Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citiba

[coberst]

Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citibank?

Are AIG and Citibank too big and complex to fail?

Can our high tech capitalism, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can capitalism adjust?

Are ideology and morality too big and complex to be encompassed by science?

Can our high tech species, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can the human species adjust?

I am really only interested in this later sequence of questions.

[Virtual Particle]

Are Ideology and Morality like AIG and Citibank?

Are AIG and Citibank too big and complex to fail?

Can our high tech capitalism, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can capitalism adjust?

Are ideology and morality too big and complex to be encompassed by science?

Can our high tech species, where extraordinary power rests in ordinary hands, survive such a situation?

How can the human species adjust?

I am really only interested in this later sequence of questions.

Capitalism is about recourses. Give a Capitalist state 50 trillion tons of Iron ore, 10 trillion tons of platinum, 100 billion tons of gold and 10 trillion tons of precious crystals and homeless people have cells phones. Have heard very recently that it is possible for us to set up shop in Mercury, for the purpose of collecting plasma from Sol (Actually I wish I had thought about it but I did not). We could do allot of things to insure our survival (how long would it take to travel to Mars is we had sail technology which allowed us to make use of photons as if they were wind. Here we are (as some of my descendants came from Germany) explorers since before we could write and today, some of us watch Fox news, MSNBC as well as the Stewart and Colbert report just to make sure we are keeping up??

Forget a Renaissance, its time for a Resonance. It's time to realize that with the faith of a mustard seed one can move mountains. Tesla proved it.......and so did Jesus......

Octaves anyone??

Any thoughts?

PS: With respect to AIG and Citibank...I HATE the word Treason but a rose by any other color smells just as sweet.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Triad

[Voyager10]

Capitalism is about recourses. Give a Capitalist state 50 trillion tons of Iron ore, 10 trillion tons of platinum, 100 billion tons of gold and 10 trillion tons of precious crystals and homeless people have cells phones. Have heard very recently that it is possible for us to set up shop in Mercury, for the purpose of collecting plasma from Sol (Actually I wish I had thought about it but I did not). We could do allot of things to insure our survival (how long would it take to travel to Mars is we had sail technology which allowed us to make use of photons as if they were wind. Here we are (as some of my descendants came from Germany) explorers since before we could write and today, some of us watch Fox news, MSNBC as well as the Stewart and Colbert report just to make sure we are keeping up??

Forget a Renaissance, its time for a Resonance. It's time to realize that with the faith of a mustard seed one can move mountains. Tesla proved it.......and so did Jesus......

Octaves anyone??

Any thoughts?

PS: With respect to AIG and Citibank...I HATE the word Treason but a rose by any other color smells just as sweet.

I agree with that. There are already plans in the works for commercial flights into space just for recreation. This is when interplanetary space travel will really progress, when there is money to be made. That's what brought the colonists to America.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Voyager10

[Virtual Particle]

I agree with that. There are already plans in the works for commercial flights into space just for recreation. This is when interplanetary space travel will really progress, when there is money to be made. That's what brought the colonists to America.

Yes and we have come to terms that this is our destiny. Given our current proclivity for reproduction what will the population be in 1000 (how many generations) years? In 1 million years (if we survive)??

Edited April 8, 2009 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

I think that the only thing that really matters to all of us, is that our children outlive us.

Any thoughts?

Edited April 8, 2009 by Triad

[Virtual Particle]

Thinking otherwise or even considering that maintaining the alternative as realistic, makes any sense????

[coberst]

Darwin informs us that the species that fails to adapt to its changing environment will soon become toast. If we lack the intellectual sophistication required to make a science of these two concepts then we lack the sophistication required to adapt to our changing environment and thus will shortly become toast.

[Virtual Particle]

In my opinion what mankind needs to overcome is fear (remember that speech). This especially having to do with things that are just outside there ability to understand.

Any thoughts?

[seax]

You're asking can Capitalism work? The answer is yes...but it has rules to go by. Thomas Jefferson said and I'm paraphrasing:

Democracy will only work if it's people are moral.

