THE PACK Message Boards

Shadowblaze wrote:the poiunt of a ringworld, 3 million times the surcafe area of the world, is this:

3 million times the area of teh world.

we build it

3 million times the area of the world, with DAMN ENAR AL OF IT USEABLE LAND. you could get forests bigger than the ara of the earth, oceans so large that the fish populatio ncould be i nthe trillions and the oceans still empty, you could fit entire maps of worlds on! my point is this: there's room for anywhing, civilization, primitive mud huts, anything in between and beyond.

of course, my argument is moot, because a: we don't have the technology to do this, b: no one here seems to have read anywhing about this, c: the controll needed to do this is nonexistant.

but as you said, vilkacis, yes, the problem isn't people, its the correct use of land and resources.

That's right. Finding more space to live is, in the end, a fantasy solution. Even a "Ringworld" (if we could build one) would not hold us for long unless we developed intelligent resource use and only had babies at the proper rate. The reason is this: exponential growth. Exponential growth will out-strip any finite space, and populations grow exponentially unless people have babies at a reasonable rate. It is hard for most people to grasp this, because they don't have a good enough grasp of mathematics. But it is easy to see with examples.
Exponential growth means that a population will periodically double. Furthermore, this period of doubling will gradually become shorter and shorter with subsequent cycles.
For an example, let's say we have a human population that is growing exponentially, currently doubling at a rate of every twenty years, and that we've just filled the earth. However, lucky us, at the same moment we have just terraformed Mars and it is perfectly inhabitable. Scientists think that Mar's gentetically-engineered habitats and terraformed landforms will be able to house exactly as many people as earth, despite Mars being smaller than the earth. Guess what? Even though it took us millions of years to fill the earth, we'll fill Mars in just 20 years, one generation. But, lucky us, our technology saved us just in time again. We found a wormhole to another planetary system with six inhabitable planets! It takes us slightly less than twenty years to fill up two of them. The other four planets take just 18 years to fill. Now, we're going to have to find eight more inhabitable planets in a hurry, and it will only take sixteen years to fill them all....
At doubling of roughly twenty years:
first doubling: we fill 2 planets
second doubling: we fill 4 planets
third doubling: we fill 8 planets
fourth doubling: we fill 16 planets
fifth doubling: we fill 32 planets
(five cycles is less than a century- potentially within one person's lifetime)
You get the picture. Even with enormously high techology (which we don't have) and lots of lucky breaks, all the planets in the universe can't make up for bad habits in having too many babies. Technology of the sort we have can buy us some time before we have to change our habits, but not much time, and if we don't use that technology wisely, it will make things worse in the end.
Also, it doesn't matter if America and parts of Europe are producing babies at slightly less than a replacement level, because much of the world is still increasing according to exponential growth, and isn't going to change anytime real soon.
Even the Ringworld fish would eventually fill the Ringworld oceans- and probably sooner than you think.

Just as a hypothetical question...

Say we build a ringworld. The cost to emigrate to this construct is an astronomical amount of dollars: say, two hundred fifty million monetary units. But, if you agree to undergo ZPG training and education and swear a legally-binding oath to adhere to its principles, you would qualify for financial assistance, grants, possibly even have the fee significantly reduced or even waived if you agreed to be surgically sterilized before leaving Earth.

Forcing a worldwide program of zero population growth would be all but impossible to implement as it is now, but if citizenship on a ringworld had ZPG as a screening element, I think it would be easier. Tie the tubes on earth, harvest eggs, off to Ringworld with the guarantee that it wouldn't be overpopulated.

vrikasatma wrote:Just as a hypothetical question...

Say we build a ringworld. The cost to emigrate to this construct is an astronomical amount of dollars: say, two hundred fifty million monetary units. But, if you agree to undergo ZPG training and education and swear a legally-binding oath to adhere to its principles, you would qualify for financial assistance, grants, possibly even have the fee significantly reduced or even waived if you agreed to be surgically sterilized before leaving Earth.

Forcing a worldwide program of zero population growth would be all but impossible to implement as it is now, but if citizenship on a ringworld had ZPG as a screening element, I think it would be easier. Tie the tubes on earth, harvest eggs, off to Ringworld with the guarantee that it wouldn't be overpopulated.

