Can humans live sustainably?

[leftyman]

Yes, its been done before. Although I imagine there would be quite an original die off.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't worry about it...
famine= fixed!

sustainable is different from an optimal situation. sustainable might mean turning the rain forest into farmland and causing mass extinctions to support a massive population growth for instance.

You can't turn a rainforest into farmland. That should be common knowledge!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't worry about it...
famine= fixed!

sustainable is different from an optimal situation. sustainable might mean turning the rain forest into farmland and causing mass extinctions to support a massive population growth for instance.

You can't turn a rainforest into farmland. That should be common knowledge!

/taps sarcasm meter

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't worry about it...
famine= fixed!

sustainable is different from an optimal situation. sustainable might mean turning the rain forest into farmland and causing mass extinctions to support a massive population growth for instance.

You can't turn a rainforest into farmland. That should be common knowledge!

naw... rainforrest makes some good starbucks coffee!

 

[Rogodin2]

I want to thank everyone that took the time to vote.

Thanks!

Rogo

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't worry about it...
famine= fixed!

sustainable is different from an optimal situation. sustainable might mean turning the rain forest into farmland and causing mass extinctions to support a massive population growth for instance.

You can't turn a rainforest into farmland. That should be common knowledge!

naw... rainforrest makes some good starbucks coffee!

Uh no, it doesn't. Deforested rainforest in Brazil is typically used to grow sugar cane to make ethanol for fuel.

But you're right in a way, as I've noted in all the OP's troll threads from last night, sustainable in the global environmental sense is not a properly defined concept. It can't take 2, 3, or 10 planets to support our current population, as we're already doing it with one and only one. Humans are animals like any other, and are firmly a part of nature, not outside it. And like any other animal, nature has already adapted us for sustainability in our environment. When we overpopulate and resources run scarce, we kill off the excess through war.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
When this planet is ready it will shake us off like a bunch of fleas,
sooner rather that later I think but I I'll be Long gone bye then...

that sounds like haiku

 

[Chaotic42]

To give a serious answer, I think that we *can*, but we won't. I believe that to do so would require a level of cooperation that is well beyond our current capabilities. We'd need fusion power. I believe that is the key to the future of humanity. With very cheap electricity, we can do wonders.

 

[Rogodin2]

I believe that is the key to the future of humanity. With very cheap electricity, we can do wonders.

I hope we're able to find a replacement for cheap energy. You're right, fusion has the potential to replace our coal fired powerplants.

Thanks for the serious answer Chaotic42.

Rogo

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Now quit listening to the whackjobs on Coast to Coast and figure things out for yourself.

These posts are initiated by my own experience of draining 1000s of gallons of diesel (and spent oil) into the irrigation canals that feed the wheat that you buy in your grocery store.

The religion of stomach is what I've seen and what is so horrible.

Industrial Agriculture is something none of you have seen. It's so unatural that you wouldn't believe it. Look up 'quincy' pesticides.

Rogo

Did he just admit to illegal dumping? Somebody should really contact the EPA on this guy. One quick call to a judge to get a warrant for his IP from this site and he can spend some quality time in federal PMITA prison.

Edit: Assuming his profile is correct, here's the EPA page for his state: http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/contact.htm

Personally I'd like to see this troll put away, if only so we didn't have to listen to his bullsht anymore.

 

[Rogodin2]

Eli

We are intelligent enough and have the technology to deal with just about anything the universe can throw at us, except meteors and comets.

This is a belief that I've always been curious about. What premises are you proposing for such a belief?

Rogo

 

[Rogodin2]

Did he just admit to illegal dumping? Somebody should really contact the EPA on this guy. One quick call to a judge to get a warrant for his IP from this site and he can spend some quality time in federal PMITA prison.

I didn't own the company but as a super I was under pressure to drain our oil and blown sediment bowl diesel into pits dug under our John Deere machines. This happened 10 years ago. Try to report me Booba.

Rogo

 

[potato28]

Nope, we can try to make up the ground that we destroyed in the past though.