I think it is fair to say Democracy and Capitalism go hand in hand. The trouble with the AIG's of the world is there have been a lot of greed and no one is enforcing the laws. Some people just get greedy it is a human trait. When greed takes over and there are no checks and balances thing can go awry. Government should create or help maintain a level playing ground for everyone...only then will Capitalism work...as we all wish it would. Competion ...fair competion will make going into space more affordable and create jobs at the sametime while producing a service people are willing to pay for. Just an example.

best regards,

seax

Edited April 8, 2009 by seax

[Virtual Particle]

When one culture interacts with another, with the expectation of it being long term there is going to be interaction. Amongst the evidence of that, is that a large amount of people in the United States have Native American Ancestors. There are also other influences that go hand in hand, like for example the Cherokee Nation. Certain procedural issues and methodologies for governing that were inherent to indigenous cultures were translated and applied to how this Nation was designed. It is also important to remember that certain Native American Tribes cooperated with the formation of the United States. Capitalism offers an outlet for greed and as long as it is controlled that is a good thing, as feelings like this generate progress (as long as there are controls).

Any thoughts?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Triad

[Mr Walker]

If this is about capitalism then all the historical evidence testifies to the success of different forms of capitalism and the failure of most other models(particulary in dynamic and complex societies)

Look at the present situation as a natural correction to overzealous capitalism which was a natural response to human nature. I just lost 50,000 from my superannuation fund , but capitalism and the system which evolved around it means i accumulated $250000 . In a few years i will earn back what i lost and more, if i dont retire first. In capitalist societies, not only do most peole have an opportunity to live well, they also have the opportunity to slowly develop assets which may be passed on to children, thus adding to the accumulated wealth of all.

(I am a teacher on a modest wage. My wife has never worked, so we have always had only one income. I live a comfortable if prudent life, and if not for both natural and financial disaster i would have fully owned my own house and had enough to retire on at 55. )

Capitalism rewards both labour and capital, but sometimes it is not fairly balanced. This is the responsibility of democratic govts (and also of the voters within those societies) It also tends to reflect an accurate reward for both effort and aptitude. Most people approve of the former but sometimes see the latter as unfair. it also rewards(and punishes) people who are risk takers.

My sister and bro in law mortgaged their house, borowed money and built a 40 foot steel fishing boat in their back yard. they then built uop a fishing business including transport . Then they chose to sell all this, remortgage their house and reinvest in the infancy of commercial oyster fishing.

They could have gone broke several times but with very hard work, capital investment and risk to both life and finances they built a business which employs many others andis worth many millions of dollars.

They then built a house and spent another million and a half restoring and enlarging it it. This employed about 20 tradesmen for a year.

These examples illustrate on a personal level the way capitalism works when it is working as it should.

If there was not a chance of considerable financial reward, no one would risk their; time, labour, life, and existing capital, just to generate more.

Hence the collapse of communism in the soviet union and its evolution into state sponsored capitalism in china.

Some one mentioned over population. By its nature, capitalism creates food surpluses which feed others.. Most non capitalist systems have just managed to feed them selves or in some cases failed to do so.. A food surplus, of course, was the original cause of the first capitalist system, as people sought to barter or sell their surplus.

But dont worry too much about over population. Inside 50 years the worlds population will be in steeep and steady decline. LAready most of the western (capitalist ) world has a birth rate far less than that required to simply replace its ow population. As the world becomes wealthier. this change will intensify and speed up.

The biggest problem in the next couple of centuries will be declining and aging populations in most of the world. Many people will migrate from poorer countires to become both skilled and unskilled labour in the richer countries. In turn they will then become less "fertile" and enhance the whole process)

( This is not an argument for profligate or unnecesary consumption of resources, just a pointer to the future)

Edited April 9, 2009 by Mr Walker

[seax]

Hello Mr. Walker and Triad.....

I read both your post with interest and I think we all have a common denominator in the subject and I think that common denominator is some government regulation and intervention over the free market. It is my humble opinion that government....the private sector each have a part in a good..working and viable economy...but in the same sentence I will say that government can't create jobs...which fuel capitalism although government can stop economic developement and growth by trying to step into the part that should be in the realm of the private sector. Mr. Walker...you made mention you are a teacher..which is under the realm of the government... as it should be. You produce under the right circumstances individuals that have gotten the necessary tools to enter the private sector to produce there. So... in essence you have a partnership of government doing what it does best helping the privated sector witht he tools it needs to compete in a market. When done properly the wealth made in the private sector funds the government and economy to produce what we call capitalism. Capitalism encourages freedom because...if you can build say a better computer for less money then you have done 3 things

1) produced a better product

2) at a cheaper price

3) created jobs and fuel the economy

But as I think we all agree...governments job also is to make sure the laws are complied with. When anti-trust laws are abandoned and private banks and business can 'unlevel' the playing field freedom has been taken away...and a few 'set' the market and actually dicatate what the market is. It's called

'monopolys' and it has happend in this country and all over the world. Government has been asleep on the job...or more accurately...turned a blind eye.

