What Threatens Our Way Of Life The Most (And a Quiz)

42 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Yes I saw another history channel special, or part of it. But, this one was a bit different...

Six top scientists, all specialists in their field gather together to discuss what threatens our way of life the most and what to do about it. (A plan of action) Before this, each had their own promo film before the gathering...

1) A specialist in oil and natural resources. cited a study in 2005 commisioned by the US government (and then buried) and pronounced that fossil fuels would generally be depleted by 2030, thats just 15 years folks. He said, game over, we have enjoyed having electric power for the last 120 years or so but it's back to 18th century tech in the not too distant future.

2) A specialist in pandemics who thought that eventually the Earths population would eventually be decimated by a manufactured or natural virus.

3) A specialist who said eventually a terrorist group would get hold of nuclear weapons and indiscriminately set them off and decimate the earth and its population.

4) A specialist who cited the earths supply of fresh water running out.

5) A specialist who said that a natural disaster from space or on the earth would do it. Global warming etc.

6) An expert in artificial intelligence who said that machines, computers and robots could advance past our thinking process by 2025 and could become self aware and see no further use for us.

Ok, thats your six. Questions...

1) Which one did they all agree on without question as the most important.

2) Which one that (in my opinion and I have mentioned it many times) was not represented in these six and would largely solve all these threats if acted upon.

Both questions need to be answered correctly within one post.
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    1) Overpopulation
    2) Contraception.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781182].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
      Banned
      Number 4. It's already a world-wide problem.

      That's all I got.

      Cheers. - Frank
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781187].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
        Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

        Number 4. It's already a world-wide problem.

        That's all I got.

        Cheers. - Frank
        What other one?
        Signature

        Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781192].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
          Banned
          Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

          What other one?
          Although it may be wishful thinking on my part, I'm rooting for No. 6. A man can dream, can't he?

          Cheers. - Frank
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781319].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
            Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post

            Although it may be wishful thinking on my part, I'm rooting for No. 6. A man can dream, can't he?

            Cheers. - Frank
            True to life sex robots will need to be carefully programmed.
            Signature

            Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781323].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
              Banned
              Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

              True to life sex robots will need to be carefully programmed.
              Mine performs its rudimentary tasks, flawlessly. That said, precision grip adjustment is mandatory for maximum effectiveness and safety considerations.

              Cheers. - Frank

              P.S. I loathe the thought of retiring this avatar.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781340].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Commercial agriculture. It's already responsible for over 1/3 of the pollution in the world and growing. It's the main reason for number 4, being the largest user of fresh water supplies averaging out to around 70% world wide. Then there's the whole killing the soil thing. If you can even do it, it takes up to 7 years to turn dead agricultural soil into living sustainable soil.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781419].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                  Anyone else prepared to have a stab at answering the questions as asked?

                  Questions...

                  1) Which one did they all agree on without question as the most important.

                  2) Which one that (in my opinion and I have mentioned it many times) was not represented in these six and would largely solve all these threats if acted upon.
                  Signature

                  Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781436].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                    Anyone else prepared to have a stab at answering the questions as asked?

                    Questions...

                    1) Which one did they all agree on without question as the most important.

                    2) Which answer that (in my opinion and I have mentioned it many times) was not represented in these six and would largely solve all these threats
                    1) Well each so called specialist choose their own field as the most threatening, so to me that makes them just narrow minded idiots.
                    Why would I care what a bunch of idiots agree on unless it's that they are all idiots?
                    2) If we don't stop killing the soil Mars will look like paradise compared to Earth.
                    That's something that makes me think most climate change fanatics are really just a bunch of political parrots that are actually clueless. I get called a denier all the time because I understand the role commercial agriculture plays in climate change, go figure.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781478].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      1) Well each so called specialist choose their own field as the most threatening, so to me that makes them just narrow minded idiots.
                      Why would I care what a bunch of idiots agree on unless it's that they are all idiots?
                      2) If we don't stop killing the soil Mars will look like paradise compared to Earth.
                      That's something that makes me think most climate change fanatics are really just a bunch of political parrots that are actually clueless. I get called a denier all the time because I understand the role commercial agriculture plays in climate change, go figure.
                      Big clues

                      1) None of this, no soil to worry about. No life anyway.

