Off Topic

The foundation of our society is unsustainable

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 18th, 2019 3:13 pm
Member
Aug 23, 2019
429 posts
231 upvotes
RSole wrote:
Sep 12th, 2019 9:52 pm
Only naive and uninformed people believe a manned Mars trip will happen. Scott Kelly spent a year on the ISS to see how long exposure to zero gravity affects the body. He could not even stand when he came back, and he lost a lot of bone mass. He spent that year inside the protective magnetosphere of Earth, shielded from most of the radiation out there. A Mars return trip would take several years of travel exposed to deadly radiation and no gravity. Assuming someone could survive the trip, why would we spend billions of dollars to send someone there? Mars is completely uninhabitable, even the probes we've sent there deteriorate from the harsh radiation. What would a potential Mars visitor do there? Just look around for a bit and crawl back to the ship and hope to make it back alive. To establish a habitable base there would take the resources of many nations, nations that are increasingly hard pressed to support their own citizens. Any human base would cost trillions to build. The Moon is almost infinitely closer yet we have not found the resources or will to go back there. Again, why send men to the moon? Probes can do the job much cheaper and there's not much left to learn. A moon base could happen, but Mars... no way. Dream on.
Usually the science that is developed to make these missions a reality are worth it.

If we didn't try to get the moon in 60s we would be 30 years behind in tech.
Deal Addict
Nov 20, 2009
1054 posts
662 upvotes
39.0392° N, 125.7625…
Doebird wrote:
Sep 12th, 2019 10:06 pm
Usually the science that is developed to make these missions a reality are worth it.

If we didn't try to get the moon in 60s we would be 30 years behind in tech.
Really? Yes, specific requirements did spur the development of certain technologies, but the Moon landings had political motives. Just going into Earth orbit would have encouraged scientific advances, and it has. Building a ship large enough to store enough food and other life necessities is technically possible now. The two so-far insurmountable problems are how to simulate gravity to prevent bodily systems from breaking down ( a large rotating ship is the only way) and how to shield against cosmic radiation, which is only possible by cocooning the humans inside many, many tons of mass, be it water, paper, styrofoam or lead. Solar radiation comes from only one direction (the Sun) and Apollo astronauts were once advised, during a solar flare, to stay in the command module and point the LEM towards the Sun for maximum radiation absorption. Cosmic radiation, however comes from all directions, all the time , so that scheme won't work.
Last edited by RSole on Sep 12th, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Member
Aug 23, 2019
429 posts
231 upvotes
RSole wrote:
Sep 12th, 2019 10:27 pm
Really? Yes, specific requirements did spur the development of certain technologies, but the Moon landings had political motives. Just going into Earth orbit would have encouraged scientific advances, and it has. Building a ship large enough to store enough food and other life necessities is technically possible now. The two so-far insurmountable problems are how to simulate gravity to prevent bodily systems from breaking down ( a large rotating ship is the only way) and how to shield against cosmic radiation, which is only possible by cocooning the humans inside many, many tons of mass, be it water, paper, styrofoam or lead. Solar radiation comes from only one direction (the Sun) and Apollo astronauts were once advised, during a solar flare, to stay in the command module and point the LEM towards the Sun for maximum radiation absorption. Cosmic radiation, however comes from all directions, all the time , so that scheme won't work.
And so what if the moon landings were political? There was still lots of technology invented/created and learned that otherwise would not have been. If it wasn't for that political motivation, maybe space exploration would never have taken off.