Also, bad trade agreements (NAFTA) imposed causes the private sector to 'cheat' and take advantage of a bad situation. Too much government regulation can stifle business and make it move to 'friendlier' shores.

Triad...I'm not the brightest bulb in the box I didn't really understand what you were saying about the Native Amerians and their involvement in capitalism. Fill me in a little more ...you've got my interest up now... I will try to give you a better answer if I completely understand.

best regards,

and thanks for your post.

seax

[Virtual Particle]

Predictions based on population growth

In 1798 Thomas Malthus incorrectly predicted that population growth would outrun food supply by the mid 19th century. In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich reprised this argument in The Population Bomb, predicting famine in the 1970s and 1980s. The dire predictions of Ehrlich and other neo-Malthusians were vigorously challenged by a number of economists, notably Julian Lincoln Simon. Agricultural research already under way, such as the green revolution, led to dramatic improvements in crop yields. Food production has kept pace with population growth, but Malthusians point out the green revolution relies heavily on petroleum-based fertilizers, and that many crops have become so genetically uniform that a crop failure would be very widespread. Food prices in the early 21st century are rising sharply on a global scale, and causing serious malnutrition to spread widely.[36]

From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world; grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon-fueled irrigation.[37] The peaking of world hydrocarbon production (Peak oil) may test Malthus and Ehrlich critics.[38][39] As of May 2008, the price of grain has been pushed up by increased farming for use in biofuels,[40] world oil prices at over $140 per barrel,[41] global population growth,[42] climate change,[43] loss of agricultural land to residential and industrial development,[44][45] and growing consumer demand in China and India[46][47]. Food riots have recently occurred in many countries across the world.[48][49][50]

The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and most believe that, without the Revolution, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005).[51]

Child poverty has been linked to people having children before they have the means to care for them.[52]

Rest of link

Climate Change workshop #2

Estimate the steady-state birth rate of humans on Earth

By Dr. Richard Gammon, UW Seattle

(recorded by Dr. E.J. Zita, Evergreen St. College, Olympia)

What will be the birth rate on Earth when the human population reaches steady state?

We are not experiencing Malthusian, exponential growth – it is leveling off.

The current population is about 6.6 billion people: P0 = 6.6 x 109 people, and the

.growth rate is about 100 million per year: dP/dt|0 = 108 people/year (in 2007).

The current birth rate is about 300 million people per year, and the

current death rate is about 200 million people per year.

When the human population levels off, the growth rate will be zero – that is, the birth rate

(Fluxin) will be equal to the death rate (Fluxout).

Let’s assume that the steady-state population, or “burden”, will be about 10 billion people

– about half again as many as there are now: B = 10 x 109 = 1010 people.

In steady-state, Burden = Fin * T = Fout * T where T = lifetime

If the average human life expectancy will be about T = 60 years, we can find the

steady-state birth rate (and death rate):

Steady state flux F = B / T = 1010 people / 60 years = 1/6 x 109 people/years

Steady state birth rate = death rate = 167 million people/years

This is lower than the current birth rate, which will require fewer babies per capita

and lower than the current death rate, which is good news.

Current birth rate: 300 x 106 people / year / 660 x 107 people ~ 1/20 / yr ~ 5% / yr

Steady-state birth rate: 1/6 x 109 people/yr / 1010 people ~ 1/60 / yr ~ 2% / yr

This is a reasonable goal. Proven, humane motivators for population control are:

• excellent education for women

• easily accessible health care and birth control

• social security for the elderly

One could consider that a democratic China would repeal laws allowing only one child per familiy. Also baby booms are a product of exxess. I would cite that the United States of America after World War 2 was one of the few indutrialized nations left intact. The technology we are working on in relation to, feeding ourselves could one day exceed the sum total of our needs (and then some). Such developments will probably result in more reproduction. The average is though that more children are being born per year that, that if we tranlate that over a long period of time, we still have a problem.

Any thoughts?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Triad

[seax]

Rest of link

One could consider that a democratic China would repeal laws allowing only one child per familiy. Also baby booms are a product of exxess. I would cite that the United States of America after World War 2 was one of the few indutrialized nations left intact. The technology we are working on in relation to, feeding ourselves could one day exceed the sum total of our needs (and then some). Such developments will probably result in more reproduction. The average is though that more children are being born per year that, that if we tranlate that over a long period of time, we still have a problem.