(It'd probably cost more than that)

Aside from that, I think it could maybe work. Finding people willing to become steriliized, b/c there will always be people (like me) who will want to have their own babies.

What, may I ask, is ZPG training?

I hate how people think the world is "overpopulated." We have PLENTY of space left! Just drive through southern Utah and you'll see what I mean. That and the fact that this planet was meant to be used and enjoyed by humans in the first place, and the overpopulation people have no argument.

If you are really so worried about it, you could always kill yourself. That would be one less person to complain.

Has anyone noticed how those who don't think humans are overpopulated always say "Well there's plenty of space left." That annoys me to no end. Packing as many people as possible into free space is a BAD THING. Why can't you realize that? There is enough room for many, many more people on the landmass of the planet. That doesn't mean, however, that humans are not overpopulated. How many times do we have to say it? You can have as many people as possible on the surface of the earth. Well with all those people there would be no room to grow crops or raise animals. Everyone would starve and die. Gods forbid a plague ever comes along. The entire human race would be dead real quick because everyone is so tightly packed there's no way someone wouldn't catch it. And what of natural disasters? The world is a tough and unstable place. One tiny little earthquake and there would be so many human deaths you could scarcely count them all. Not to mention space needed to bury all those people. Where are you going to put their graves hmm? And you can forget about privacy.

That and the fact that this planet was meant to be used and enjoyed by humans in the first place

Correction: This planet isn't owned by any physical creature. The only reason we're here in the first place is because the dinosaurs went extinct. If that had never happened humans wouldn't exist. It's inevitable that the human race becomes extinct, as all living beings are bound to end up. The world wasn't made for us. And it certainly wasn't made just for YOU.

Excelsia wrote:What, may I ask, is ZPG training?

Zero Population Growth. In a nutshell, replace yourself by having one kid, then stopping, either by using birth control, by surgical sterilization, or by utilizing the more controversial option of abortion as a means of birth control (we're talking in a religio-moral vacuum here).

In other words, two children per couple, period. One child per couple, as China implemented a few decades ago, causes a <i>very slight</i> rollback in a population. A couple who produce no children is slightly more drastic but it's still a rollback provided nobody else squeezes out four or five kids, which would be a cancelling factor and contribute to positive population growth.

I have a solution, but i'm not going to bother postikng it because evrone here will immediately start [spoiler]bitching.[/spoiler]


[spoiler]which is amusing because we're on a ww forum...[/spoiler]

vrikasatma wrote:The problem with a ringworld or a dyson sphere — while they look <b>fantastic</b> on paper and in the head, is that they are parsecs off the scale in terms of resources, both material and human.

We could build a ringworld, but it would require strip mining at least 10% of the asteroid belt, since most planets in this system are gaseous. We'd need to tap one of those gaseous bodies to power the project. We'd also need to educate THE WHOLE of the human race and recruit them into the project. I wouldn't be opposed to this in the least, for once we'd see global unity and cooperation. End of homelessness, end of unemployment, nobody killing anyone else. No bad news here.

I do argue that if we applied the same effort, conscientiousness, administration and resources to fixing what we have now, we won't have to build a pie in the sky, we'll have paradise on earth with a fraction of the energy that would go into building a ringworld (a dyson sphere would be incalculably more complex and expensive).

And of course, remember that a ringworld is still a human construct and thus only as infallible as its designers and creators. Not saying it would come apart at the seams but it's not complex math to suss that it wouldn't handle a deep-impact meteor strike as well as the earth did.

This also raises another question. Terraforming another rocky planet or building living pods — cloud cities — in gaseous planets' atmospheres would probably be more conservative resources-wise. Figuring out a way to give the moon a liveable atmosphere would be a more prudent step — even if it's a step closer to actually building a ringworld.

of course, as previously stated, arguments for any sort of ringworld type thing are moot, but nonetheless...

i'd just like to point out; you would have to

a) learn how to controll the sun via magnetic fields.
b) have ramjets or similar for stability i nthe plane
c) have a meteor-patching ability
d) have a material that has tensile strength on the order of that which holds atoms togerther.

we have none of theese, will not likely get any of these i nthe next thousand years or more, so the argument, as stated, is moot.

*snip* That and the fact that this planet was meant to be used and enjoyed by humans in the first place, and the overpopulation people have no argument.

