How would you control the world population?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re:

Post by -1- » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:09 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:04 am
proof of concept
We have proof that we have a concept. Does that make the concept fool-proof? I am again lost. What do you mean?

Would having a concept be its own proof a good proof (if we accepted such a nonsense) for the existence of God? Or also for the non-existence of god? If all we needed to prove a concept is to have it, then everything and its exact opposite would become proven, which is absurd.

You need to clarify this "proof of concept" thing.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

i thought everybody knew what 'ISS' stodd for

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:21 am

International Space Station

With technology, 'proof of concept' means 'tested, shown to work'.

Simply: we can live in space for extended periods (and if we can do this with a kludge like the ISS, then absolutely we excel at it with machines taiored to the purpose).

The Moon, Mars, near-earth bodies, asteroids: room and resources.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Going to space

Post by Greta » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:21 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:04 am
Baby steps, -1-.

We've got the ISS as the first stepping stone, we've got proof of concept in place, we have the resources (on the dirt and in orbit).

What we lack is the will.
What we lack is another habitable planet. Hence the need to slow damage to this one.

The space program is one of my favourite things, and always had been. Like you and many others, I'd like to see it extended as far as we can manage and eventually save what can be saved when the Earth can no longer sustain us. Realistically, what can be saved from Earth is a very, very, very tiny portion of humanity, maybe none, because we are not adapted to space.

The lack of gravity is a real issue, with long term ISS inhabitants suffering significant health problems from that change. Also, once you leave the Earth's magnetic protection there's radiation. Then there's the problem of living like a permanent submariner; claustrophobic both physically and socially, plus separation from the refreshing aspects of nature.

It might even be more realistic to digitise human minds and transport people's digitised personalities to other places in robust synthetic bodies, if that can be done.

There is talk of astronauts eventually being augmented by nanobots to make them more space adapted. For humans to live in space they need to become less human and, given the amount of changes needed to adapt to space conditions, whether space-adapted humans would stil be Homo sapiens may become uncertain, although I guess that won't matter as long as the capacity to reason and broadly empathise are there.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8062
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:58 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:05 am
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:04 am
Baby steps, -1-.

We've got the ISS as the first stepping stone, we've got proof of concept in place, we have the resources (on the dirt and in orbit).

What we lack is the will.
As you will.

What is ISS? I hate it when people are too lazy to write out non-obvious abbreviations in long hand. All it would take them is three seconds to write it out, and bang, in a flash their posts would make sense. As it stands, and because I don't know what the shiny fuck you mean by ISS, I have no clue what you are talking about.
:lol: Acronyms have their place are just bloody annoying when obscure or overused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXlvy3sTTBk

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8062
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How would you reduce the world population?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:24 am

Just feed the gullible-and-deliberately-under-educated population garbage about 'freedom', imaginary enemies, and military 'heroes', and you'll have a nicely snowballing 'peace-keeping war' in no time...Oh, hang on..... :shock:

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:57 pm

"What we lack is another habitable planet."

We don't need one. We can build O'neill cylinders, Stanford Tori, etc.

Monumental engineering projects with 50% of the effort already expended by way of the ISS as stepping stone.

Again: enormous resources are available out there. Other than initial expenditures of gettin' out of Earth's well, pretty much everything needed to build is out there.

#

"The lack of gravity is a real issue, with long term ISS inhabitants suffering significant health problems from that change. Also, once you leave the Earth's magnetic protection there's radiation. Then there's the problem of living like a permanent submariner; claustrophobic both physically and socially, plus separation from the refreshing aspects of nature."

Large spinning structures incorporating water negate gravity and radiation, and allow for the room folks crave and the natural aspects they need.

#

"It might even be more realistic to digitise human minds and transport people's digitised personalities to other places in robust synthetic bodies, if that can be done. "

Unrealistic: we can engineer large robust orbital and deep space structures; we don't even know how 'mind' works and we have no clue how to record 'mind'.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re:

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:25 am

"What we lack is another habitable planet."

We don't need one. We can build O'neill cylinders, Stanford Tori, etc.

Monumental engineering projects with 50% of the effort already expended by way of the ISS as stepping stone.

Again: enormous resources are available out there. Other than initial expenditures of gettin' out of Earth's well, pretty much everything needed to build is out there.
By the time such things could be financed, resourced, designed, built and exhaustively tested whatever population, resource and climate issues are threatening will already be well in train. Too little, too late, and unrealised tech.

Then think about how many people you could take. Imagine the selection process, the queues, the billions left behind. The logistics in every possible area. You'd have to be super selective about who was taken on or it would be mayhem and the project would fail, possibly via warfare.

Besides, even if you were one of the chosen few, would you want to live on one of those things crammed up with people? You'd have to leave your guns at home - no holes in the chassis of a space home allowed. It would be a very strict, ordered and controlled society. No drum sets or trumpets allowed either.

Henry wrote:Large spinning structures incorporating water negate gravity and radiation, and allow for the room folks crave and the natural aspects they need.
A structure large enough to house massive human populations plus nature - trees, mountains, rivers, animal ecosystems, wind, rain, clouds etc - would surely start collapsing under its own gravity.

From there the collapsing mass would form a hot core that assisted in the breakdown and spherisation of what would become a tiny rogue planet on which new complex microbes would evolve - to the wonderment of passing aliens sometime in the next fifty billion years!

