seed other planets with life? Our current technology doesn't even allow us to identify habitable planets, much less drop a bag of bugs on them.
What I don't get is why you think we haven't already figured that out. For example, recycling all resources used and constant population pretty much is sustainable as long as the Sun continues to shine.
We know how to do that. We just choose not to do it. That's not a knowledge problem.
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources. But if you can back up that assertion with some data on the matter, I'm willing to change my mind. : )
Then there's the issue of consumption, where a resource is converted into a different substance or substances that may not be suitable for re-use (like when a gallon of petrol is consumed). AFAIK, we haven't figured out how to recycle all the by-products of our consumption - not even close.
Constant population? Just how have we figured out what size a sustainable population should be? Did somebody find a long-term planetary carrying capacity formula? I'll grant that current levels of human population have likely overshot the long-term capacity of the earth, but AFAIK nobody has come up with a model - let alone all the necessary inputs - for a accurate estimation of what the size of the population should be. But for the sake of argument, let's assume we somehow know the upper limit population level. Now all we have to do is figure out how to implement population control. Got any ideas? (hint: contraceptive tech would be only the tiniest part of the answer)
Having said all that, I would agree that there's a shiteload of unused knowledge and technology lying around that could make human existence more viable long term. It's a very unfortunate situation.
He said "sustainably." That's political code for 'not involving the slightest degree of risk, even for those who voluntarily assume it.'
Not sure what anything in this discussion has to do with politics, or why anyone would want to make the discussion about politics. But lo and behold, "sustainably" actually has an ecological meaning too! Here ya go: linky
What sort of technology would this be? Magic? Because it sounds like it.
It would be the same sort of magic technology that would allow humans to land on, and successfully colonize, a habitable planet. Closer to home, it would be the same magic technology that would allow Mars or some other body in the solar system to become habitable. In other words, it's the sort of technology that doesn't yet exist.
But you might be right. Technology might have peaked and we might never have a symbiotic relationship with Earth, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Giving up is never the best option.
I might be a space nutter, that is true, I wouldn't mind if we ended up as some sort of intergalactic transhuman species.
Dude, calm down. I'm not the one calling you a nutter (although the trans-human species thing does sound a little whack). My point was that future technologies not only have the possibility of magically transporting us to other worlds, they also have the possibility of solving many of the problems that would force us to leave this planet in the first place.
I'll buy that we might never colonize space or even leave our solar system, by it doesn't make sense to think that we will never have to exploit space for resources, even if we do so with robots.
If we aren't anything special and shouldn't feel special, then we do we even bother fighting diseases and feeding the poor, if we are going to die out eventually anyway. I mean, ultimately the universe itself is doing to die somehow, why should we even try to survive, why don't we just all get smashingly drunk all the time and just wait to die out, I mean it'll happen eventually, why fight it?
Wow.
I've read and re-read my post several times. All two sentences of it. I can't find where I said we shouldn't exploit space for resources. My post simply challenged your assertion that there were only two choices for humanity: colonize space, or "die out and vanish forever". I happen to believe there's a third alternative. Sorry you've had such an emotional reaction to it.
The alternative to this being that we as a species is doomed to forever live on a single world, and slowly but surely deplete all natural resources available to us here and then eventually die out and vanish forever.
Seems to me there is a third alternative: technology might allow us to live sustainably and indefinitely right here on earth. In fact, it might be good for the future of these other worlds some hope to colonize if we figured out how to live sustainably here first.
A few of them are planning to bring humans from the ground to the ISS and back. Does that count?
MirCorp/Space Adventures already did that, and it was purely for the amusement of their passengers.
There are lots of plans for space thrill rides - some are even planning to go to the moon. I was inquiring about the "non-amusement park" side of the industry - specifically getting a human from point a on earth to point b on earth. There was a time in my career when traveling from the US to Asia occurred fairly frequently, and it was a nightmare. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far none of these ventures appear to be planning a service for folks like me.
Are any of these ventures actually transporting anyone anywhere other than straight up and straight back down to the same spot? Do any of them ever plan to actually get a human from, say, New York to Tokyo? If not, these services create about as much economic benefit as one of those giant bungie powered slingshot chair thingies you see by the side of the interstate.
On the other hand, the idea of Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Beiber, and Richard Branson together in a small area covered in their own puke has a certain appeal to it.
Well thanks! It was actually intended to be funny, although I will admit to having some wrong thinking about the accuracy of the researcher's conclusions vs the accuracy of the source data. User ljw1004 above set me straight, though.
They're comparing subgroups of psychotic people so inaccuracies will cancel each other out.
Well, like I said, I'm not a mathemastician - but I believe there's an awful lot of assumptions buried in your statement above.
Unless you believe there's an inverse correlation between pot use and reported pot use?
Pretty sure I don't have to believe any such thing. What do I believe (without any evidence, mind you) is that people suffering from psychosis may not provide reliable data - especially when it come to recalling details from 5/10/20 years in their past.