Any thoughts?

Hello Triad....

I'm not so sure China will become Democratic anytime soon..while many chinese are or have enjoyed the some of the fruits of capitalism..still the Chinese have a stranglehold on the economy and you must remember. Their leader really care nothing about money...they feel when you are in power money is just secondary. It is just a ray of sunshine under their umbrella. They are not going to give it up easy...and they control the army.

I think you are right about the US having an upper hand after WWII while Europe was rebuilding we were building cars..making faster planes...and had plenty of room on the assemby lines for GI's coming home from the war. But if you look at it the other way....all the rebuilding in Europe created a boom there...but with a price...debt.

There is still plenty of room and resources on this Earth..we just need to use it smarter. We have farm land in this country not producing anything now that could grow food for people all around the world, and put a gingle in many a farmer's pocket with some good trade policies.

Tiad...to some extent...we are lazy. If we are going to make things work we must think smarter...work harder...and put everything in proper perspective. We can't afford the old ways...we have to change.

best regards,

seax

[Virtual Particle]

Hello Mr. Walker and Triad.....

I read both your post with interest and I think we all have a common denominator in the subject and I think that common denominator is some government regulation and intervention over the free market. It is my humble opinion that government....the private sector each have a part in a good..working and viable economy...but in the same sentence I will say that government can't create jobs...which fuel capitalism although government can stop economic developement and growth by trying to step into the part that should be in the realm of the private sector. Mr. Walker...you made mention you are a teacher..which is under the realm of the government... as it should be. You produce under the right circumstances individuals that have gotten the necessary tools to enter the private sector to produce there. So... in essence you have a partnership of government doing what it does best helping the privated sector witht he tools it needs to compete in a market. When done properly the wealth made in the private sector funds the government and economy to produce what we call capitalism. Capitalism encourages freedom because...if you can build say a better computer for less money then you have done 3 things

1) produced a better product

2) at a cheaper price

3) created jobs and fuel the economy

But as I think we all agree...governments job also is to make sure the laws are complied with. When anti-trust laws are abandoned and private banks and business can 'unlevel' the playing field freedom has been taken away...and a few 'set' the market and actually dicatate what the market is. It's called

'monopolys' and it has happend in this country and all over the world. Government has been asleep on the job...or more accurately...turned a blind eye.

Also, bad trade agreements (NAFTA) imposed causes the private sector to 'cheat' and take advantage of a bad situation. Too much government regulation can stifle business and make it move to 'friendlier' shores.

Triad...I'm not the brightest bulb in the box I didn't really understand what you were saying about the Native Amerians and their involvement in capitalism. Fill me in a little more ...you've got my interest up now... I will try to give you a better answer if I completely understand.

best regards,

and thanks for your post.

seax

Government I feel, can create the conditions which allow for the creation of jobs, examples abound. Release of classified technology to the private sector, moving military bases, generating growth through government funded programs, meant for infrastructure and so on. I can agree though that in relation to how folk are getting along (you know the ones with the black credit cards) can and does get out of hand. It is after all human nature to want more. There is nothing wrong with saying, "Hey what just happened should be illegal." In a manner of speaking the whole things is stupid, what I mean to say is that if something does not make sense it is probably a lie.

We need recourses not excuses and the reality is, that between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter there is enough Platinum to put a rings around planet Earth and make it look like Saturn. Here is the thing it is there and we do not count it?? No one else is actually claiming it and honestly the closest thing to us, in this solar system may be some fish.

seax..In Mexico they celebrate the Day of the Dead. Such an event is not a part of Christian society but rather an influence of the prior culture. There are certain things that the Masses when confronted with the need for change do not allow to be extinguished. At certain times in history this was a factor, when addressing the needs of a much larger population certain fundamental ideas are changed.

Any thoughts?

[seax]

Government I feel, can create the conditions which allow for the creation of jobs, examples abound. Release of classified technology to the private sector, moving military bases, generating growth through government funded programs, meant for infrastructure and so on. I can agree though that in relation to how folk are getting along (you know the ones with the black credit cards) can and does get out of hand. It is after all human nature to want more. There is nothing wrong with saying, "Hey what just happened should be illegal." In a manner of speaking the whole things is stupid, what I mean to say is that if something does not make sense it is probably a lie.

