Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?
- Thread starter SnapsProvolone
- Start date
SnapsProvolone
Well-Known Member
My thinking is that our planet is a petri dish and we are the bacteria. Sooner or later we are doomed to die in our own waste if we do not spread forth from this planet into the vastness of our galaxy.
Don't lie Pinworm, you like the bear's posts because you have to read them three to four times for them to sink in, just like me!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
What worries me is that there might be labcoats out there who view us pretty much the same way.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
hahaha. Just tell me that they aren't well thought out, and I'll gladly shut my parasitic mouff.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
That is the Ron Paul, cleansing fluid! A spritz or two and humanity will be cleansed. See our full page ad in the Ron Paul, certified RACIST newsletter...What worries me is that there might be labcoats out there who view us pretty much the same way.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dude. Duuuuude. It's Christmas. Paulitics, now?
~obligatory bear facepalm image~
~obligatory bear facepalm image~
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;dzavCL2c3zE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzavCL2c3zE[/video]
HEY! BILLY CORGAN - FUCK YOU! - Stop writing songs about Courtney Love! - poser....
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
If you had a house that was infested with pests (roaches and the like) would you get rid of the problem by feeding them?
Nope. I think a potential "cure" to over population is to stop feeding the problem. I see these commercials on tv with sally struthers asking for money so they can send food to a population of people who cannot feed themselves. Obviously, if the people of a geographical area cannot feed their own, there are too many of them. So out of compassion, we make the problem worse, bu 'feeding the roaches.'
All that this accomplishes is making sure that the next generation is even less able to feed themselves. Stop sending aide, or put something in it to dramatically decrease fertility. Some will starve so that those who come next might have a chance to prosper.
As to getting into space there is really only one way with current technology to do it at practical costs. Rockets are too expensive. I think it costs several thousand dollars per pound to get something into orbit.
The idea of a space elevator is awesome. Anchor a cable 25-thousand miles long, to the earth at the equator and the other end will be floating in space.
It would be expensive to build, but I think it could be done. The best part is solar power would finally amount to something. Imagine massive solar farms in space, with the ability to transfer the power to earth surface via cable! A solar cell would be immensely more efficient in space than they are on earth, with clouds and night to deal with. There are no such concerns I'm space.
The cost of moving weight up a space elevator is pennies on the dollar compared to rockets. It would make it possible to build large areas for housing. There we could also construct space craft in orbit, allowing for exploration and exploitation of the resources in the inner solar system, the asteroid belt.
The space elevator needs to be a top priority, IMO.
Nope. I think a potential "cure" to over population is to stop feeding the problem. I see these commercials on tv with sally struthers asking for money so they can send food to a population of people who cannot feed themselves. Obviously, if the people of a geographical area cannot feed their own, there are too many of them. So out of compassion, we make the problem worse, bu 'feeding the roaches.'
All that this accomplishes is making sure that the next generation is even less able to feed themselves. Stop sending aide, or put something in it to dramatically decrease fertility. Some will starve so that those who come next might have a chance to prosper.
As to getting into space there is really only one way with current technology to do it at practical costs. Rockets are too expensive. I think it costs several thousand dollars per pound to get something into orbit.
The idea of a space elevator is awesome. Anchor a cable 25-thousand miles long, to the earth at the equator and the other end will be floating in space.
It would be expensive to build, but I think it could be done. The best part is solar power would finally amount to something. Imagine massive solar farms in space, with the ability to transfer the power to earth surface via cable! A solar cell would be immensely more efficient in space than they are on earth, with clouds and night to deal with. There are no such concerns I'm space.
The cost of moving weight up a space elevator is pennies on the dollar compared to rockets. It would make it possible to build large areas for housing. There we could also construct space craft in orbit, allowing for exploration and exploitation of the resources in the inner solar system, the asteroid belt.
The space elevator needs to be a top priority, IMO.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;mLmH_iBWJj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLmH_iBWJj0[/video]
Doer is uh-fraids that he may get blackmailed.
Doer
Well-Known Member
However, we are just not there yet, with the "rope."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/space-elevators-stronger-materials_n_3353697.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/space-elevators-stronger-materials_n_3353697.html
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Talk about lazy. Bitchin' about walking up stairs an shit. "Space elevators" - space elevate my balls on your chin until stronger materials are available.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The space elevator has two big problems.
The first is that it needs to be about seventy thousand miles long and will need to incorporate megatons of some sci-fi material with a tensile strength greater than anything we've made, including the much-bruited carbon nanotubes.
The second has to do with powering the putative trolley cars. How transmit the power,and from what source? Solar is currently popular, but its energy density is pretty low, and the transducers (solar cells) are heavy and expensive. I would prefer a more compact and energetic source ... perhaps some form of fusion when we get good enough.
Practically, there is one way to move tonnage into space. Anyone remember Orion (not the spiffed-up Apollo capsule, but the original)? Nuclear pulse propulsion with an Isp in the tens of thousands.
The first is that it needs to be about seventy thousand miles long and will need to incorporate megatons of some sci-fi material with a tensile strength greater than anything we've made, including the much-bruited carbon nanotubes.
The second has to do with powering the putative trolley cars. How transmit the power,and from what source? Solar is currently popular, but its energy density is pretty low, and the transducers (solar cells) are heavy and expensive. I would prefer a more compact and energetic source ... perhaps some form of fusion when we get good enough.
Practically, there is one way to move tonnage into space. Anyone remember Orion (not the spiffed-up Apollo capsule, but the original)? Nuclear pulse propulsion with an Isp in the tens of thousands.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Don't be scurrd, homie.