"It might even be more realistic to digitise human minds and transport people's digitised personalities to other places in robust synthetic bodies, if that can be done. "

Unrealistic: we can engineer large robust orbital and deep space structures; we don't even know how 'mind' works and we have no clue how to record 'mind'.
I think they are both quite fanciful in today's world. It's pretty clear that there's major carnage ahead for humanity that is well and truly locked in by population, environment and politics. So these options pertain to survivors. The direct evacuation approach using the kind of tech you spoke about might be useful for smaller numbers, although I think the claustrophobia and lack of nature would be a dealbreaker unless people spent most of their time in highly realistic immersive VR.

As for recreation of consciousness, by the time that becomes possible it will probably be decided that most consciousnesses are best not preserved (shades of William and Delos in Westworld).

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by artisticsolution » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:34 am

Have a beautiful pain free place to go to commit suicide if you should choose to....stop making it against the law and taboo!

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:57 am

"By the time such things could be financed, resourced, designed, built and exhaustively tested whatever population, resource and climate issues are threatening will already be well in train. Too little, too late, and unrealised tech."

American money, resources, engineering designs are in place NOW.

The money is spent poorly.

The designs (for tested technoligies) are undeveloped.

The resources are frittered.

All cuz of a lack of will.

#

"Then think about how many people you could take."

I'm not sayin' we should be ark-buildin'. There's no need to radically de-populate the Earth. I'm sayin' we need to frontier-explore. Earth is 'small & crowed' only perceptually, but that's enough to make us into scrabbly rats. We need 'room', we have 'room': look up.

#

"A structure large enough to house massive human populations plus nature - trees, mountains, rivers, animal ecosystems, wind, rain, clouds etc - would surely start collapsing under its own gravity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

http://space.nss.org/o-neill-cylinder-space-settlement/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -17268252/

...and on and on and on...

We have the proven technologies and engineering, we have the resources, we have the stepping stone (the ISS): we just need to pull our heads from our keisters and continue what we started.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8062
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:57 am

artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:34 am
Have a beautiful pain free place to go to commit suicide if you should choose to....stop making it against the law and taboo!
Hear hear. Isn't euthanasia legal in some parts of the US?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re:

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:35 am

"By the time such things could be financed, resourced, designed, built and exhaustively tested whatever population, resource and climate issues are threatening will already be well in train. Too little, too late, and unrealised tech."
#
American money, resources, engineering designs are in place NOW.

The money is spent poorly.

The designs (for tested technoligies) are undeveloped.

The resources are frittered.

All cuz of a lack of will.
#
Whatever the reason, it ain't happening. There's already MANY people who are against space programs, seeing them as a waste of money. I disagree with that, but it's a common view that restricts space progress.



"Then think about how many people you could take."

I'm not sayin' we should be ark-buildin'. There's no need to radically de-populate the Earth. I'm sayin' we need to frontier-explore. Earth is 'small & crowed' only perceptually, but that's enough to make us into scrabbly rats. We need 'room', we have 'room': look up.
#
It's not hospitable. Look over at all that ocean - not great for living on either unless you love being squashed up.



"A structure large enough to house massive human populations plus nature - trees, mountains, rivers, animal ecosystems, wind, rain, clouds etc - would surely start collapsing under its own gravity."
#
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

http://space.nss.org/o-neill-cylinder-space-settlement/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -17268252/

...and on and on and on...

We have the proven technologies and engineering, we have the resources, we have the stepping stone (the ISS): we just need to pull our heads from our keisters and continue what we started.
#
Quoting from one of your links:
The total land area inside a pair of cylinders is about 500 square miles and can house several million people.
That is exactly my point - it sounds like a ghastly way to "live", about survival rather than thrival.

Interesting links, though. Thanks.

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by artisticsolution » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:57 am
artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:34 am
Have a beautiful pain free place to go to commit suicide if you should choose to....stop making it against the law and taboo!
Hear hear. Isn't euthanasia legal in some parts of the US?
Yes, I think so...but I think it's only available to terminally ill type cases.

I think it should be available to consenting adults whenever they chose and for whatever reason.

Nick_A
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:26 pm

Controlling the world population raises the question as to who is worthy of life. Who should make that decision?

For example the mother decides if the unborn are worthy of life. Should experts decide who is worthy of life? Experts inspire genocides? Is that such a good idea?

We need an impartial judge to decide if you are worthy of life. What is more impartial than a robot?

Experts can devise a system in which a person every five years would have to appear in front of three robots and explain what they have done during the past five years to prove why they are worthy of of life for the next five years. The sign above where the robots are seated would read: " In Logic We Trust." Robots will then determine who is worthy of life for the population similar to how a mother determines if a fetus is worthy of life. When the robots agree that the person being interviewed is no longer worthy of life, they will be sent to the next room to be aborted from the world population. Problem solved

Skip
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by Skip » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:08 pm

How would I control the world population?
Kill all the priests - not just the Catholic ones; all of them, imams, parsons, ministers, shamans, popas.
Then burn all their holy books.
Then do whatever seems reasonable and practical.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8062
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: How would you control the world population?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:16 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:21 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:57 am
artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:34 am
Have a beautiful pain free place to go to commit suicide if you should choose to....stop making it against the law and taboo!
Hear hear. Isn't euthanasia legal in some parts of the US?
Yes, I think so...but I think it's only available to terminally ill type cases.

I think it should be available to consenting adults whenever they chose and for whatever reason.
I totally agree. It's just absurd that we are still allowing superstitious tyrants dictate to us and deny everyone the most fundamental of human rights.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests