Blank Discussion Topic

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

That guy must have some REALLY good drugs!

I like futuristic stories but only if they are plausible. James Howard Kunstler's "World Made By Hand Series" ( World Made by Hand, The Witch of Hebron and A History of the Future) about the post peak oil near future are excellent.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

I think the main point in colonizing space it to find and have access to way more resources.
I fully, 100% support space exploration. Don't worry Brian, you won't have to live in a bubble on Mars, you and I will be dust in the ground by then. But yeah, if I could colonize space I'd definitely do it. I would volunteer. Space exploration is awesome (and yes, it does have a utilitarian benefit too). But don't forget about technology. in 800 years it's entirely possible the humans will have discovered a way to make an atmosphere on other planets and shit like that. Don't think about in today's terms.

Stephen Hawking is a fucking genius, and seems to have a sensitivity about things that many pure scientists do not. The difference between him and many other people who might be comparable is that Stephen has a big imagination too. I personally greatly admire that quality in him.

lukin2006

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

I think the main point in colonizing space it to find and have access to way more resources.
I fully, 100% support space exploration. Don't worry Brian, you won't have to live in a bubble on Mars, you and I will be dust in the ground by then. But yeah, if I could colonize space I'd definitely do it. I would volunteer. Space exploration is awesome (and yes, it does have a utilitarian benefit too). But don't forget about technology. in 800 years it's entirely possible the humans will have discovered a way to make an atmosphere on other planets and shit like that. Don't think about in today's terms.

Stephen Hawking is a fucking genius, and seems to have a sensitivity about things that many pure scientists do not. The difference between him and many other people who might be comparable is that Stephen has a big imagination too. I personally greatly admire that quality in him.

I agree with you on Hawking. He states theories that could make him either a genius or a laughingstock. So far it's the former.

maybe one day we'll be able to travel in Star Trek type distances and FIND other habitable planets, but I don't know about creating a world anything like what we have now. Just stop fucking this one up. It's gorgeous beyond imagination.

brianlux

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

lukin2006

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Agreed ... my biggest concern with all this space travel and with it seemingly getting easier to access is for space to be further weaponized ... and eventually by roque states, if not already...

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

The brilliant scientist, naturalist, entomologist Edward O. Wilson has written about exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness of the micro rather than the macro. He talks about how there are many thousands of unknown, unnamed species in the world, particularly in the realm of insects, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms and that learning about them and their interconnected relationships could go a long way to understand the interconnections of life here on earth and how this knowledge could help to survive and to stop killing off other species needlessly. His work instigates curiosity, inspires the imagination, and sets a positive example of how such research can lead to some very positive, useful results.

Rocket ships to the stars are what science fiction is for. My belief is that the kind of expenditure of money and resources that goes into space exploration does more to consume than it does to provide. And as lukin pointed out, a lot of it has to do with weaponry and war.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

The brilliant scientist, naturalist, entomologist Edward O. Wilson has written about exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness of the micro rather than the macro. He talks about how there are many thousands of unknown, unnamed species in the world, particularly in the realm of insects, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms and that learning about them and their interconnected relationships could go a long way to understand the interconnections of life here on earth and how this knowledge could help to survive and to stop killing off other species needlessly. His work instigates curiosity, inspires the imagination, and sets a positive example of how such research can lead to some very positive, useful results.

Rocket ships to the stars are what science fiction is for. My belief is that the kind of expenditure of money and resources that goes into space exploration does more to consume than it does to provide. And as lukin pointed out, a lot of it has to do with weaponry and war.

Nothing wrong with doing both. No one ever said it had to be one or the other.
I hope not too many smart people start thinking like you Brian. When dreams and the desire for knowledge about the universe dies we're doomed.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

The brilliant scientist, naturalist, entomologist Edward O. Wilson has written about exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness of the micro rather than the macro. He talks about how there are many thousands of unknown, unnamed species in the world, particularly in the realm of insects, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms and that learning about them and their interconnected relationships could go a long way to understand the interconnections of life here on earth and how this knowledge could help to survive and to stop killing off other species needlessly. His work instigates curiosity, inspires the imagination, and sets a positive example of how such research can lead to some very positive, useful results.

Rocket ships to the stars are what science fiction is for. My belief is that the kind of expenditure of money and resources that goes into space exploration does more to consume than it does to provide. And as lukin pointed out, a lot of it has to do with weaponry and war.

Nothing wrong with doing both. No one ever said it had to be one or the other.
I hope not too many smart people start thinking like you Brian. When dreams and the desire for knowledge about the universe dies we're doomed.

How do you catch a individualistic rabbit?
Unique up on it.
How do you catch a domestic rabbit?
Tame way.

I'm OK with not to many people thinking like I do.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

The brilliant scientist, naturalist, entomologist Edward O. Wilson has written about exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness of the micro rather than the macro. He talks about how there are many thousands of unknown, unnamed species in the world, particularly in the realm of insects, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms and that learning about them and their interconnected relationships could go a long way to understand the interconnections of life here on earth and how this knowledge could help to survive and to stop killing off other species needlessly. His work instigates curiosity, inspires the imagination, and sets a positive example of how such research can lead to some very positive, useful results.

Rocket ships to the stars are what science fiction is for. My belief is that the kind of expenditure of money and resources that goes into space exploration does more to consume than it does to provide. And as lukin pointed out, a lot of it has to do with weaponry and war.

Nothing wrong with doing both. No one ever said it had to be one or the other.
I hope not too many smart people start thinking like you Brian. When dreams and the desire for knowledge about the universe dies we're doomed.

How do you catch a individualistic rabbit?
Unique up on it.
How do you catch a domestic rabbit?
Tame way.

I'm OK with not to many people thinking like I do.

I meant as far as this topic of space exploration goes of course, not in general, lol.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Ugh, where is your imagination and curiosity? Even aside from the benefits it can provide in terms of new resources, what about all the amazing scientific discoveries that are still out there for us to discover???? Space exploration is scientific discover at its finest. It informs us about the universe that we are a part of. I think it is incredible boring and small minded to think that we shouldn't look towards space for answers, for exploration, for knowledge, for evolution. If we get that far, I think it reasonable to assume that it won't be the mission to trash other places. If people stop striving for ideals and knowledge like this, I don't even see the point of giving a shit if people survive on Earth.

Besides, just the technological discoveries that we have already gotten out of NASA are stunning, and good for the world. It is harmful to us all to treat NASA and advancements in space exploration as pointless.

The brilliant scientist, naturalist, entomologist Edward O. Wilson has written about exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness of the micro rather than the macro. He talks about how there are many thousands of unknown, unnamed species in the world, particularly in the realm of insects, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms and that learning about them and their interconnected relationships could go a long way to understand the interconnections of life here on earth and how this knowledge could help to survive and to stop killing off other species needlessly. His work instigates curiosity, inspires the imagination, and sets a positive example of how such research can lead to some very positive, useful results.

Rocket ships to the stars are what science fiction is for. My belief is that the kind of expenditure of money and resources that goes into space exploration does more to consume than it does to provide. And as lukin pointed out, a lot of it has to do with weaponry and war.

Nothing wrong with doing both. No one ever said it had to be one or the other.
I hope not too many smart people start thinking like you Brian. When dreams and the desire for knowledge about the universe dies we're doomed.

How do you catch a individualistic rabbit?
Unique up on it.
How do you catch a domestic rabbit?
Tame way.

I'm OK with not to many people thinking like I do.

I meant as far as this topic of space exploration goes of course, not in general, lol.

My mother (lovely woman, I miss her terribly) was an AVID space exploration fan and I appreciated the joy she got from talking about it but I'll never forget how angry she was when she called me in to the living room to watch live footage of the first landing on the moon. I told her I didn't want to watch it because I thought it was a huge waste of money and a desecration to that beautiful orb in the night sky. The only thing I saw that we gained from it was footprints and trash left up there. Sorry but I'm massively against space travel.

PJfanwillneverleave1

.

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
I don't know for certain but I would venture to guess that there are no mosquitoes in space or on other planets.

Haha... we did get faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar off subject.

HughFreakingDillon

i actually agree with brian on this. i think space travel is a massive waste of resources, money, and effort. it's almost giving people an excuse to turn this planet into a shit pile. "oh well, we'll find another earth soon enough". stay here, stop fucking it up. go explore with private money from the richest of the rich. like virgin dude. i think space travel might be of use when we can actually get somewhere, but we've been to the moon in 60 years. that's it. this colonization of mars thing is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. we're not ready. not in the slightest.

anyway, back to mosquitos.

lukin2006

We'll never find another earth like this that will sustain US ... thats not to say there is not live beyond earth, because the odds are definitely in the odds of other life out there...but my guess is life beyond this planet isn't even close to what we think it is. Maybe we could focus we making this a better planet first. And to keep on subject, maybe mosquito is alien life form, we've already been taken over...hahaha.