We need recourses not excuses and the reality is, that between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter there is enough Platinum to put a rings around planet Earth and make it look like Saturn. Here is the thing it is there and we do not count it?? No one else is actually claiming it and honestly the closest thing to us, in this solar system may be some fish.

seax..In Mexico they celebrate the Day of the Dead. Such an event is not a part of Christian society but rather an influence of the prior culture. There are certain things that the Masses when confronted with the need for change do not allow to be extinguished. At certain times in history this was a factor, when addressing the needs of a much larger population certain fundamental ideas are changed.

Any thoughts?

I agree completely and am glad you brought it up concerning governments role in research and developement. I failed to mention that in my previous post and a good example is satellites. Every night when we watch Cable or Dish Network it is a product of taxpayers money turned over to the private sector thus creating a new industry (jobs). Many entities in the private sector would not have the funding to develop the technology.

No doubt in my mind mountains of resources are literally at our fingertips in space and perhaps on the moon. Hopefully, when we figure out how to efficiently and safely travel to move personel and resources there we will achieve a vast treasure trove of wealth. You know someone told me one time...everyone is talking about energy and the lack of...it's further from the truth.. the whole universe is made up of energy..how can it be in short supply...what is in short supply is the drive to utililize it and to tell the truth....the same applies for resources.

There has been a blending of cultures even in Christianity. Christianity is nothing more than a blend with pagan customs. Multicuturalism is definitely a factor and should respected and understood by everyone in the process of capitalism and a more worldly economy. I think it can be achieved and satisified with the right attitudes and understanding to work to everyones needs.

Hope I make any sense...sometimes I tend to ramble.

best regards,

seax

[Virtual Particle]

I agree completely and am glad you brought it up concerning governments role in research and developement. I failed to mention that in my previous post and a good example is satellites. Every night when we watch Cable or Dish Network it is a product of taxpayers money turned over to the private sector thus creating a new industry (jobs). Many entities in the private sector would not have the funding to develop the technology.

No doubt in my mind mountains of resources are literally at our fingertips in space and perhaps on the moon. Hopefully, when we figure out how to efficiently and safely travel to move personel and resources there we will achieve a vast treasure trove of wealth. You know someone told me one time...everyone is talking about energy and the lack of...it's further from the truth.. the whole universe is made up of energy..how can it be in short supply...what is in short supply is the drive to utililize it and to tell the truth....the same applies for resources.

There has been a blending of cultures even in Christianity. Christianity is nothing more than a blend with pagan customs. Multicuturalism is definitely a factor and should respected and understood by everyone in the process of capitalism and a more worldly economy. I think it can be achieved and satisified with the right attitudes and understanding to work to everyones needs.

Hope I make any sense...sometimes I tend to ramble.

best regards,

seax

You seem right on target...On the moon is a whole lot of Helium 3, if you wanted the ideal substance to generate fusion reaction that would be it. It has accumulated over the years as a result of natural processes and this suggest that we will find the same thing on many such object which have no atmosphere. On earth Helium 3 accumulates but not to the extent we will find on the moon or similar. Clearly we need a means of access before we can claim rights legal and otherwise but we can count it amounts our pluses when looking at the whole picture.

As far as I know even if, we converted the car industry today so that they only used plastics and porcelain (for the engines and transmission). There would be enough oil to last 300 years (it probably more like 500 years but 300 is a good number. What we do not have are mineral recourses, in fact there is a whole type of rock that we extract iron ore from that no longer exist. Russia and China tested there nuclear weapons in there mountain ranges and as a result, some large percentage of there mineral wealth, will not be useable for another 10,000 years.

Any thoughts?

[seax]

You seem right on target...On the moon is a whole lot of Helium 3, if you wanted the ideal substance to generate fusion reaction that would be it. It has accumulated over the years as a result of natural processes and this suggest that we will find the same thing on many such object which have no atmosphere. On earth Helium 3 accumulates but not to the extent we will find on the moon or similar. Clearly we need a means of access before we can claim rights legal and otherwise but we can count it amounts our pluses when looking at the whole picture.

As far as I know even if, we converted the car industry today so that they only used plastics and porcelain (for the engines and transmission). There would be enough oil to last 300 years (it probably more like 500 years but 300 is a good number. What we do not have are mineral recourses, in fact there is a whole type of rock that we extract iron ore from that no longer exist. Russia and China tested there nuclear weapons in there mountain ranges and as a result, some large percentage of there mineral wealth, will not be useable for another 10,000 years.

