FD--> No such thing as "over population"-- just "under technology"--

FD--> No such thing as "over population"-- just "under technology"--

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

October 30th, 2009, 2:20 pm #1

with regard to an earlier post by FD
http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/m ... her+at+all

Fd your idea of not "letting the population explode" implies that if you had the power, you would take active steps to reduce it.... which is being done by Globalists. The concept of "population explosion" is a worldview associated with antihumanism. The problem is better seen as "under technology". Higher tech can easily support higher population.

As far as resources go, the idea of simply leaving things alone for future generations doesn't answer the question -- how do we create new resources for ours and future generations.

Your entire view is inconsistent with the future of civilization and of cryonics. I've been banned from pointing anyone in cryonics in the right direction due to misconcpetions. In this way, cryonics is now-- and probably has been-- an intellectual ghetto... a dead end for higher thinking. You're all part of it. It didnt' have to be this way.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

October 30th, 2009, 4:14 pm #2

No, I do not think the planet needs any more people, even if technology could sustain more. In fact, I think it needs less people. We would have less problems with less people packed together like sardines in cities. One could take a weekend drive up into the mountains without encountering bumper to bumper traffic of too many others trying to do the same, plus a host of regulators who tell you where you can and cannot be and collect fees for the places where you can.

What logical reason is there, Phil, for letting the population grow unchecked? I think you have none.

But no, I would not advocate major steps to reduce the population, such as unnecessary wars, genocide, etc. Birth control is enough, if used. Limit every couple to one child for a few decades, that should work.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:52 am

October 30th, 2009, 5:28 pm #3

Namely, settlements in currently uninhabited parts of the planet 100 miles on a side, which the Randroid Frederick Cookinham describes in his book The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XG2v6V ... ad&f=false

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

October 30th, 2009, 5:29 pm #4

No, I do not think the planet needs any more people, even if technology could sustain more. In fact, I think it needs less people. We would have less problems with less people packed together like sardines in cities. One could take a weekend drive up into the mountains without encountering bumper to bumper traffic of too many others trying to do the same, plus a host of regulators who tell you where you can and cannot be and collect fees for the places where you can.

What logical reason is there, Phil, for letting the population grow unchecked? I think you have none.

But no, I would not advocate major steps to reduce the population, such as unnecessary wars, genocide, etc. Birth control is enough, if used. Limit every couple to one child for a few decades, that should work.

FD
Without increasing potential population density, there is no progress. Progress can ben defined as increasing potential population density. You're rejecting that definition. The future of cryonics and everything else requires we get this right.

To increase the potential population density of the vast midwest US, for example, would be a project that would put millions to work in high speed maglev rail systems and development corridors and new nuclear facilities for water and power and new isotopes and transmutation of materials possibilities.

Your worldview is NOT misrepresented by me at all. Point to your favorite futurogist, and I'll point out a new dark age. Your thinking is inconsistent with the vast human future. It's obsolete. You yourself, unless you update your view to accomodate what i just said about the US midwest, are obsolete. EVERYTHING revovles around population, even longevity. Cryonics is a NON PRODUCTIVE activity that absolutely requires progress by this definition.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

October 30th, 2009, 5:58 pm #5

Namely, settlements in currently uninhabited parts of the planet 100 miles on a side, which the Randroid Frederick Cookinham describes in his book The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XG2v6V ... ad&f=false
Without transportation BETWEEN cities, you have a problem.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

October 30th, 2009, 6:59 pm #6

Without increasing potential population density, there is no progress. Progress can ben defined as increasing potential population density. You're rejecting that definition. The future of cryonics and everything else requires we get this right.

To increase the potential population density of the vast midwest US, for example, would be a project that would put millions to work in high speed maglev rail systems and development corridors and new nuclear facilities for water and power and new isotopes and transmutation of materials possibilities.