Look, patient reported data - the sole basis of this study - is notoriously inaccurate. Patient reported data among a population that is recovering from a psychotic episode is less accurate still (psychotic episode being defined as "a loss of contact with reality") . These researchers are reporting these inferences with 95% confidence with a sample size of 410. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 95% CI with a sample of 410 imply some level of accuracy in the source data?
This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.
Wait...are you saying their sample size is too small to make any statistically significant inferences? I can't find the full study anywhere online, but the text of the paper's abstract seems to say they're using a 95% CI.
Heavy adolescent pot use (particularly the high-potency "purple erkle thunderskunk" variety) can cause the premature loss of the ability to form paragraphs.
The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.
I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.
Are you sure? I thought that while poor karma can give a negative starting score, it doesn't apply an "Insightful" (or any other tag) to the initial post. In other words, such posts would be labeled "Score: -1" as opposed to "Score: -1, Insightful". I thought only a "Insightful" mod by another user caused that label to be attached to a post.
I think this happens when a post is up-modded "Insightful" (or other positive mod), then has successive "Overrated" downmods. The "Overrated" and "Underrated" mods do not appear to change the descriptor like a "Troll" or "Flamebait" downmod. Not sure about this though.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources.
Well, name one.
Sorry, it's not my job to back up your assertions. You made the claim; either you can support it, or you can't.
It's worth noting that modern wealthy societies tend to have female fertility below replacement. So just make all societies of that form and eventually the problem will be encouraging enough births to keep the population from declining too much.
So your solution overpopulation is to just make all societies "modern" and "wealthy" in order to "reduce female fertility"?
I don't know how to respond to that other than to say "have a nice day!"
Over price condoms with pretentious names for the sizes...we can call them Starf*cks.
LOL! (wish I had a mod point)
...not many men are going to feel comfortable going to the convenience store and checking out with a box of "size smalls."
You're right! Small condoms should be labeled "Tall", with larger sizes labeled "Grande", "Venti", and "Trenta".
I bet they could charge a lot more for condoms if they did that.
Perhaps. But there is absolutely nothing stopping us from launching probes laden with colonising microorganisms at potentially life supporting planets.
Nothing is stopping us but common sense. Why would we do such a thing? These "potentially life supporting planets" you speak of likely have microorganisms on them already. What possible benefit would inure to the human race it we sprinkled habitable planets with some extra "colonising" microorganisms?
This is feasible with current technology even if generation ships lie forever out of practical reach.
This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that our current technology allows us to seed other planets with life? Our current technology doesn't even allow us to identify habitable planets, much less drop a bag of bugs on them.
HAHA. I'm sure these cute little toppers will be available to the public once the technology is patented and licensed.
(yes, this post is a troll)
... again I was replying to more than one post.
mmm...that doesn't seem like a good thing to do if you want a focused discussion...but fair enough.
What I think we should do is focus on what is close to us...
I couldn't agree more. In fact, your sentiment echoes the point of my OP quite nicely. Cheers!
What I don't get is why you think we haven't already figured that out. For example, recycling all resources used and constant population pretty much is sustainable as long as the Sun continues to shine.
We know how to do that. We just choose not to do it. That's not a knowledge problem.
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources. But if you can back up that assertion with some data on the matter, I'm willing to change my mind. : )
Then there's the issue of consumption, where a resource is converted into a different substance or substances that may not be suitable for re-use (like when a gallon of petrol is consumed). AFAIK, we haven't figured out how to recycle all the by-products of our consumption - not even close.
Constant population? Just how have we figured out what size a sustainable population should be? Did somebody find a long-term planetary carrying capacity formula? I'll grant that current levels of human population have likely overshot the long-term capacity of the earth, but AFAIK nobody has come up with a model - let alone all the necessary inputs - for a accurate estimation of what the size of the population should be. But for the sake of argument, let's assume we somehow know the upper limit population level. Now all we have to do is figure out how to implement population control. Got any ideas? (hint: contraceptive tech would be only the tiniest part of the answer)
Having said all that, I would agree that there's a shiteload of unused knowledge and technology lying around that could make human existence more viable long term. It's a very unfortunate situation.
He said "sustainably." That's political code for 'not involving the slightest degree of risk, even for those who voluntarily assume it.'
Not sure what anything in this discussion has to do with politics, or why anyone would want to make the discussion about politics. But lo and behold, "sustainably" actually has an ecological meaning too! Here ya go: linky
What sort of technology would this be? Magic? Because it sounds like it.
It would be the same sort of magic technology that would allow humans to land on, and successfully colonize, a habitable planet. Closer to home, it would be the same magic technology that would allow Mars or some other body in the solar system to become habitable. In other words, it's the sort of technology that doesn't yet exist.
But you might be right. Technology might have peaked and we might never have a symbiotic relationship with Earth, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Giving up is never the best option.
I might be a space nutter, that is true, I wouldn't mind if we ended up as some sort of intergalactic transhuman species.