Any thoughts?

There will most certainly be a wealth of resources on the moon. In fact, I could see at some point in time the moon becoming a manufacturing haven for the Earth. Once certain obstacles are overtaken and capitalism gets in the mix with the technology the government funded with taxpayers money it is feasible we get a good return on our investments by perhaps as you said another energy source. The possibilities are endless.

seax

[Virtual Particle]

There will most certainly be a wealth of resources on the moon. In fact, I could see at some point in time the moon becoming a manufacturing haven for the Earth. Once certain obstacles are overtaken and capitalism gets in the mix with the technology the government funded with taxpayers money it is feasible we get a good return on our investments by perhaps as you said another energy source. The possibilities are endless.

seax

One side of Mercury is cold the other is so hot we could extract energy from it to generate power and there is also what Mercury is made of that is also important. For as long as Mercury is around it has an inexhaustible power source. Mars is red because of Iron Oxides and there is more water in orbit about Saturn (the rings) than there is water on Earth. There are other wonders like the Red Spot; it like similar storms has a vortex where conditions are relatively calm. One could fit the Earth inside this vortex and it is possible that the vortex reaches down to the surface.

In 2000 years we will have a population somewhere around 26 billion, how many generations are that?

Any thoughts?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Triad

[Mr Walker]

Triad , i like your optimism in regard to resources(and i agree with it) but i think it is the changes we cant forsee which will be the greatest. Energy will replace physical resources as the next big requirement for humanity. We will use force/energy fields for many things we use resources for now. We will probably use a lot more energy manipulating and transforming materiial and when we learn to transmit matter that wil also use a lot of energy. Fortunately, i think we will find /develop the energy sources as we need them.

I disagree with your population estimates (unless we move off world which is likely but not for a couple of centuries yet.). Our society is less human dependent, children are a huge net cost to families and societies and there are many other reasons for a falling fertility. Amrica is about the only western country which has a birthrate high enough tot replace its pop.

Actually a quick google reveals its birth rate is now 2.1 or also below replacement level)

Every woman must have 2.2 kids to maintain a population. At present australia is about 1.8 jaoan is much lower. Almost all of western europe is below replace ment level. By 20 50 the worlds pop will stop increasiong. After that it will start to fall quite quickly.In almost every western country, govts will be forced to allow in large numbers of migrants from less developed countries simply to retain a vialble economy

Things might happen to change this, but until we can truly colonise space, creating both a new frontier and possibly a new pioneering spirit, i doubt that birth rates will naturally increase. The richer societies and individuals become, the fewer children they have. There are many reasons for this and the theory behind it is well explained in transition theory which explains the population explosion of the last 200 years, and the reasons for pop decline.

In the 2000's, or at least the first few centuries of them, the earths total population is most likely to decline rapidly,or at least steadily, while our individual environmental footprints continue to increase

If we successfully colonise space/other planets and gain access to their resources then we might develop a much greater pop, but the earth by itself simply could not sustain 26 billion people. it cand indefinitely sustain the pop we have now , and our resource and energy use per capita will increase exponentially in the next millenia.

ps Any resource is only viable if it can be accessed at less cost than it is worth, so if it costs 3 bars of platinum to access one bar, it is not viable to mine it.

This means that even many resources on earth are not currently viable or economic let alone those in space. At present the cost of escaping the earths gravity well makes accessing them prohibitively expensive., although this could be overcome with space based operations if enough use could be found for the resources.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Mr Walker

[Virtual Particle]

I Goggled "birth rates and planet earth" those were amongst the top three results. More people are born than die and that is consistent through-out history at present there are 6.7 billion people on earth. A rate of increase of 108 million per year would not be unreasonable, but, multiply that over 1000 or 2000 years and it makes a difference. I understand how you feel Mr. Walker perhaps it is a matter of location....I for one consider this information to be reasonable as when one takes into consideration the world as a whole at present. Women are having more than two children per in third world countries and in order to present them with a 1st world lifestyle we need more recourses (as we have used up some percentage of it). In the meantime they will continue to meet there needs based upon what is currently available. Now as far as occupying our solar system that will take a considerable amount of time. Our next mission to the Moon is in 10 years or so, Mars perhaps by 2050. To go from that, to a society which basically has stretched out into the solar system, on the scale of perhaps a billion or so individuals actively off the planet Earth is a completely different story. At the very longest it could take about 1500 years, at the very least about 700 years this being if we applied ourselves. It is possible that it could take less time and specifically, one has to give credit to human ingenuity. The first problem to address today is, we simply do not trust each other enough to say hand another access to a vessel whose power source could be used to destroy a city (And many will disagree with the purpose of such technology). As you are aware an increase of 108 billion per year is an addition of 1 billion per decade. There in fact is no such thing as a world census so these amounts are equally as arbitrary. Again, when it comes to 6.7 billion at present and the best results fall under the apices of a statistical analysis we are really discussing a deviation from a mean.