Your worldview is NOT misrepresented by me at all. Point to your favorite futurogist, and I'll point out a new dark age. Your thinking is inconsistent with the vast human future. It's obsolete. You yourself, unless you update your view to accomodate what i just said about the US midwest, are obsolete. EVERYTHING revovles around population, even longevity. Cryonics is a NON PRODUCTIVE activity that absolutely requires progress by this definition.
Unless we intentionally promote every couple to join the Mormons or Catholics and have a minimum of 10 babies each, there will not be a need for huge new cities in the midwest. Why aren't Tulsa, Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago more than enough? And there is an obvious limit, with our current population, on how many more highspeed rail systems would be useful. Millions of people working on them? What on earth for? Doesn't the latest technology include that they mostly run by themselves once up and going?

As to progress in cryonics, I see the potential for more activity just with our current population level - there are plenty of millionnaires in cryonics who could do more along that line if they chose to. How is more people going to help? IMO, it could cause a retardation of cryonics growth, due to resources being diverted to supporting the basic needs of those additional people (food, clothing, shelter) rather than having enough resources to support cryonics. You would have to show me some pretty good proof to convince me otherwise.

And besides, I'm already biased in favor of having less people to look at every time I step outside my front door. Our planet is already a human ant colony, and I'd like to see it go back to the population levels of, say, about 150 years ago. That wouldn't hurt "progress" a bit - we simply would not need a lot of what you apparently think is "progress".

Finally, my opinions are my own. I do not read "futurologists". We know where yours come from, and I'd suggest you step out of that paradigm once in a while and for example look at how beautiful and enjoyable the real world would be if you could actually hike a few miles up a remote river and not run into the Sierra Club and 3 packs of cub scouts.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

October 30th, 2009, 7:01 pm #7

Namely, settlements in currently uninhabited parts of the planet 100 miles on a side, which the Randroid Frederick Cookinham describes in his book The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XG2v6V ... ad&f=false
... from such evil!

Amen,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

October 30th, 2009, 7:25 pm #8

Unless we intentionally promote every couple to join the Mormons or Catholics and have a minimum of 10 babies each, there will not be a need for huge new cities in the midwest. Why aren't Tulsa, Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago more than enough? And there is an obvious limit, with our current population, on how many more highspeed rail systems would be useful. Millions of people working on them? What on earth for? Doesn't the latest technology include that they mostly run by themselves once up and going?

As to progress in cryonics, I see the potential for more activity just with our current population level - there are plenty of millionnaires in cryonics who could do more along that line if they chose to. How is more people going to help? IMO, it could cause a retardation of cryonics growth, due to resources being diverted to supporting the basic needs of those additional people (food, clothing, shelter) rather than having enough resources to support cryonics. You would have to show me some pretty good proof to convince me otherwise.

And besides, I'm already biased in favor of having less people to look at every time I step outside my front door. Our planet is already a human ant colony, and I'd like to see it go back to the population levels of, say, about 150 years ago. That wouldn't hurt "progress" a bit - we simply would not need a lot of what you apparently think is "progress".

Finally, my opinions are my own. I do not read "futurologists". We know where yours come from, and I'd suggest you step out of that paradigm once in a while and for example look at how beautiful and enjoyable the real world would be if you could actually hike a few miles up a remote river and not run into the Sierra Club and 3 packs of cub scouts.

FD
We differ on this important point. I'll leave it there for now other than for brief comment

High speed rail-- is a massive project that will employ million in the BUILDING of it.

Cryonics millionnaires-- are inadequate to the tasks at hand obviously.

Population 150 years ago-- <2 billion is consistent with plans of certain groups currently running the central banking system on the planet. You're in good powerful company. My "side" is working on destroying "your side", just for your information. We intend to go to a population with supporting tech to about 100B and there will STILL be lots of room for your outdoor nature activity. Along the way, we're going to the moon and Mars. <br>

Walking along a remote river-- Sierra club people are agents of no growth-- but more than likely if you went out into the wild now, you'd be shot and robbed by illegal aliens.

(personal epithet attack deleted, and one reason you remain on moderation)






Last edited by CFHelp on October 30th, 2009, 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share