What makes you so sure that technology wont be invented to combat the radiation, or drugs invented to help combat bone mass loss/muscle loss due to low gravity environments?

you talk in absolutes, as if you're the science grand-master...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 16, 2010
5526 posts
1695 upvotes
Aurora
RSole wrote:
Sep 12th, 2019 9:52 pm
Only naive and uninformed people believe a manned Mars trip will happen. Scott Kelly spent a year on the ISS to see how long exposure to zero gravity affects the body. He could not even stand when he came back, and he lost a lot of bone mass. He spent that year inside the protective magnetosphere of Earth, shielded from most of the radiation out there. A Mars return trip would take several years of travel exposed to deadly radiation and no gravity. Assuming someone could survive the trip, why would we spend billions of dollars to send someone there? Mars is completely uninhabitable, even the probes we've sent there deteriorate from the harsh radiation. What would a potential Mars visitor do there? Just look around for a bit and crawl back to the ship and hope to make it back alive. To establish a habitable base there would take the resources of many nations, nations that are increasingly hard pressed to support their own citizens. Any human base would cost trillions to build. The Moon is almost infinitely closer yet we have not found the resources or will to go back there. Again, why send men to the moon? Probes can do the job much cheaper and there's not much left to learn. A moon base could happen, but Mars... no way. Dream on.
I reiterate. W.T.F??
You: "Only naive and uninformed people". Sure, you can accuse me of that. I can accuse you of being a short-sighted, obtuse, miserable accountant lacking any shred of imagination. And I'd be right. Those like you died out shivering in caves in Africa. Those who dreamed spread out and prospered.

You: "Mars... no way. Dream on.". Yup, I sure will. We'll get there.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 27, 2003
3344 posts
83 upvotes
Join
Reddit.com/r/collapse
The RFD Doctrine -
Toronto : Anywhere west of Montreal and east of Calgary.
Scarborough: Anywhere becomes Scarborough if it's a thread about crime.
UrbanPoet: Automatic 1-Star thread starter.
Google: RFD is faster than Google. Make a thread if you need to find out what bus to take.
Deal Addict
Sep 23, 2007
4825 posts
996 upvotes
TomLafinsky wrote:
Sep 11th, 2019 2:13 am
It is quite stunning when one thinks about it. That this simple Truth is not more present in the mind of people on this planet.

Our whole system of existence is based on the premise of an ever growing population. But there is only so many people this planet can accommodate. Passed a certain point, we reach an imbalance that needs to be corrected.

A preoccupation with the climatic conditions will not solve the issue of unbridled procreation. We are walking a path of self-annihilation. We should examine the foundation on which we have built this world. There lies your salvation.
Historically several prominent people have called for some kind of population explosion, reaching a maximum point, then chaos is unleashed. But it never quite unfolded this way.

First of all, technological advances will allow us to adapt and provide for more people. This has a limit, and that limit has a lot of scientific basis. For example, I read about how someone calculated the maximum amount of sunlight the planet can receive if we put solar panels in the ocean. This dictates the maximum amount of agricultural production. But this limit seems to be ever change. People have been moving into vertical farming. So who knows what the limit is to food production.

Second of all, people are not brain dead. Society will collectively adapt using the invisible hand of economics, as long as the natural environment does not change too rapidly. For example, if food becomes scarce, then naturally prices will go up. As food prices go up, it will indirectly reduce or stabilize the population as households decide to have less children overall. You can cite a few idiots in society but if you average out everyone, the "noise" from the collective decision will generally move in the direction dictated by supply and demand.

Thirdly, most of the population growth is coming from developing countries. Developed nations are actually talking about how to use immigrants to maintain population. Economics will naturally influence household decisions to have children. As these countries develop, it is expected that they will probably have lower birth rates as women get more educated and enter the workforce.

Lastly I am not clear what you mean by our society is based on a growing population. There is no societal law that you need to pro-create. And if every couple only have 1 child, our population will start to decline. The average person may want to start a family because that seems to be a cultural and biological norm. Though increasingly our younger generation are skipping this process. They are deciding not to get married or have kids at all. So the whole premise of your thread is on shaky grounds.
Member
User avatar
Oct 14, 2017
380 posts
232 upvotes
Toronto
TomLafinsky wrote:
Sep 11th, 2019 2:13 am
It is quite stunning when one thinks about it. That this simple Truth is not more present in the mind of people on this planet.