                      2) Far too many
                      Signature

                      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781499].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                        Big clues

                        1) None of this, no soil to worry about. No life anyway.

                        2) Far too many
                        To be honest Ian I don't really see what you mean there, except for saying I'm wrong as far as you're questions go
                        You are right as far as no soil, no life.
                        When you study soil you see how it is very similar to our skin.
                        First top soil, which is where the majority of plant roots grow and get their nourishment from is on average 2 - 8in. thick. When you take the diameter of the planet into consideration, that's about as thick as our skin.
                        Second, just like our skin has different layers (dermis and epidermis) soil has layers called horizons.
                        Now imagine getting a disease that kills your skin and it continues to spread. How long do you think you could live?
                        That's what we are doing to our soils. So yep, no soil, no life.

                        By the way 2015 is the International Year of Soil , so you'll be hearing my talk about soil a lot this year
                        soils-2015*| 2015 International Year of Soils
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781550].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                          Well Thom. I think I shall just reveal what these 6 guys agreed on as the most important, despite their biases and disciplines...

                          1) It was lack of fresh water to go around, unanimously declared as being the shortest route to oblivion.

                          2) And my opinion of the missing cause not stated was.. Overpopulation, if by some amazing act could it be orchestrated to get the world to agree that their were just too many mouths to feed and service with power and recourses and that the world was really only suited to servicing one billion people instead of seven going up. Then, restricting of births worldwide could within one generation bring this demand down so dramatically that all but the natural disasters would be alleviated.

                          Give the planet time to recover, and of course dramatically less soil will be needed to farm.

                          All these guys were thinking in terms of tackling it, as is.
                          Signature

                          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781630].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                            Well Thom. I think I shall just reveal what these 6 guys agreed on as the most important, despite their biases and disciplines...

                            1) It was lack of fresh water to go around, unanimously declared as being the shortest route to oblivion.

                            2) And my opinion of the missing cause not stated was.. Overpopulation, if by some amazing act could it be orchestrated to get the world to agree that their were just too many mouths to feed and service with power and recourses and that the world was really only suited to servicing one billion people instead of seven going up. Then, restricting of births worldwide could within one generation bring this demand down so dramatically that all but the natural disasters would be alleviated.

                            Give the planet time to recover, and of course dramatically less soil will be needed to farm.

                            All these guys were thinking in terms of tackling it, as is.
                            So number 1 comes back to commercial agriculture as it uses 70% of fresh water world wide
                            In all seriousness Ian, after years of research and studying the subject, commercial agriculture is one of the biggest threats to all life on Earth.
                            Give the planet time to recover, and of course dramatically less soil will be needed to farm.
                            Organic local based farming. You still need all soil to be healthy, but growing organically uses less area and also is a huge weapon against the effects of man on the environment.

                            I almost forgot the over population thing
                            I agree that is a problem. But like with other species, nature has a way of dealing with it. It won't be pretty though
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781673].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              I agree that is a problem. But like with other species, nature has a way of dealing with it. It won't be pretty though
                              YEAH, like lack of food, water, shelter, or sickness!

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781803].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                            Well Thom. I think I shall just reveal what these 6 guys agreed on as the most important, despite their biases and disciplines...

                            1) It was lack of fresh water to go around, unanimously declared as being the shortest route to oblivion.

                            2) And my opinion of the missing cause not stated was.. Overpopulation, if by some amazing act could it be orchestrated to get the world to agree that their were just too many mouths to feed and service with power and recourses and that the world was really only suited to servicing one billion people instead of seven going up. Then, restricting of births worldwide could within one generation bring this demand down so dramatically that all but the natural disasters would be alleviated.

                            Give the planet time to recover, and of course dramatically less soil will be needed to farm.

                            All these guys were thinking in terms of tackling it, as is.
                            Well, there is a BIG difference between "running out of fresh water", and not having enough water for everyone..... I recently heard that this happens in the average small town about every THREE DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY do we not notice it? SIMPLE! Water is cycled back, made clean, and replenishes the water CONSTANTLY! If that last part of the cycle broke down, the average small town in the US would be without water within three days.

                            You certainly have some good points and HEYSAL and me, along with others, made the same ones.