One in which, in my opinion, is better to be cautious.....

When it comes to prices there my tendency is to treat such an issue with a certain degree of contempt. Today if a person or a country for that matter, decided to make one tablespoon of anti-matter it would cost the entire GNP of the United States of America to produce it. If we were to perfect the Alcubierre Warp Drive it would take one tablespoon of anti-matter to make the trip to the nearest earth like star and return. If in fact our survival depends upon our ability to overcome these obstacles (and it is possible) then to suggest money is a problem, well I feel that if it is, then invalidating that argument will occur one way or another. Keep in mind I am not suggesting we cannot do anything about this and in fact there is enough time. There just isn’t plenty of time.

Any thoughts?

[Mr Walker]

You must be reading different data to mine on pop. Admittedly the trends are changing very rapidly and you need to look at ones rom the last few years. There are many sites which give extremely accurate details of both populations, and of birth/death rates, including those from united nations organisations.

Because we have a huge world pop it is true that even a small fertility level will mean large numerical increase, but by 20 50 the worlds fertility will fall below replacement level. (already israel is the only developed country in the world with an above replacement level of fertility) Soon after that world pop wil inevitably decline as deaths surpass births. I agree, nothing is certain in the future, but all present trends and predictions show this, with some variability in the timing and scale of the decrease.

I agree with most of your other points, but a cople of asides .

Columbus reached america without using any gasoline. I am not sure what energy source will power the future , just that we will find it as required( i too admire human ingenuity) I think you are too pessimistic in your timeline for human expansion. One only has to look at history to see how exponentially rapid human transport/communication has developed. It took columbus months to find america and a year for the second voyage to return. Its effective colonisation by europeans took decades, if not a century, despite early spanish settlements in new spain. Now communication is virtually instant and travel from america to europe measured in hours.

Thus i expect humans to be out anong the stars in perhaps a quarter of the time you potsulate. Despite its very slow initial build up for example it has only taken about 500 years from a very low technology base for the time taken to travel from europe to america to drop from months to virtually minutes(next generation of aircraft included)

At the moment we are like the europeans of that time trying to envisage the colonisation of america using the technology available in their time, when actually technology will continue to develop (probably exponentially) completely changing that perspective as it does so

The virtual immortality of individual members of mankind, which is coming in the next decade or two will also alter our perspectives on interstellar travel, even if we remain limited to sublight speeds, which i doubt.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Mr Walker

[Virtual Particle]

If one were to actually discuss what life is today, with a person born 140 years ago? Depending upon there temperament one could actually be shot for being so ignorant. In the 90's a group went into deepest Africa and presented them with a Video tape. These indigenous people understood about VCR's and cars as well as cell phones; they were shown a "National Geographic’s" style documentary which presented life in the United States of America. The traffic jams, the industry, the military and stuff like Starbucks. Despite the fact this culture had a rudimentary understanding of the potential of human technology (as described). They were offended because they felt that what the documentary presented was a fantasy. They felt there was no way mankind had reached this level of organization and they actually threatened those who made the presentation. They made clear to them that if they felt it necessary to continue such discussions they were more than welcome to leave, to them (this indigenous culture), they felt those presenting the Video were trying to make fools of them.

My great, great, great, great Grandfather (a Taino Indian) fought under General Andrew Jackson (not necessarily related to the President of the same name). Who was assigned the task of delivering the State of Florida to the United States (this would have been about the 1820's). The 1820s was also the time when the terms Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 became valid issues (in actuality I happen to know allot about the 1820s).

Please understand one can, at least from a position of caution, suggest that we have in fact reached the End of Days in which, we have the option of playing around anymore with our existence as a species.

Any thoughts?

PS: don’t feel bad as a matter of fact most members of Indigenous cultures are pessimistic about this issue.