Mankind

It was once promised with a giant leap.

Depends on your expectations

Hmmm.

Life expectancy has increased.

Infant mortality has decreased.

Democracies run many countries now and people are able to do things unheard of ten centuries ago - like criticise and make fun of leaders - and even get rid of them bloodlessly.

On the other hand...

Fisbey, do you mean knackered or doomed? At the moment you have to say that mankind in doing pretty well: world population expanding at a huge rate,a lot of traditional killer diseases conquered or controlled etc, world war averted for 60 years. However, nature has a way of finding ways to control us. HIV Aids is ravaging whole continents, religious bigotry, intolerance and hatred seems to be at an all time high and the whole world just wants more of everything - money, energy, food etc and supplies of all those are finite. Something has to give.
Are we doomed? Probably not. Can we go on as we are? Definitely not. We are almost all inherently selfish and that will be our undoing. The survivors will have to find a different way forward.

6 billion is simply too many.

We need to cut down to about 1 billion.

In a controlled way.

Cheers

Don

Let's start with Surrey.

Don

What is your (final?) solution?

I sometimes think that the JW's are right when they say man can't govern himself - not that I'm thinking of joining you understand...

quote:

Don

What is your (final?) solution?

Don't know.

I've only identified the problem and am open to suggestions.

Cheers

Don

I suppose that we could encourage couples to only have one child for each of the next two generations.

This would get the numbers down to about a billion.

Taxation could be used to encourage couples to (a) get married (b) only have one child.

No pressure. A bit like the old mortgage rebate we used to enjoy.

UN to take the lead and persuade all nations to co-operate.

I doubt if it would ever be made to work in practice (Kyoto!!!!), but it would be more civilised way to proceed than relying on HIV/Bird Flu/NBC warfare/famine etc etc

Cheers

Don

even steven hawking has said we need to move on. fascinating conversion on the bbc here

you need to select the audio clip.

Overpopulation is a myth. There's easily enough food for everybody - it's politics that keeps people hungry. Also, I think the city is a very unnatural phenomenon.

Deane,

Its not the food. It other resources. And waste products like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and sulphur etc.

If we planted enough trees we could absorb this carbon and release the oxygen. The absorbed carbon would then be recycled through the harvesting of new-growth trees.

But not enough for 6 billion of us, without inducing climate-change.

And the limited supplies of fosil fuels will go a lot further with only a billion to keep warm or on the move. Until we learn how to generate better forms of energy.

Cheers

Don

We either reduce our use of resources (and accept the inconvenience that goes with it) or

We reduce the number of users or

We let nature (including human nature) take its course

My vote is for the middle option (I aways was a "middle-of-the-road" kind of person)

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
even steven hawking has said we need to move on. fascinating conversion on the bbc here

you need to select the audio clip.

Actually Hawking is full of it. A load of infantile drivel. It was at least good to hear Appelyard in the same programme point out the total lack of substance to the baulk of what Hawking had to say.

Hawking has been basking in the glory of having developed one idea from Roger Penrose. After this has done no significant work.

All that guff about matter/anti-matter has no substance (or anti-subtstance)outside of cheap science fiction.

quote:

All that guff about matter/anti-matter has no substance (or anti-subtstance)outside of cheap science fiction.

That's a fact then? Or is it an opinion?

Don

I see what you mean, but as Chris Kelly has already pointed out, humans are a self-interested bunch and most individuals will choose people other than themselves to "reduce".

There is a vicious cycle between big-business and consumers and in less regulated and developed economies the overuse of resources is even worse than in developed countries. Business is almost entirely without conscience - as are most people - when it comes to the environment.

I am in Melbourne at the moment and drinking water is a real issue. Almost the entire country is affected by drought. I'm thinking that water will be the resource which will self-correct the human race.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

All that guff about matter/anti-matter has no substance (or anti-subtstance)outside of cheap science fiction.

That's a fact then? Or is it an opinion?

There is no evidence whatsoever that we will ever have the capability to produce a matter/anti-matter machine. Hawking presented this as an established scientific fact which it is not. The fact that this is so is not an opinion.

Deane,

I agree with what you say about man. Selfish. Greedy.

Which is why I said above...

quote:

I doubt if it would ever be made to work in practice (Kyoto!!!!), but it would be more civilised way to proceed than relying on HIV/Bird Flu/NBC warfare/famine etc etc

We just seem to be able to get the self-restraint gene to kick in.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Hawking presented this as an established scientific fact which it is not.

Did he? I thought he was just talking about the possibilities. Regardless I thought it interesting none the less, oh and related to the topic at hand.

I think we should all get off this rock so we can fook up someone elses back yard for a change.

quote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that we will ever have the capability to produce a matter/anti-matter machine. Hawking presented this as an established scientific fact which it is not. The fact that this is so is not an opinion.

I'm sure man said the same thing about flight, space travel, going faster than 60 mph. Mankind tends to ignore thses "facts" and just gets on with it.Otherwise we would still be throwing bones at each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Hawking presented this as an established scientific fact which it is not.

quote:

Did he? I thought he was just talking about the possibilities. Regardless I thought it interesting none the less, oh and related to the topic at hand.

He game me the distinct impression that the idea of a matter/anti-matter machine was definately on the scientific horizon when it is most definately not. He may as well have said that time travel is just around the corner. Hawking also suggested the ToE is only 20 years away when I could quote to you 20 quantum physicists who say that no one understand what quantum theory is really about and that is after a centuary of scientific investigation. Is it likely that a coherent theory of everything is just around the corner? Scientists have been saying that the final piece of the jigsaw is just in sight since Newton. Another issue which has been totally overlooked in this proposed ToE is where does conciousness fit in? Or doesnt conciousness count as part of everything? I can post extensive reasoning on this tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that we will ever have the capability to produce a matter/anti-matter machine. Hawking presented this as an established scientific fact which it is not. The fact that this is so is not an opinion.

I'm sure man said the same thing about flight, space travel, going faster than 60 mph. Mankind tends to ignore thses "facts" and just gets on with it.Otherwise we would still be throwing bones at each other.

A seemigly beguiling argument, but flawed nonetheless. Yes, at one time it would have seemed entirely reasonable to say man would never walk on the moon (in the middle ages for example)as none of the science or technology existed then but it was not unreasonable to say that man would never walk on the moon in 1945 when the precursor science and technology did exist. Certainly no rockets existed in 1945 that would take a man to the moon but the precursor rockets and rocket science did exist and thus it was a reasonable speculation. However, no such precursor technolgy exists today that would support the idea that we will ever be able to make matter/anti-matter propulsion machines and thus the level of speculation is as far fetched as Leonardo thinking the reality of a man on the moon was just around the corner. If Leonardo had speculated that man would one day walk on the moon he may have been prooved right in the end but what evidence would he have had circa 1500? None, absolutely none and Hawking has no evidence either but talks in such a way as to convince the unwary listener that there is evidence or that there might be evidence and this is simply misleading IMO.

There is a public and media perception that Hawking is the greatest scientific mind of the centuary when in fact his contribution is minimal compared to the true greats such as Wheeler and feynman who the average joe on the street has never heard of. If one were poll a 1,000 of the top scientists in the world as to whom they thought was the greatest mind of the late 20th centuary we might find Hawking and his tedious book not getting a look in.

So, you (Acad) are not a fan of Hawking.

Fair enough.

Cheers

Don