                            Frankly, if everyone today lived, and acted like many middle class americans, we would be in SERIOUS trouble. If they acted like Al gore, we could all be dead in a couple months. If they acted like the worst offenders in China, this WORLD could be dead within a WEEK!

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781798].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post


                            1) It was lack of fresh water to go around, unanimously declared as being the shortest route to oblivion.
                            Maybe some innovation is in order by those robotic sex toys that are going to take over the planet.

                            http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...imes-over.html

                            Joe Mobley
                            Signature

                            .

                            Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781811].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                            Overpopulation, if by some amazing act could it be orchestrated to get the world to agree that their were just too many mouths to feed and service with power and recourses and that the world was really only suited to servicing one billion people instead of seven going up. Then, restricting of births worldwide could within one generation bring this demand down so dramatically that all but the natural disasters would be alleviated.
                            I've thought for 20+ years that we need to do something about overpopulation. It would solve myriad problems our planet is currently facing (including most listed in the OP). Unfortunately, the constant dilemma is how to go about restricting births globally.

                            The right to have children is one of the most inherent human rights there is. Not to mention, many religions are against the use of contraceptives, while others encourage large families due to various beliefs. How do you get around that?

                            While I think curbing population growth asap is an absolute necessity for the sake of our planet and the future of humanity, I'm not sure there's an ethical and humane way it could be globally enforced. But if the population continues to grow at the rate it is, I believe this overcrowded planet will be a very unpleasant place 20 to 30 years from now.
                            Signature
                            If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781879].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                              I've thought for 20+ years that we need to do something about overpopulation. It would solve myriad problems our planet is currently facing (including most listed in the OP). Unfortunately, the constant dilemma is how to go about restricting births globally.

                              The right to have children is one of the most inherent human rights there is. Not to mention, many religions are against the use of contraceptives, while others encourage large families due to various beliefs. How do you get around that?

                              While I think curbing population growth asap is an absolute necessity for the sake of our planet and the future of humanity, I'm not sure there's an ethical and humane way it could be globally enforced. But if the population continues to grow at the rate it is, I believe this overcrowded planet will be a very unpleasant place 20 to 30 years from now.
                              Well, china at least DID have a one child policy. Apparently they now have a kind of license you can buy to have another. A lot of stupid people figured a male was better for whatever reason, and they, last I heard, have a shortage of females. Outside of THAT thinking, the old idea was a nice compromise.

                              As for the belief issue, I COULD mention an interesting hypocritical view, actually, I could mention TWO! Between the two, it represents EASILY about 50% of the current worlds population. ALAS, that would be..... You know.

                              As for limiting growth, it is WORSE than that. The world is actually ENCOURAGING, and PAYING for it, under the pretense of humanitarian aid! And how is THAT humane? You "help" out one person only to go back a few years later finding her bad off, with the 4th kid she has had since, and the only one currently living. That not only uses money, but food, and limits water, and spreads disease.

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782001].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                              Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                              I've thought for 20+ years that we need to do something about overpopulation. It would solve myriad problems our planet is currently facing (including most listed in the OP). Unfortunately, the constant dilemma is how to go about restricting births globally.

                              The right to have children is one of the most inherent human rights there is. Not to mention, many religions are against the use of contraceptives, while others encourage large families due to various beliefs. How do you get around that?

                              While I think curbing population growth asap is an absolute necessity for the sake of our planet and the future of humanity, I'm not sure there's an ethical and humane way it could be globally enforced. But if the population continues to grow at the rate it is, I believe this overcrowded planet will be a very unpleasant place 20 to 30 years from now.
                              This is the sole basis for the Millenuem Doctrines and talks at the UN that started in 1990. They wanted to enforce one child laws globally, but knew they couldn't do it without major revolutions. When the whole planet is at stake, the individual right to drop as many kids as they want is decimated. They thought education and birth control in some third world areas where women are dropping babies faster their their existing children are starving to death. It's not working, and basically it's because of foreign aid that it's not. There are many countries already whose populations exist at all because they are being maintained artificially, and the country itself can not sustain even a fraction of them.