Dude, calm down. I'm not the one calling you a nutter (although the trans-human species thing does sound a little whack). My point was that future technologies not only have the possibility of magically transporting us to other worlds, they also have the possibility of solving many of the problems that would force us to leave this planet in the first place.
I'll buy that we might never colonize space or even leave our solar system, by it doesn't make sense to think that we will never have to exploit space for resources, even if we do so with robots.
If we aren't anything special and shouldn't feel special, then we do we even bother fighting diseases and feeding the poor, if we are going to die out eventually anyway. I mean, ultimately the universe itself is doing to die somehow, why should we even try to survive, why don't we just all get smashingly drunk all the time and just wait to die out, I mean it'll happen eventually, why fight it?
Wow.
I've read and re-read my post several times. All two sentences of it. I can't find where I said we shouldn't exploit space for resources. My post simply challenged your assertion that there were only two choices for humanity: colonize space, or "die out and vanish forever". I happen to believe there's a third alternative. Sorry you've had such an emotional reaction to it.
The alternative to this being that we as a species is doomed to forever live on a single world, and slowly but surely deplete all natural resources available to us here and then eventually die out and vanish forever.
Seems to me there is a third alternative: technology might allow us to live sustainably and indefinitely right here on earth. In fact, it might be good for the future of these other worlds some hope to colonize if we figured out how to live sustainably here first.
The question is: what can we do to permanently remove illegal filesharing from the web?
That's a pretty tall order, and so far it seems that all the purported cures to the problem have been worse than the disease itself.
It's offensive to everyone who creates digital media for a living that these kinds of sites operate with impunity.
I couldn't agree more. Seems like all the advocates of copyright infringement are those who've never created anything worth paying for.
Technical Details
www.demonoid.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate is only valid for americanstoner.net
(Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)
American Stoner? I guess it'll be a real buzz-kill if the copyright cops get them for possession with intent to distribute.
A few of them are planning to bring humans from the ground to the ISS and back. Does that count?
MirCorp/Space Adventures already did that, and it was purely for the amusement of their passengers.
There are lots of plans for space thrill rides - some are even planning to go to the moon. I was inquiring about the "non-amusement park" side of the industry - specifically getting a human from point a on earth to point b on earth. There was a time in my career when traveling from the US to Asia occurred fairly frequently, and it was a nightmare. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far none of these ventures appear to be planning a service for folks like me.
Are any of these ventures actually transporting anyone anywhere other than straight up and straight back down to the same spot? Do any of them ever plan to actually get a human from, say, New York to Tokyo? If not, these services create about as much economic benefit as one of those giant bungie powered slingshot chair thingies you see by the side of the interstate.
On the other hand, the idea of Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, Justin Beiber, and Richard Branson together in a small area covered in their own puke has a certain appeal to it.
Well thanks! It was actually intended to be funny, although I will admit to having some wrong thinking about the accuracy of the researcher's conclusions vs the accuracy of the source data. User ljw1004 above set me straight, though.
Cheers!
OK, I understand now...thanks for the info! If I had a mod point, I'd give you an "Informative". ;-)
Thanks for posting, I feel less guilty now. BTW, sorry about your dad. I lost mine to cancer as well.
They're comparing subgroups of psychotic people so inaccuracies will cancel each other out.
Well, like I said, I'm not a mathemastician - but I believe there's an awful lot of assumptions buried in your statement above.
Unless you believe there's an inverse correlation between pot use and reported pot use?
Pretty sure I don't have to believe any such thing. What do I believe (without any evidence, mind you) is that people suffering from psychosis may not provide reliable data - especially when it come to recalling details from 5/10/20 years in their past.
Look, patient reported data - the sole basis of this study - is notoriously inaccurate. Patient reported data among a population that is recovering from a psychotic episode is less accurate still (psychotic episode being defined as "a loss of contact with reality") . These researchers are reporting these inferences with 95% confidence with a sample size of 410. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 95% CI with a sample of 410 imply some level of accuracy in the source data?
420! OK, that IS funny. If I had a mod point, I'd spend it.
This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.
Wait...are you saying their sample size is too small to make any statistically significant inferences? I can't find the full study anywhere online, but the text of the paper's abstract seems to say they're using a 95% CI.
This just in:
Heavy adolescent pot use (particularly the high-potency "purple erkle thunderskunk" variety) can cause the premature loss of the ability to form paragraphs.
(sorry, but I couldn't resist)
From TFA:
The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.
I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.
OMG! An actual honest to goodness post that's ON TOPIC! I wish I had a mod point.
Are you sure? I thought that while poor karma can give a negative starting score, it doesn't apply an "Insightful" (or any other tag) to the initial post. In other words, such posts would be labeled "Score: -1" as opposed to "Score: -1, Insightful". I thought only a "Insightful" mod by another user caused that label to be attached to a post.
I think this happens when a post is up-modded "Insightful" (or other positive mod), then has successive "Overrated" downmods. The "Overrated" and "Underrated" mods do not appear to change the descriptor like a "Troll" or "Flamebait" downmod. Not sure about this though.