If you are really so worried about it, you could always kill yourself. That would be one less person to complain.

I hate how people think that the solution when dealing with other people is to either kill them, or tell them to kill themselves. What a cruel and unkind thing to say...and insensitive. The answer to disagreeing with someone isn't telling them to off themselves. Everyone here has given very plain reasons why they feel that overpopulation is an argument..you musn't close your eyes and put them down because you refuse to try to see things from their point of view. You can argue, but there are ways to disagree without having to be ugly about it.

As for the world being created for human spoiling and enjoyment, I highly disagree. We aren't the only species on this planet, and certainly we weren't the first. I feel it would be very selfish to claim it's ours to [spoiler]piss[/spoiler] on as we see fit, because it's not. She belongs to no one. I, at least, would appreciate it if you showed a bit more sensitivity. We're friends here. There's no need to be rude.

So your saying to cryogenicaly freeze everybody, do you know how much all that would cost, it would probably leave the government bankrupt. They might have the money for it but it will leave very little for other stuff. from what Im told the goverment has enough money to give everyone in the united states 1,000 dollars and still have plenty of money for themself.

Hmm frozen ey *grabs Shadow Wulf and tosses him in freezes him*
See you in a 1000 years budy

Shadow Wulf wrote:from what Im told the goverment has enough money to give everyone in the united states 1,000 dollars and still have plenty of money for themself.

That doesn't really mean anything since they print the money.

Shadow Wulf wrote:So your saying to cryogenicaly freeze everybody

Arou?

No, you're thinking literally.

When I said "Freeze the population" I meant stop it at this plateau, sustain the number by application of Zero Population Growth principles — essentially, hold it at the level it's at now. Natural die-off will slightly roll back the population number. To avoid favouritism, hold everyone to replacing him/herself. It would be difficult to educate the extremists who want to brood out a dozen kids, but it would be a lot simpler than building a ringworld or terraforming Mars/the Moon/Jupiter's moons.

Okay, sorry to everyone I offended or whatever. Maybe saying the killing thing was a bit harsh. It's just that the theory of overpopulation is a joke to me and I am tired of hearing about it. I have looked at others' views and I still disagree.

And another thing, when I said this planet was meant for humans (that's why we are sentient), that doesn't mean that we should go chop down all the forests and pollute the whole atmosphere or kill animals* for the heck of it. It means we should use the earth, but use it wisely. And I still say there is plenty of room for all the people here and any people that will be born in the future.

*a bad example of this is wolves in North America

Lazywolf wrote: It's just that the theory of overpopulation is a joke to me and I am tired of hearing about it. I have looked at others' views and I still disagree.

"THEORY"? ?

...it is not a matter of opinion or a fact-in-question that the ecosystems of the world are collapsing because WE keep moving in on them to build more homes and make more food for ourselves. It is a FACT that the rainforests are shrinking every year. It is a FACT that hundreds of sub- species of animals go extinct every year that would have survived had we not taken thier homes away for our own use.

Don't be so oblivioius to the rest of the world. It is true that we are very good at surviving, and OUR species (barring atomic armageddon, mass disease or some catastrophic disaster) could expand it's numbers exponentially here on earth and still survive. The thing is...it is not US that is going extinct from our OverPopulation, but everything else.

If you don't want your decendants to live in a world where open fields that are not farmland, and forests that are not owned by logging companies no longer exist...where there are no other animals on the face of the earth exept for those we keep as pets and the ones we raise for food...where there is not a 10-square mile plot of land on the face of the earth that does not have a multi-story complex or a highway running through it...then you need to wake up, stop being so dense and realise the truth.

...all that open space in Utah...it is not just NOTHING. Those open plains are Crucial to the maintinace and survival of not only the creatures that live in that environment but all of the surrounding environments as well. Don't believe me? Just ask those who have lost their homes to flash floods (human and beast), that never would have if all of the marshlands had not been flattened and made into farms and community homes.

We are not the only species on the planet...and there are alot more creatures than just Wolves that you should be worrying about. It is everything else that is suffering from our bloated population, as we are hogging every bit of resources for our greedy selves...and sooner or later, it is all going to come back and sting us in the end.