                              Actually - GMOs, although they have been proven to be disastrous for every ecosystem on the planet are still being pushed because they are a sterilization method. So are vaccines. People will argue with that, but when you get down and dirty about having to save the planet because of mass producers, it's completely naive to think that the PTB won't use anything in their power that won't cause global revolt to population control. GMOs sterilize within 3 generations and cause millions of deaths each year. Vaccines - it's arguable they work at all for most things (whooping cough and polio should both be wiped off the planet by now if they worked as people are told. If they do work against the particular illness they are given for, they still tank the immune system, allowing for something else to move in and wipe the body out. In doses high enough (they are giving american kids 49 different vaccines, each with levels of high poisons such as mercury as many as 25,000 times the allowable level prescribed by the FDA, EPA, etc. Many of these vaccines have found to have sterilization chemicals mixed in them. Bill Gates himself is quoted as saying if we can vaccinated the world we can cut population growth by 10 to 15%.

                              Ebola has been contained in most regions - it's still raging in Seirra Leon - why can they not stop it when everyone else seems to be able to? Maybe they don't want to. That population lives in abject poverty at its worse. Perhaps they are just cleaning up their poverty level and letting the people die fast instead of starving to death over years. I'm not saying they started the epidemic - just that for some reason, they aren't cleaning it up like the rest of the world manages to - even with the vast amounts of human and financial aid they've had to do so. What's up with that?
                              Signature

                              Sal
                              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                              Beyond the Path

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782017].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                Ebola has been contained in most regions - it's still raging in Seirra Leon - why can they not stop it when everyone else seems to be able to? Maybe they don't want to. That population lives in abject poverty at its worse.
                                Did you watch that video with Stefan Molyneux? I alluded to that kind of behavior in my FIRST post, though my impression was only a taste of what HE spoke of.

                                The US is like many countries today feeling that these little pathogens are all over the body, and courtesies be DAMNED! A corpse is mainly a literal SHELL of what the person was. The body is carefully taken away and made uninhabitable by nearly any pathogen. That means cremation at incredible temperatures and/or embalming. If there is a "showing", people are to not go crazy.

                                In some parts of Africa people ARE poor and in such cases often tend to continue carrying various beliefs and traditions. They DON'T embalm, and if they burn, it is at lower temperatures and later. They tend to treat the corpse as if it were alive, and they cared about the person a lot. That is kind of where my recollection and Stefans start to vary. With MINE, the spread of disease is highly likely. With HIS, it would be a miracle if diseases didn't spread faster than they have. It is currently JUST OVER 8000 deaths.

                                Steve
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782664].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Thom's issue, I think is combined with over-population. We're actually killing our soil right now, which is going to be a famine issue very shortly. Right now famine is still a man-made crisis. Once the soil is gone it will go into natural crisis. No soil. No life. Period.
                                  Actually what I'm talking about with commercial farming is a cause of over population being a problem and people going hungry.
                                  People are the same as every other living thing on this planet. When a tree feels it's existence is threatened it produces a bumper crop of seeds to insure its existence. It may produce a million seeds in hopes of one sprouting. People do the same thing. A couple living where there is little food and facing starvation will have many children in hopes of one surviving. Low survival rates require higher attempts at births. Put that same couple in a situation where food isn't an issue and they will have less children as the survival rates would be higher.
                                  By it's very nature commercial agriculture is not designed to feed the hungry or is it designed to put the food where it is needed most.
                                  Organic farming can put the food where it's needed.
                                  Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Worldwatch Institute
                                  As this article explains it takes a little more then just switching to organic though.
                                  Can organic farming feed the world? Soil Association
                                  This article explains just how serious the soil problem is.
                                  Only 60 years of farming left if soil degradation continues | Reuters
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783040].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Actually what I'm talking about with commercial farming is a cause of over population being a problem and people going hungry.
                                    People are the same as every other living thing on this planet. When a tree feels it's existence is threatened it produces a bumper crop of seeds to insure its existence. It may produce a million seeds in hopes of one sprouting.
                                    Plants usually ALWAYS seed. In fact, not having enough nutrition at the right time can cause problems.

                                    People do the same thing. A couple living where there is little food and facing starvation will have many children in hopes of one surviving. Low survival rates require higher attempts at births. Put that same couple in a situation where food isn't an issue and they will have less children as the survival rates would be higher.
                                    If only this were true. Rich or poor, many have a lot of kids. There used to be the idea that kids could provide for you later, but I don't think that is considered as much now. But people may have kids in times of famine or feast.