Our whole system of existence is based on the premise of an ever growing population. But there is only so many people this planet can accommodate. Passed a certain point, we reach an imbalance that needs to be corrected.

A preoccupation with the climatic conditions will not solve the issue of unbridled procreation. We are walking a path of self-annihilation. We should examine the foundation on which we have built this world. There lies your salvation.
No, just the banker fake fiat ponzi scheme runs on more meat taking on more debt.
Deal Addict
Dec 27, 2013
2476 posts
719 upvotes
Woodbridge
TomLafinsky wrote:
Sep 14th, 2019 2:17 pm
There is a reason why people are mostly kept in the dark about future events;
Kept in the dark by whom? This implies that the future has already been determined but we simply can't see it due to some deliberate action.
because the purpose of life is to live, not to try to anticipate and defeat ahead of time every single challenge that will appear on your path.
That may be your purpose. Many people go to varying degrees of effort to try to anticipate and pre-empt and/or mitigate potential callenges.
You only learn from your mistakes. You learn nothing at all when everything is perfect.

I accept the value in making mistakes and I reinforce this idea in my classroom; however, life can't be full of mistakes, and we go through the process of making mistakes in order to get to a point where we make fewer of them.
Life is nothing more than a school.
To what end?
It is for the same reason that you are not aware of the time and manner in which you will die (please note there is no such thing as death, all there is is the death of the physical body). Mind you there are ways to find out when you will die ;)
I see. Could you provide some evidence to support this?
Nevertheless I will tell you about one book with forecasts of possible future events. This guy wrote about 9/11 and you could buy the book like I did 6 months before 9/11 happened. Here's what he wrote on pages 252-253;

"While acts of terrorism and war and political unrest plague the Eastern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere will be spared the worst of the terrorism. However, a major terrorist attack may befall New York City and Washington, D.C., severely impacting the way we live in the United States."

IIRC, in the book the author states that he actually wrote the book like 10(???) years prior but waited to have it published.

"Fast Lane to Heaven" by Ned Dougherty
I'll take your word on the fact that those words were published before 9/11. Having said that, given how many significant events occur that aren't written about and given how many such predictions don't end up being true, I think it's far more likely that this is a coincidence. Surely, if Mr. Dougherty could foresee the future, you would be able to provide numerous other examples of similar prophecies.

Btw I do not agree 100% with the author on everything he wrote. I am not the religious type at all. But that was his experience and I know he is truthful. Also, I rely on a multitude of sources in addition to making my own contribution in regards to forecasting future events.
Despite all this, you still haven't answered my original question, which was: "Do you have anything substantive to support these predictions?"

I'll wait patiently.
Deal Expert
Dec 4, 2010
17723 posts
1758 upvotes
Space for rent
Humanity has always suffered short sightedness. Our hunter and gatherer forefathers were perhaps most thoughtful in terms of survival instincts but at some point in our evolution we kept wanting more and convinced ourselves greed was the way to go because having more meant greater percentage at surviving the winter months and bigger tribes meant other factions wouldn’t attack. It’s imbedded into our psychology and it’s hard to change.

A lot of people like to give communism flack but the idea behind it isn’t too bad. You can see this in trailblazing ceos who take upon themselves to delineate their own role as no more important than their employees but for their efforts they are mocked and ostracized.

Keep breeding and burn through resources and we will sure see our demise come to bear.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 20, 2006
1581 posts
1039 upvotes
Image

Old Earth is better off without ...
LIVE LONG and suffer ...

:arrow: PEACE :arrowl:

My Missus said " I don't tell you how to spend your $$, Don't tell me how to spend your $$."
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
11765 posts
6085 upvotes
Toronto
I've entered into this thread while dissolving a tab of acid on my tongue.

OP; get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
DYI difficulty scale:
0-joke
10-no joke

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Top