Overpopulation is not a "theory"...it is a FACT. If all you care about is whether or not our own species can survive, then I'm afraid the rest of the world is doomed. If you want to live on a planet where every square inch of land is utilized towards the sustainment of just the human species and it's whims, buy a ticket for the next flight to that RingWorld we could build in the future and go live there, but don't do that to MY planet. ...because I happen to LIKE exotic birds, and other creatures that could not possibly live in an a totaly urbanized world (outside of cages in a zoo), and I like the big open spaces in Utah too. Leave them alone...

Our oceans could perhaps be taken advantage of.

Build really large ships, that have massive flat surfaces. Maybe a couple of square miles. One side could be devoted to agriculture, animals and hydroponic (or maybe aquaponic) plants, the other side could be devoted to humans. We could cover that side with a layer of dirt, and plant grass. Our water could be derived from boiling ocean water and collecting the condensation, or maybe just collecting rain. We could use solar power to power stuff.

All human and animal waste could maybe be used as fertilizer for the plants, or maybe just dumped in the ocean. After all, fish pee too, although I'd rather we use it for some purpose.

Organic waste from the plants could be dumped in the ocean, after all, it's biodegradable, or maybe it could be used as fertilizer as well. I don't know if it's possible to use fertilizer with hydroponic plants, but I think it is with aquaponics.

Everything we use could be recycled or reused in some way.

Yeah, it's a little far-fetched. It would probably cost hella dollars. But it would be kinda cool, and at least we wouldn't waste anything.

EDIT: I'm not saying that we should just go ahead and have more babies and find creative places for them to live as time passes by...it's just one possible solution in the event overpopulation continues to run rampant.

Yes, underground hydroponics seems to be the best way to go, but you know what? We're still in a growth economy mindset. More More More instead of Maintain Maintain Maintain.

The problem with moving farms underground is that as soon as those fields and farms get vacated — look, there's another subdivision, another strip mall, another industrial complex! I grew up in the Bay Area during the '60s, '70s and '80s. When I was a kid you could find a woodlot, a field, anything, within a five-minute walk from your house, *in the city*. A real, wild piece of land, not a park. I used to play in the pool of a real waterfall that came down a stream from a lake with fish in it when I was a kid. Guess what, that disappeared about twenty years ago.

Over the decades I watched the Bay Area get carapaced over in a swath of steel, glass, tarmac and concrete. The prevailing sentiment was "See a field, fill it with buildings because, maaaan, this is the Bay Area. The best place on Earth to live." Uhm, correction. It <i>was</i> The cherry orchard up the street from my old apartment has been buried under another overpriced block of condos.

Vuldari — I'm backing you up 100%.

Just thought I'd post this brief aquaponics description for those thay may be interested.

http://www.growingedge.com/basics/aquaponics.html

The 'bacterial agents' are beneficial bacteria that grow on surfaces that are exposed to water and air frequently (at least that's how it works in fishtanks...i.e. biowheels). Just so you all know they aren't some dangerous chemical.

I think this could be done with regular human and animal waste as well, not just fish. After all, ammonia is the most important thing, right? I don't know if human poop has ammonia, but I know human pee does, and I know fish poop does as well. I'm sure poop could definitely be taken advantage of in some way, even if it doesn't have ammonia.

Not really related to population, but this topic reminded me of it nonetheless. I think most of you will find it amusing. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terra

There is a guy who's actually attempting to build a floating city. I saw it on the discovery channel. I think the show was about extreme archetecture. I also heard about a guy who built a floating island out of plastic bottles, tarps, sand, and other things. On a similar note, Japan has major problems with overcrowding (just take a look at Tokyo...) and has been trying to find a way to remedy this. What they came up with was a massive skyscraper. It would be about a mile high, and would be built with it's own rail systems to transport people around it. There would be bowl shaped structures in it for parks, shops, houses and all sorts of things. Japan can no longer build out so they've been trying to build up. Problem is the ground in Japan is very soft and such a large and heavy thing would either sink or topple over. Not to mention that Japan us very prone to tsunamis.