                                    By it's very nature commercial agriculture is not designed to feed the hungry or is it designed to put the food where it is needed most.
                                    Organic farming can put the food where it's needed.
                                    Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Worldwatch Institute
                                    As this article explains it takes a little more then just switching to organic though.
                                    Can organic farming feed the world? Soil Association
                                    This article explains just how serious the soil problem is.
                                    Only 60 years of farming left if soil degradation continues | Reuters
                                    There ARE a number of potential problems with traditional farming. But hey, look at one thing at the soil association site that shows how misguided they are!

                                    Scientists have modeled how we can feed 9 billion people in 2050 with a healthy diet in an environmentally sustainable way. French researchers assumed 3,000 kcal per person per day, with 500 kcal from animals, a decrease for higher income consumers, but an increase in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Waste reduction would reduce food demand by 25% in richer countries. Worldwide, people would eat more diverse and healthy diets, with a 25% decline in demand compared to the business as usual scenario
                                    9 BILLION people? They are NUTS! And WHY do we need 9 billion people? "healthy diet"? Usually, that is code for MALNURISHED! kcal is an official measurement that is nearly NEVER used today! IRONICALLY, a kcal is so relatively small, that it is reduced to cal! So ******FORGET****** the garbage hyped up market speak of 3000kcal! It MEANS and IS, 3000cal! SO, 500cal from animals. They ADMIT it is a "decrease for higher income(Read NOT absurdly poor) consumers"! HECK, it is often said that the reason for some ethnic groups having so much fat in their diet is because it is a cheap source of calories.

                                    Google says about the calories RDA, often recognized as small....
                                    The recommendations given for a daily calorie intake refer to an adult person with moderate activity. For women it should be around 2000 and for men 2500-2800 calories (kcal) each day.
                                    I have to wonder if they will even consider protein! 500cal, if from MEAT, is only enough for someone that weighs like 94pounds(If a skinless chicken breast). Of course that scientifically recognized(Studied, Proven, and generally accepted) amount is close to twice the RDA of 94gm(based on weight) v. 50gm(regardless of weight). And this IS for moderate activity. I'm sure they want us to work harder also.

                                    And why don't we follow the logic laid down, and have each continent provide for ITSELF? Poverty is everywhere, and Australia can help themselves better than the US can help them, and vice versa.

                                    Steve
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783140].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      Plants usually ALWAYS seed. In fact, not having enough nutrition at the right time can cause problems.
                                      True, but threaten their existence and they produce more as a defense. That's why they prune fruit trees, to trick the trees into thinking they are threatened which in turn causes the trees to produce more fruit bud sites. The trees actually will convert leaf and branch buds to fruit buds. Same applies to any plant.
                                      In fact I use a few different methods in my gardens to trick the plants into producing more. The tricks range from simple pruning to just breaking off the Apical Meristem.

                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      If only this were true. Rich or poor, many have a lot of kids. There used to be the idea that kids could provide for you later, but I don't think that is considered as much now. But people may have kids in times of famine or feast.
                                      OF course people have kids all the time Steve and rich people may have many kids because they can afford them.
                                      But the point I was trying to make is just like plants and other animals humans will instinctively produce more offspring when they feel their existence is threatened.


                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      There ARE a number of potential problems with traditional farming. But hey, look at one thing at the soil association site that shows how misguided they are!
                                      I have more faith in the soil association then you Steve

                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      9 BILLION people? They are NUTS! And WHY do we need 9 billion people? "healthy diet"? Usually, that is code for MALNURISHED! kcal is an official measurement that is nearly NEVER used today! IRONICALLY, a kcal is so relatively small, that it is reduced to cal! So ******FORGET****** the garbage hyped up market speak of 3000kcal! It MEANS and IS, 3000cal! SO, 500cal from animals. They ADMIT it is a "decrease for higher income(Read NOT absurdly poor) consumers"! HECK, it is often said that the reason for some ethnic groups having so much fat in their diet is because it is a cheap source of calories.
                                      They're not saying we need that many people, but that we have the potential to feed that many if needed.

