Desireless (Kebir Blue)

T Mac, I'm assuming that if you desire something, this is implies that you're going to do what it takes to get it. Anyway, you haven't disproven my statement. How is the future sacrificing for our sake any different from us sacrificing for the future's sake? My point is simply a rational one. If someone is to be the sacrificial lamb, it's entirely rational to make sure it isn't you. If we've decided that someone sacrificing is the only way, all that's left is fighting.

You seem to be misunderstanding me anyway. Sacrifice is the most retarded way of handling the situation. Live simple so that others can live simple... what could possibly be wrong with this? For starters, what if neither us nor the future wants to live simply. I shouldn't live in a manner I dislike so that some future can generation can repeat the cycle unhappily over and over. There's no reason for it. If you want to live simply, cool,

"well if population grows exponentially we will need more then our one solar system we will need to spread throughout the universe conquering expanding and consuming... the plot of several alien invasion movies... and this is not the natural way for people to live"
Perhaps I should Capitalize something that you must have missed me saying.
"colonize Venus and other terrestrial planets. AFTER THAT HELLO NEW SOLAR SYSTEM"
Eventually yes we would have to go further but I think our Galaxy will last us for quite a long time. Also the people that go and Colonize would be volunteers or the military not random people that they say have to.

Antonio population growth is exponential this means if we can fit 5 billion people on a planet and we have 1 planet then in 30 years we will need 2 planets (population doubles every 30 years) then in another 30 years we will need 4 planets... then in 30 years we will need another galaxy... then in 30 years we will need 4 galaxies then 8 then 16 then 32.... all in the same time frame.... this assumes of course that what your saying is actually possible which at the current rate of technological advance it is not.... the difference between us sacrificing for the future and the future sacrificing for us is that one is inherently selfish and asinine and only a nihilist would disagree... and theres plenty of "simple" ways to live that arent terrible lifestyles so your argument is pretty irrelevant you just have to experience them or create them.. obviously theres no one right way to live but everyone can find there own way to live in harmony wit

Anyone who thinks we can alter the course of mother nature must be a really dumb sheltered person.

hey crafty watch this..... anyone who thinks that 7 billion people on the planet 13 people per kilometer doesn't affect "mother nature" must be blissfully ignorant... see how that's kind of a silly argument... unless your stance is nature will be fine and adapt and its just a matter if we will

come back when you have more profound condescending wisdom

http://applicants.mars-one.com/
it is legitament (Ik I spelled that wrong) site my science teacher showed me. It will take millions to begin colonizing a planet and even more to finish. As the ability to go to another planet opens up the population on Earth will dwindle and that of others will rise (when they are colonize-able) 30 years is a long time, and if our population doubles every thirty years then why are we stagnant in the 7 billions right now?

In 1900, the world's population was 1.65 billion
In 2008, the world population is 6.64 billion.
that's a 4.01 billion rise in 108 years

Dick head, the cosmos (mother nature) was here long before us and will be long after us. Our existance is a nanosecond of a comparative 24hr day in time.

Try as we may, do you see us beating tornadoes in the midwest US? Do you see us laughing off tsunamis?

Again, fight mother nature and there is only one winner, ever.

So, are you a dumb sheltered person? are you? huh?

so as I said your argument may be... we may very well destroy ourselves but nature will always be here... this is true but the goal we are trying to accomplish is humans still being alive.... and this also means we are talking about earth not the whole universe so your point is kind of irrelevant

"without gorilla will man survive? without man will gorilla survive? " we need nature... nature does not need us.... why are we trying to conquer nature? thanks for your point crafty

I do not see your point regarding the 4 billion increase in 104 years ...google an image of a graph of earths population ... maybe look up the definition of exponential ... population growth is not stagnant... it takes millions of what to begin colonizing a planet?... again the idea that we can keep expanding into the universe offsetting population growth is wrong its physically and mathematically impossible... and sure lets colonize a whole galaxy to sustain 30 more years of population growth... that doesn't sound bogus to you??

AH yea with out gorilla's we would, and without us Gorillas would. we won't colonize the entire galaxy that is impossible due to not being able to go on gas giants. There are videos on the world preparing for the colonization effort.

And millions of people. it will take millions of people.


and the 4 billion increase in 104 year thing was because you said that the world population doubles every 30 years.
30 fits into 100 3 times.
1.65 x 2 = 3.3
3.3 x 2 = 6.6
6.6 x 2 = 13.2

if what you say about the world population doubling every thirty years is true then by 1990 the world population would have been 13.2 billion, and by 2020 the world population would be 26.4 billion. Current world population is 7089463000 and rising. 7089463000 x 2 = 14178926000, so with what you say in 30 years our population will be 14 billion. What you say about our population does not add up mathematically as the population has onl

the last doubling of population from 3 to 6 billion took 35 years... that is my basis.... population up until recently (35 years) has been relatively stable but since agricultural advancements like the green revolution it has been shown that population growth doubles every 35 years and the rates keep going up..... i could say ohh population is stable look from 2 million BC to 7000 BC population remained about the same but that would just be inane no?..... and i still dont see the point your trying to make... the costs to send a single robot to mars is prohibitive let alone sending millions of people... the energy requirements would be fantastic maybe you should do some research and let us know how much.... they cancelled the shuttle program for a reason

goto the site I posted and read your self.

wow impressive a website that's selling some fancy merchandise ill be surprised if they send 10 people to Mars let alone millions let alone terraforming the planet.... maybe you should not be so naieve

look half their topics are about money..... merchandise donations and sponsors ... the rest is a vague mission goal that an eighth grader could write... nonsense try looking at the math and logic if we are going to send people to Mars it will be through NASA done by highly trained engineers and astronauts not some silly website.. and as far as NASA is concerned they aren't sending people into space for awhile... not that any of this is relevant

Crafty, the alternative to fighting nature is dying without a fight... I'm not sure what your point is. I'm pretty sure most people are happy with the longer life expectancy and greater standard of living compared to pre-industrial civilizations.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MarsOneProject
Search up Mars One, you'll find more then a single little website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

scarlet maybe you should do some research on pre agrarian societies let me know if you find something interesting

you keep going back to this website... but try answering some of my questions ... youtube and wikipedia are not reliable sources

Sorry. I posted my last comment and have not been back on desirless since.
Alexander Bella I gotta say you have a very good way of getting your point across....And T-Mac

It was good to see you spelling out what most people think Scarlet. It kinda proves the point that most people have lost the reason of living.

Crafty as usual was being a antagonising waste of words.......come crafty if you still about....call me a dickhead you fool!

Antonio. population is one aspect. The UN stated in 1997 I think it was that if we continue living the way we are today then 80% of the population must go. If we all live without want and desire for material things then all can stay. And thats not including all the illegal activities that are going on like dumping waste, illegal logging and poaching etc etc

Right....I want those who deny that man/woman is ~uckin~ up our futures Environment...

Mmmm...I wonder if the Capitalists (In all area's of life, not just here) that spoke out and opposed the idea that the consequences of their actions (in the name of profit) is compromising the Environment and Natural balance of their children's planet and whom still believe their Capitalistic actions of take and exploit is irrelevant in the grand scale of things have realised that if they don't openly oppose it no-one will question them?

The Forces of Nature are struggling to sort the wheat from the chaff

Six years and still going.

It's not about the Money; It's ALL about the Money.