Reilune wrote:Not really related to population, but this topic reminded me of it nonetheless. I think most of you will find it amusing. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terra

There is a guy who's actually attempting to build a floating city. I saw it on the discovery channel. I think the show was about extreme archetecture. I also heard about a guy who built a floating island out of plastic bottles, tarps, sand, and other things. On a similar note, Japan has major problems with overcrowding (just take a look at Tokyo...) and has been trying to find a way to remedy this. What they came up with was a massive skyscraper. It would be about a mile high, and would be built with it's own rail systems to transport people around it. There would be bowl shaped structures in it for parks, shops, houses and all sorts of things. Japan can no longer build out so they've been trying to build up. Problem is the ground in Japan is very soft and such a large and heavy thing would either sink or topple over. Not to mention that Japan us very prone to tsunamis.

Didn't Japan also design a sort of pyramid shaped building? One that was rest on or near the water and it would deflect tsunamis? If I remember right they weren't going to be able to build that until they managed to design some kind of robot who would distribute the nessessary building material. I can't remember what kind of material it was. But I think it was like living metal or something.

Do realize that thinking that overpopulation of the human race is the most important threat that menaces the planet is naive.
While it is true that populations are greatest in Third World countries, do also realize that going to these places and telling the locals that the only way save the World is to have their tubes tied and cut. It's misguided and serves only to add to the misgivings and suspicion that lingers everywhere. In fact, one reason why we have yet to totally eradicate polio from Africa is because many Muslims there think that the polio vaccine is actually an evil Christian plot to sterilize them all.
One reason why many Third World countries have such booming birth rates is because children there have extremely dismal chances of reaching their 10th birthday. As such, it's in my opinion that focusing efforts to educate the residents of Third World countries as being grossly misguided if very little effort is made to improve living conditions. It would be infinitely far more productive, instead, to explore the reasons why they live in squalor, especially since a common reason for their abominable living standards is because of corrupt and or incompetent governments.
Besides, they have their own means of birth controls, including taking herbal toxins to induce miscarriages, as well as abandoning unwanted children, whether to the elements or to orphanages, killing unwanted babies, or the ever-popular selling to white slavery rings.

The idea of giving "genetically superior people" better reproductive "rights" over "genetically inferior people" is not a new idea...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
It's better known as "Eugenics," a school of thought that should be best remembered as being a grossly abused pseudoscience utilized by several governments, including Nazi Germany, and the US government.
However, the last two groups didn't so much as provide more opportunities for the genetically fit, as they would, instead, sterilize those people officials deemed unfit.
I really don't want to rattle off a litany of the excuses governments have used to justify Eugenics, mostly as Wikipedia does a much better job than I.
The last agency continued sureptiously sterilizing socially undesirable people against their will well into the '70s.

Apokryltaros wrote:Do realize that thinking that overpopulation of the human race is the most important threat that menaces the planet is naive.

Well, maybe you should bring your views to Kofi Annan. The U.N. sure considers it important. Here are some sites I tracked down; my search terms were "UN world population summit":

http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

http://www.bio.org/ind/background/061102.asp

http://www.npg.org/pospapers/comment_on_un_summit.html

At the risk of merging this thread with the Religion thread:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=2934

Also, I'm going to have to check and review the thread but I believe eugenics and racial favouritism hasn't been brought up yet. Nobody's said "Race XYZ should be the ones with special breeding priveleges" yet. I certainly haven't; my comments have been and will remain colour-blind. When I say "Everyone stop at having one child each" I mean <i>everyone</i> — culture and ethnicity don't come into it.

Citing eugenics is tantamount to playing the Hitler card.

Okay, I'm gonna say this and hopefully I won't be required to say anything else on the subject.

I consider the age old "overpopulation," debate to be silly beyond reasoning.

First off, it's based off fairly subjective standards, what's overpopulated to one person may be underpopulated to another.

Finally, and most importantly, even if humans have overpopulated the planet, what the blasted heck do you suggest we do about it? People talk of sterilization and government instituted population controll but the very notion is barbaric and completly sickening when you consider how oppresive such a world would be. I for one would simply refuse to live in such a sad world.

So rather then discussing whether we're over-populated, I would try to find a solution to the potential problem that wouldn't turn the world into a living center of misery.

vrikasatma wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:Do realize that thinking that overpopulation of the human race is the most important threat that menaces the planet is naive.

Well, maybe you should bring your views to Kofi Annan. The U.N. sure considers it important. Here are some sites I tracked down; my search terms were "UN world population summit":

Oh wow, this is the same organization that would like to seize ICANN's 'power', while not realizing that the only reason they have any 'power' is by loose agreement between network providers.