 

[ppdes]

I hope not. We're never going to go take over the solar system and whatnot if we don't start feeling the pressure here.

 

[BoberFett]

Here's a private message I received from Rogodin

Why are you a poopsnake?

A green one even! LOL

You complacent wankers always make me laugh.

Rogo

I'm pretty sure he's mentally retarded.

 

[tersome]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
So

I've one more question for you-would you mind having spent fuel rods plugged down within a 40 mile radius of your home?

Rogo

here's a wiki quote for you.

Coal and coal waste products including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulferization contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination. While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released, resulting in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants.

anyways, yucca mountain is 1,332 miles from my house, so i'm not worried.

 

[Rogodin2]

'm pretty sure he's mentally retarded.

You're more of a child than I am. And the mods let you get away posting 'retarded' on the forum?

Rogo

 

[Rogodin2]

tersome

resulting in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants.

Thanks for the quote, I'd still ask the same question.

Rogo

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Swag1138
I think that it is the height of arrogance to think that we could destroy this planet that has been here far longer than we have. Even after we kill ourselves off with nukes, this planet will come back.

There is no question about that - but the common definition of destroying the planet is making unsiutable or rather unenjoyable for human life or rather our expanding lifestyle

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

'm pretty sure he's mentally retarded.

You're more of a child than I am. And the mods let you get away posting 'retarded' on the forum?

Rogo

Get away with? Mental retardation is an actual disorder, one from which you suffer. I fail to see how that I'm "get[ting] away" with anything, simply discussing medically recognized problem and how it affects people such as yourself.

BTW, here's the next private message he sent me:

Booba

Don't post in any thread I create.

Thanks

Apparently calling me "Booba" and everyone else "wankers" is what passes for being an adult in his mind. Yes, I'd say the evidence for mental retardation is piling up quite quickly here.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI
Wow 50 50 poll results. I don't think we can at our current population. If the population decreases a lot then yes we can live sustainably

We cant decrease population - the economy would collape.
See capitalism is not about decreasing, not even in terms of population - capitalism only works with growth. Only with growth will there be enough jobs, only with growth will there be enough young ppl to feed the old, only with growth will we feed the growing population and so on and so on. There is just one thing that doesnt play along - earth ...

 

[Rogodin2]

Apparently calling me "Booba" and everyone else "wankers" is what passes for being an adult in his mind. Yes, I'd say the evidence for mental retardation is piling up quite quickly here.

Mods-please delete this user from my threads, he doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the discussion.

Thanks

Rogo

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Apparently calling me "Booba" and everyone else "wankers" is what passes for being an adult in his mind. Yes, I'd say the evidence for mental retardation is piling up quite quickly here.

Mods-please delete this user from my threads, he doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the discussion.

Thanks

Rogo

Mods-please delete this user from this forum, he doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the forums. Unless you consider calling everybody "wanker" a contribution.

Thanks

Bober

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI
Wow 50 50 poll results. I don't think we can at our current population. If the population decreases a lot then yes we can live sustainably

We cant decrease population - the economy would collape.
See capitalism is not about decreasing, not even in terms of population - capitalism only works with growth. Only with growth will there be enough jobs, only with growth will there be enough young ppl to feed the old, only with growth will we feed the growing population and so on and so on. There is just one thing that doesnt play along - earth ...

I'm no economist but I don't believe that's necessarily true. A decreasing world population would be a good thing if capitalism adapts.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
So

Yes, easily, with nuclear power and a rational reprocessing cycle, we can outlive the sun.

I can't wait for such an epiphany! What's the global solution for energy consumption? Don't posit 'nuclear' without numbers to back it up.

Rogo

The global solution is more nuclear. We can live at our current level of technology with today's energy consuption essentially forever with nukes.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

Specifically: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html#1

I hope you do know, that less then a third of the worlds energy consumption is electricity. And I hope you realize the scale of what you are proposing. Nothing against nuclears but it is merely a small part to a solution, certainly not THE solution