Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
(Post 1957215)
I think there is an in between here that makes both of you kind of correct. IF we don't change things we are probably approaching capacity, but technology has a lot to offer so I don't think we have a good grasp of potential capacity with the use of technology not yet discovered, developed, or implemented.
|
^ Yes, there is some hope in this idea, DWV; some ray of light that suggests we may not be headed for global catastrophe. I completely agree with the bolded, which unfortunately means that things could go either way: technology could save us, or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
(Post 1957217)
Dude, you'd have to be a complete idiot who hasn't kept pace with current technology and trends to come to that kind of conclusion. Neither you nor Lisna take those things into account yet you snub the conclusions of what I posted.
|
^ I snubbed the conclusions of what you posted because the writer didn't understand the arithmatic of his own statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
(Post 1957217)
Everything you think you know about food production is going to be a thing of the past as early as the next decade. There's also hundreds of thousands of miles of land out there that will become habitable as biotech and our grasp on agricultural tech advances continue to evolve.
|
^ Yes, lab grown meat and fish farming may help out. Your statement in bold is very worrying because I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before - oh, yeah that's right; propaganda associated with the American government's Homestead Act, just before the Dustbowl kicked in. :yikes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
(Post 1957217)
These aren't pipe dreams, but an inevitable place we will arrive at based on where we are right now.
|
^ This comment brings us back to the start of this discussion, which was [MERIT]'s assertion that the planet is nowhere near full capacity. To restate my basic objection: with unprecedented levels of population, the future is not certain, and there is enough evidence for us to be seriously worried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
(Post 1957217)
And Lisna, I'm not disagreeing with your overall analysis (taken on its own with all other variables ignored), but beyond women who are infertile I don't see any info on mortality rates, statistics related to deaths caused by disease, etc. etc. You have to factor those things in, along with paradigm shifts in biotech and whatever else is going on out there that you haven't factored in.
|
^ That would be a long job, so I'd rather leave the honour of doing that research to you, Anteater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
(Post 1957228)
What resources are we depleting that will hinder reproduction of the things we need to sustain human life?
|
^ Yep, as OH mentioned, a short answer to your question would be "Fish". A more detailed answer is provided by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
(Post 1957215)
Curious where you get all your environmental information, and if all you do is read about the bad things and none of the things we are restoring thanks to hardworking scientists and environmental protection agencies.
|
^ Surely this is not a good moment to suggest that EPAs are helping to solve the challenges of burgeoning population growth.
In the USA the EPA is being gutted by a meglomanic taking backhanders from the oil industries. They are reducing National Parks and approving oil pipelines. You mention the hardworking scientists, and I'm sure that there are many - what a pity then that in Trump's EPA they can't post their data on-line and are not even allowed to use the term "Global Warming."
