Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[counting]

The cheif problem with ocean habitats is that, apart from space, they don't reduce resource drain very much (possible exception: kelp farming if that proves viable).

I remember I read an article on Science American about blue food revolution, and it mentioned a possible idea of combining ocean wind-power generator tower with kelp and shellfish farming. Also if the next generation of mariculture can use feeds not from land farming products, but also mariculture products (algae etc.), then we will have a sustainable ocean food production industry. It's promising.

And anything we do ON this planet doesn't actually draining anything from Earth (unless we shoot our garbage into space), it's the matter of the renewable rate vs consumption rate. If we can increase the renewable rate of natural resources, it's better than reduce consumption. A bit like the debt debate in U.S. whether we should just cut spending or find a way to increase revenue. Conservative idea is good to put in mind for cautious reason, but we need the spirit of exploration to go further.

[G-Flex]

Those hold on to the view of a "we are an already developed country, so we no longer need to advance" will be beaten by those who fight for a better future.

I have no idea why you think this is what is going on. This is not the attitude that is going on, and "reproduce as much as possible" is not equivalent to "fight for a better future".

The reason people reproduce less now in developed nations is because they don't need to. They don't need kids to take care of the farm, there are more options in their lives to begin with, making kids less of a foregone conclusion, and the extreme decrease in childhood/infant deaths from illness means that if you only have two kids, odds are they'll both live... not to mention advances in birth control, which again, ties into the fact that having kids is less necessary to participate in society and the economy these days.

Even if humans colonized nine more Earth-sized planets and spread out evenly amongst them, that's still 600 million per planet. That is still a perfectly adequate number of people. Hell, if anything that would be an improvement. Greater numbers are not necessary, period, and expansion through massive reproduction has not been at all necessary for a very long time, and will not be necessary for a very long time.

[counting]

Those hold on to the view of a "we are an already developed country, so we no longer need to advance" will be beaten by those who fight for a better future.

I have no idea why you think this is what is going on. This is not the attitude that is going on, and "reproduce as much as possible" is not equivalent to "fight for a better future".

The reason people reproduce less now in developed nations is because they don't need to. They don't need kids to take care of the farm, there are more options in their lives to begin with, making kids less of a foregone conclusion, and the extreme decrease in childhood/infant deaths from illness means that if you only have two kids, odds are they'll both live... not to mention advances in birth control, which again, ties into the fact that having kids is less necessary to participate in society and the economy these days.

Even if humans colonized nine more Earth-sized planets and spread out evenly amongst them, that's still 600 million per planet. That is still a perfectly adequate number of people. Hell, if anything that would be an improvement. Greater numbers are not necessary, period, and expansion through massive reproduction has not been at all necessary for a very long time, and will not be necessary for a very long time.

I think you are describing exactly what Asimov wrote in the robot series (The cave of steel, etc) as "Spacer Worlds". A collective societies which automatic manufacturing dominate the future worlds. It's a sound argument actually, since the improvement of progresses doesn't have to come from human labors at all. But whether or not you like a world with more of automatons than humans is quite subjective. But I only contest that it's biological nature for living beings to expand than to stagnate. And I wants to point out the absurdity of "we are at the end of history, no more improvement needed, let's go back to the old time, and stay that way" point of view, which seems to affect many aspect of recent decades culture.

[Criptfeind]

It is not stagnation to not have a population growth. There are many other ways to forge ahead that does not involve popping tiny people out of ones body. Hell even then, if we can get everyone to a comfortable level why would we need to advance at all?

[kaijyuu]

It is not stagnation to not have a population growth. There are many other ways to forge ahead that does not involve popping tiny people out of ones body. Hell even then, if we can get everyone to a comfortable level why would we need to advance at all?

To consume more and more resources?


Yeah I don't see population "stagnation" being a problem either. In a society like counting was talking about, if they can automate everything to put everyone in luxury, they can automate childbirth and child rearing if more children are for some reason desired.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People have an in-built drive to do things, otherwise we get bored. A society where all labor is automated is a society where everyone is free to pursue their own interests, instead of spending a good part of their time holding said society up. Not a bad deal from my viewpoint, and certainly not stagnation.

[counting]

It's exactly what Asimov describe what's happening in the spacer worlds. Everyone is content, everyone is happy. I think in a way it does sounds good. And why people may actually choose that way. But in a side note. Asimov also contest that it's the eventual possibility of WAR that brings out the crisis.