                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      Google says about the calories RDA, often recognized as small.... I have to wonder if they will even consider protein! 500cal, if from MEAT, is only enough for someone that weighs like 94pounds(If a skinless chicken breast). Of course that scientifically recognized(Studied, Proven, and generally accepted) amount is close to twice the RDA of 94gm(based on weight) v. 50gm(regardless of weight). And this IS for moderate activity. I'm sure they want us to work harder also.
                                      I'm guessing you missed the part of the article that said we also have to change our eating habits as well as the way we produce our food.

                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      And why don't we follow the logic laid down, and have each continent provide for ITSELF? Poverty is everywhere, and Australia can help themselves better than the US can help them, and vice versa.

                                      Steve
                                      Actually they break it down more then to each continent.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783216].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                    Anyone else prepared to have a stab at answering the questions as asked?.
                    This is the OT. While you have every right to set the rules and ask other to play by them, if you expect this crowd to do so you're still under the influence of whatever it was you were pounding back last night, to ring in the new year. :-)

                    Cheers. - Frank
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781489].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      1) Overpopulation
      2) Contraception.
      Not entirely correct.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Mining actually uses up a heck of a lot of water as well. If mining was as wide spread as farming, that would be the number one cause of water depletion.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781716].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      Mining actually uses up a heck of a lot of water as well. If mining was as wide spread as farming, that would be the number one cause of water depletion.
      But it's not, so it's not
      By the way it's commercial farming, and not organic farming that uses 70% of fresh water. Not only does organic farming use far less fresh water, the water that does peculate through the soil is much, much cleaner then water from a commercial farm.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781737].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        By the way it's commercial farming
        Not to quibble over terminology, but I think you mean industrialised farming, rather than commercial. An organic farm can still be a "commercial" concern.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781800].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          Not to quibble over terminology, but I think you mean industrialised farming, rather than commercial. An organic farm can still be a "commercial" concern.
          Not really. Commercial farming is a farm set up for the sole purpose of producing crops and animals for sale with the only intention being making a profit.
          Organic farming is about sustainability. Making a profit is a side benefit (if achieved) but not the main intention. You will never find an organic farmer that's doing it solely for profit as their main goal.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781854].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      Mining actually uses up a heck of a lot of water as well. If mining was as wide spread as farming, that would be the number one cause of water depletion.
      Mining and farming don't use up a DROP of water! Oh sure, they REQUIRE water. Water from mining goes back into the echo system in as little as 0 seconds. Food ingested that has water reduces the need for water, so it is saved elsewhere. waste dries up, and restores the balance. This HAS been going on for billions of years. They talk about it in the pyramids, and the bible, etc... GEE, even AL GORE MUST admit this is the case, as his famous rising oceans theory DEPENDS on it!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781812].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alast
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        GEE, even AL GORE MUST admit this is the case, as his famous rising oceans theory DEPENDS on it!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781868].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    Yes I saw another history channel special, or part of it. But, this one was a bit different...

    Six top scientists, all specialists in their field gather together to discuss what threatens our way of life the most and what to do about it. (A plan of action) Before this, each had their own promo film before the gathering...

    1) A specialist in oil and natural resources. cited a study in 2005 commisioned by the US government (and then buried) and pronounced that fossil fuels would generally be depleted by 2030, thats just 15 years folks. He said, game over, we have enjoyed having electric power for the last 120 years or so but it's back to 18th century tech in the not too distant future.
    BULL! They don't know how much oil is there, and we are FORBIDDEN to touch much of it! STILL, if it dried up, things would simply change. technology won't revert, etc....

    2) A specialist in pandemics who thought that eventually the Earths population would eventually be decimated by a manufactured or natural virus.
    That is a GIVEN! SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW!?!?!? Still, it won't get EVERYONE.

    3) A specialist who said eventually a terrorist group would get hold of nuclear weapons and indiscriminately set them off and decimate the earth and its population.
    AGAIN, A GIVEN! But nobody has come up with a decent plan to stop it.

    4) A specialist who cited the earths supply of fresh water running out.
    You mean like all the TRILLIONS of times we ran out BEFORE? Does that "specialist" not know how water works?

    5) A specialist who said that a natural disaster from space or on the earth would do it. Global warming etc.
    POSSIBLE, but what can we do?

