Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Geomagnetic reversal link to mass extinction

Recommended Posts

 
joshy

hope it makes me extinct.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

WELL, MAYBE....it will balance out the overpopulation in the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

I doubt it'll effect us much. We'd be aware of it, and fix all of our tech that's at risk.
I suppose it might mess with migratory animals. Hard to say.
Everything I've read about the idea of pole reversal says it would have little effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyingAngel

Any newborn living will adapt its body through time. Nothing to worry about. Selection natural FTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
On 2/21/2021 at 11:30 PM, pbarosso said:

WELL, MAYBE....it will balance out the overpopulation in the world.

How many people is too many, in your view?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bavarian Raven
1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

How many people is too many, in your view?

From a long term environmentally sustainability POV (at western standards on living), we’d ideally need a pop under a billion. :/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
1 hour ago, Bavarian Raven said:

From a long term environmentally sustainability POV (at western standards on living), we’d ideally need a pop under a billion. :/ 

Can you expound on your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bavarian Raven
4 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

Can you expound on your reasoning?

To live at western standards requires A LOT of resources per person per year. The earth can only support / regenerate so much per year. The more people living at a higher standard of living, the more resources needed / taken / harvested every year. At the current human population (if everyone was to live at western standards), we would need 6 to 7 earths to live indefinitely. :( Basically, we're using up more resources every year than are being regenerated. :(

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
1 hour ago, Bavarian Raven said:

To live at western standards requires A LOT of resources per person per year. The earth can only support / regenerate so much per year. The more people living at a higher standard of living, the more resources needed / taken / harvested every year. At the current human population (if everyone was to live at western standards), we would need 6 to 7 earths to live indefinitely. :( Basically, we're using up more resources every year than are being regenerated. :(

I'd be curious to see the math involved. I suppose the sooner we can mine asteroids the better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bavarian Raven
22 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I'd be curious to see the math involved. I suppose the sooner we can mine asteroids the better!

Asteroid mining won't really help. It's not so much metals that are in short supply (the earth contains massive massive massive amounts of Iron, etc), its more so deforestation, over fishing, pollution, etc, that are the real problems. I got my degree in environmental and biological sciences. it was depressing. :/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
11 hours ago, Bavarian Raven said:

Asteroid mining won't really help. It's not so much metals that are in short supply (the earth contains massive massive massive amounts of Iron, etc), its more so deforestation, over fishing, pollution, etc, that are the real problems. I got my degree in environmental and biological sciences. it was depressing. :/

 

So it is not overpopulation that is your concern so much as it is unsustainable practices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bavarian Raven
2 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

So it is not overpopulation that is your concern so much as it is unsustainable practices.

Both. They’re directly linked. Either we need to lower the pop dramatically ASAP or reduce our standards of living several centuries for the most part :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth

But why couldn't we in theory have the same population as we have today while also having in place sustainable practices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
5 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

But why couldn't we in theory have the same population as we have today while also having in place sustainable practices?

Well the overall number, if it remained the same, you might, might. The issue becomes the shift in percentages. That meaning how many people live by western standards now as opposed to all? If every single human alive now were to be living by western standards there would be an implosion of critical resources. To prevent this there would have to be some significant changes to how we access and use the available resources

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
21 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

But why couldn't we in theory have the same population as we have today while also having in place sustainable practices?

I don't really have numbers to support my view.  

I feel the world is very much overpopulated.   I would be in favor of seeing it at under a billion as Raven said.  Animal species would be able to increase their numbers.   Land would be available for settling.  Pollution would decrease quite a bit.  Using 1/7 as the population, it would allow some cities to successfully power themselves with alternate energy.  A city of 500,000 would be a city of 71,000.   Granted that's not completely accurate because we don't know where people would settle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
3 hours ago, Myles said:

I don't really have numbers to support my view.  

I feel the world is very much overpopulated.   I would be in favor of seeing it at under a billion as Raven said.  Animal species would be able to increase their numbers.   Land would be available for settling.  Pollution would decrease quite a bit.  Using 1/7 as the population, it would allow some cities to successfully power themselves with alternate energy.  A city of 500,000 would be a city of 71,000.   Granted that's not completely accurate because we don't know where people would settle.  

And how would you like to see us get to that number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
2 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

And how would you like to see us get to that number?

I don't think we ever will outside of massive world wars.  It's more of a wish without any good way to get there.  

I would like to see more efforts in keeping population increases more in check.   Free vasectomies would be nice.  

I would offer anyone in jail some time off their sentence if they get "fixed".   Not much off the sentence though.   Maybe 2 months off a 5 year sentence if you get fixed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

you people think much too highly of humans. we could never hurt the earth. the earth will freaking KILL us all. we have zero chance of hurting it. only hurting ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

No one is hurting the earth. We only inhabit the upper part of its 'skin'. But our presence is most certainly hurting other life forms on this rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.