At one side it's a populated world of earthlings, and the other is the united 50 worlds of automatons societies. (with less combined population than on Earth) But it's very obvious that unless we can eliminate the possibility of any regressions, and make every world the same. As long as there are worlds don't follow the norm and trying to out populated the others, the outcome may be more favor for the  side with pure numbers. (Or you can say that every super human in the future can be giant cyborg so one man can defeat 1,000 times of enemy, I don't mind discussing that, but it will be another topic.)

And in the end of foundation series Asimov also contest that if no improvement in life is needed, no expansion in new frontiers, then when an aggressive force outside the human society arrived, the result will be catastrophic. Couch potatoes can't fight a war.

[Criptfeind]

Okay, a few comments here:

1: Asimov is not a magic future fortune teller. His books are made to entertain, not to be a warning to the future.

2: What could possibly cause war if people are all content and happy?

3: "an aggressive force outside the human society" What could that possibly be? What could threaten the whole group of worlds?

4: Asimov is not a fucking magic future fortune teller, I might as well run around screaming that Ishmael told us we must reenter the balance of the food chain to preserve ourselves.

[kaijyuu]

3: "an aggressive force outside the human society" What could that possibly be? What could threaten a the whole group of worlds?

Well, there are two things that come to mind:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Criptfeind]

Cause I forgot the universe was crawling with aliens wanting to eat our brains.

[kaijyuu]

Well now that you mention brain eating, zombies could be a threat as well. And in a society full of robots...

Gasp.

Robot zombies.

[Criptfeind]

Lucky for us humanity will be safe cause robot zombies only eat robo brains.

[Lord Shonus]

Until they go pirating after ninja school.

[G-Flex]

I think you are describing exactly what Asimov wrote in the robot series (The cave of steel, etc) as "Spacer Worlds". A collective societies which automatic manufacturing dominate the future worlds.

No, I wasn't, and I'm not sure where you got that from.

But whether or not you like a world with more of automatons than humans is quite subjective.

Whether or not I even mentioned anything like that is pretty objective: I didn't.

But I only contest that it's biological nature for living beings to expand than to stagnate. And I wants to point out the absurdity of "we are at the end of history, no more improvement needed, let's go back to the old time, and stay that way" point of view, which seems to affect many aspect of recent decades culture.

Good for you. I never mentioned that either. It's as if nothing in your post had a damn thing to do with what I said.

All I said was that even if the human population stopped growing altogether, we'd still be able to populate many times the area of our current residence (Earth) with no drawback. We wouldn't need to change how we do things. If the Earth suddenly had one billion people instead of almost seven billion, we would be just fine without needing a bunch of automated servants.

My other point was that not having more kids has nothing to do with not wanting "progress". I outlined a number of reasons why, in recent history, people don't have as many children, and it has absolutely nothing to do with robots or automation or a perceived want of stagnation. It has to do with health, medicine, education, and more opportunities for people to get along and be productive without children being had.

[counting]

3: "an aggressive force outside the human society" What could that possibly be? What could threaten a the whole group of worlds?

Well, there are two things that come to mind:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's the spirit, derailing

Okay, a few comments here:

1: Asimov is not a magic future fortune teller. His books are made to entertain, not to be a warning to the future.

2: What could possibly cause war if people are all content and happy?

3: "an aggressive force outside the human society" What could that possibly be? What could threaten the whole group of worlds?

4: Asimov is not a fucking magic future fortune teller, I might as well run around screaming that Ishmael told us we must reenter the balance of the food chain to preserve ourselves.

But I am borrowing the point of many authors already told what may happens. I used Asimov only because it's being brought up, and what he describe it similar to the discussion. (If you prefer the utopia future, you can try Iain M. Banks - "The Culture" series). Not that what they described will actually happened that way. We are all not time traveler. And we all can't tell what future will look like. We are all telling the possible symptoms of society that may happen in the future You, me, Asimov and everyone else.

And why wouldn't there be wars? You think we will all march happily ever after into the future? I don't think the difference between rich and poor under the society and economical structure we are now will be resolve in centuries. And the difference between countries/cultures will not magically disappear either. And we are just the luck few lived in a wealthy society compare to more than 2/3 of the rest. And it's the difference and those don't want to follow the rule will bring out the war. Unless you can brain washing everyone, then I don't think it's really "happy" you are after, but been controlled.

Lack of variety has proven to be disasters in history and in evolution. Who do you think that we are the only living beings in the Universe? Simply because we can't see them, don't mean the competition don't exist. Hell, it might even being one of the sub-species of human after genetic modifications, or simply by pure mutation. A specie fail to adapt the changes will be eliminated.