    6) An expert in artificial intelligence who said that machines, computers and robots could advance past our thinking process by 2025 and could become self aware and see no further use for us.
    AGAIN, COMPUTERS DON'T THINK! An "expert" in *****ARTIFICIAL***** intelligence doesn't know that?
    Hopefully nobody is DUMB enough to make a computer that can work 100% autonomously and has the control and sensors to do harm. IRobot is a case where they WERE dumb enough! Terminator was ANOTHER. Colossus The Forbin Project was yet ANOTHER. But they didn't "evolve", they merely processed the code they had and operated accordingly, outside of forbin that likely searched the databases and evolved within the confines of that instruction. It COULD be said that WE do the same thing, but we were born with that seed, and have fears and emotions as well as governments and new technologies to limit some actions. The few humans that appear to be born WITHOUT that seed never go farther. HECK, some are kind of between and must be PUSHED a lot.

    The fact is that there have been robots around for a LONG time and some have been hooked to expert systems for a LONG time, and they never strayed from the basic purpose. An expert system is basically an AI system built for a given purpose. You could think of it as an autistic savant.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    Ok, ... Questions...

    1) Which one did they all agree on without question as the most important.

    2) Which one that (in my opinion and I have mentioned it many times) was not represented in these six and would largely solve all these threats if acted upon.

    Both questions need to be answered correctly within one post.
    If I could offer a different point of view.

    1) Our failure to preemptively act on these problems.

    2) The execution of scientist, specialist and top experts in these fields.

    Joe Mobley
    Signature

    .

    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781797].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    2. This one might be the quickest, I think, because of the population being so condensed in so many areas, and the fact that we've screwed up with antibiotics so it's very likely something could rage through at any time and decimate at least populations in the big cities.

    Fortunately for us - that one would also solve the over-population issue almost overnight. Until we solve over-population, everything else is a moot point. We need to get to 1/2 of current as fast as possible or the whole earth is going to be devastated. When resources, such as water, as already mentioned, run out, large portions of population are done. Some will die off - many will be killed off in resource wars and chaos caused by populations killing each other to meet their own needs.

    Thom's issue, I think is combined with over-population. We're actually killing our soil right now, which is going to be a famine issue very shortly. Right now famine is still a man-made crisis. Once the soil is gone it will go into natural crisis. No soil. No life. Period.

    In the US the media and scientists don't talk about the extinction we're inside of right now. It's raging at several times the pace as the last great extinctions. It might not be being spoken about here because it may already be too late to stop it. You can catch talk of it sometimes from scientists in other parts of the world, though. The biggest mercy for humankind would be to have something come along that devastates about half of the humans on earth - we'd be able to stop the other extinction, turn to sustainable living, and save everything. It takes the other disaster to hit to do it, though. We've endangered ourselves in so many damned ways that it's actually a roll of the dice at this point. I would put self aware technology at the bottom of the list, whatever.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Anyone who tells you this planet can support 9 billion people is delirious. We're looking at extinction with 7 bil. We're already over carrying capacity and the effects are showing up everywhere. Maybe people don't understand what a mass extinction is. Maybe they're still convinced we're so far above nature it won't effect us because we're special.

    Thom - all dominant species over produce when conditions are favorable. Unfortunately, that backfires in the long run. Always. Still - we thought we were special. Scientists started warning to reduce population back in the 70's and were shut up for what reason I have no clue, but they were silenced on it. We had our best chance back then. Right now it's extremely iffy we can turn it around - and if we don't get the psychopaths and corporations out of control very fast, we're a done deal. At this stage of the game, we can't have people having "replacement" kids. We need negative population growth as of 2 decades ago.

    You think soil problem is fun - wait for about 8 more years when we run out of copper underground and every bit we get is from recycle. We have no replacement for copper right now and our way of life depends on it. It's not going to be pretty.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783332].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      You think soil problem is fun - wait for about 8 more years when we run out of copper underground and every bit we get is from recycle. We have no replacement for copper right now and our way of life depends on it. It's not going to be pretty.
      Nope no fun at all, extremely scary would better describe it.
      Here's the difference between our soil problem and copper problem. With copper our "way of life" depends on it. With soil "all life" depends on it.
      We can still survive without copper and have done so in the past. Other life forms can survive without copper and do so every day.
      Nothing can survive without soil. Even the nutrient cycles in our streams, lakes, and oceans depend on the soil.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783408].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Nope no fun at all, extremely scary would better describe it.
        Here's the difference between our soil problem and copper problem. With copper our "way of life" depends on it. With soil "all life" depends on it.
        We can still survive without copper and have done so in the past. Other life forms can survive without copper and do so every day.
        Nothing can survive without soil. Even the nutrient cycles in our streams, lakes, and oceans depend on the soil.

        Yeah that's true. I just think that we're going to get hit with a human crisis when copper runs out - meaning mass violence. I think it will precede the take-down of everything else. There's enough people now pushing GMO's out, that we might save ourselves as long as population size starts to come down fast enough. It's ALL scary - but actually having all those industries tanked due to loss of copper might kill off enough that we can go back to small industry and save whoever survives. Actually - I think water is going to go into crisis before we get to any of the other actual extinction crises.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783585].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Nope no fun at all, extremely scary would better describe it.
        Here's the difference between our soil problem and copper problem. With copper our "way of life" depends on it. With soil "all life" depends on it.
        We can still survive without copper and have done so in the past. Other life forms can survive without copper and do so every day.
        Nothing can survive without soil. Even the nutrient cycles in our streams, lakes, and oceans depend on the soil.
        Humans have NOT survived without copper for MILLENIA! You only THINK they haven't! Look ata good multivitamin sometime, or look at the last link I posted. Humans need VERY little each day, but they NEED it. As for other life forms? I assume most of THEM need copper also.

        SURPRISE! ****SURPRISE****! I suspected as much. WHY are plants often green? PROBABLY the COPPER(OK, cupric oxide) in the chlorophyll! After all, the human redish tinge, and red color of blood, are because of the iron(OK, ferric oxide) in hemoglobin!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783932].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Humans have NOT survived without copper for MILLENIA! You only THINK they haven't! Look ata good multivitamin sometime, or look at the last link I posted. Humans need VERY little each day, but they NEED it. As for other life forms? I assume most of THEM need copper also.

          SURPRISE! ****SURPRISE****! I suspected as much. WHY are plants often green? PROBABLY the COPPER(OK, cupric oxide) in the chlorophyll! After all, the human redish tinge, and red color of blood, are because of the iron(OK, ferric oxide) in hemoglobin!

          Steve
          I know Steve it's a considered a micro nutrient or trace element for plants. What Sal and I where talking about is mined copper.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784002].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            I know Steve it's a considered a micro nutrient or trace element for plants. What Sal and I where talking about is mined copper.
            YEP, but EARLIER, YOU were talking about soil not having nutrients, and HEYSAL spoke of all that has been mined. If you mine copper using the most ferocious technology used today, you end up with soil with virtually NO copper in it.

            They will literally mine out ALL ore, and take the apparently barren soil and use extraction methods to get all the gold, silver, copper, titanium, aluminum, etc.... out of the soil.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784116].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              YEP, but EARLIER, YOU were talking about soil not having nutrients, and HEYSAL spoke of all that has been mined. If you mine copper using the most ferocious technology used today, you end up with soil with virtually NO copper in it.

              They will literally mine out ALL ore, and take the apparently barren soil and use extraction methods to get all the gold, silver, copper, titanium, aluminum, etc.... out of the soil.

              Steve
              No I wasn't. I mentioned killing the soil but that wasn't directly about nutrients. What I was talking about was the microbes that give soil life.
              Even the intensive mining you're talking about is in certain areas and not wide spread over farm lands, etc.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      You think soil problem is fun - wait for about 8 more years when we run out of copper underground and every bit we get is from recycle. We have no replacement for copper right now and our way of life depends on it. It's not going to be pretty.
      BTW Copper IS a trace element in people, and likely other creatures, and though humans don't need much, you CAN be noticeably deficient. Copper deficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Of course, copper is ****THE**** master mineral in electric components. The US TRIED to switch to aluminum, several decades ago, but it was a DISASTER!

      Copper is just one of the most conductive materials around, and the only one that is CLOSE that is so plentiful. But you are right, we are taking a material that once was mined lightly and used where it was often recycled, and now mine it with ferocity and use it where it often ISN'T recycled.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9783911].message }}

Trending Topics