Interesting concepts Logan, thanks for sharing!
Welcome to the Green Forums! Please Register For Free Now!
The Green Forums member base includes well over 3,000 green forums members and 9,000 green forums posts! Be green and join our green community by registering for free today! Registration will give you full access to the Green Forums and takes just a moment to complete.
Please Join Us Right Now!
I started this thread to discuss a subject that I have mentioned elsewhere. I'll refrain from posting about it outside this thread anymore.
Read up on the subject matter if you're not familiar
Space-based solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Colonization of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Colonize the Moon | The Best Option To Save The World | Colonize the Moon, save the economy and the enviornment.
PERMANENT: Asteroid mining, space colonies, commercialization
The plan is green in many ways. It can end our dependence on fossil fuels entirely, and STOP CO2 emissions. Also, there would be no need for nuclear power. In addition the secondary environmental impact of manufacturing renewable energy power plants would even be gone. It can also make dirty production processes less viable to clean ones.
The only obstacle is that Launch costs are extremely high. The only way to overcome the launch cost obstacle is by way of the moon. If mankind goes to the moon he must take life with him! People in space need food, air, companion animals, etc.
Another possible advantage is that in the long term it may help to reduce our population problems on earth. Less people use less resources. It's a long story, so if you have any questions ask away.
Are you saying we could reduce our population problem by settling on the Moon? One of the problems with that is we are running low on fresh water already because of the growing population here. Not even desalination of sea water can keep up with the growing demand. Wouldn't it be more effective to expand peaceful family planning programs so families would birth only as many children as each local environment can support? If not, our growth instinct may destroy us.
Ah nrdthxpr my friend, thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a lengthy discussion on the topic on this thread, rather than all over the forum like before. I look forward to it, and hope you do to!
Water is directly dependent on energy, desalinization is the means by which sea/ocean water is converted into salt and potable water. Desalinization bypasses the natural process by witch all other freshwater is created, and is uses extreme amounts of energy to do so. Since fresh water comprises the smallest percentage (don't care to look it up, but I think the number was 3%) and saltwater comprises the largest percentage then if energy is abundant the freshwater problem is solved (temporarily). Furthermore, Space Power Satellites are "location independent" that means that power can be sent to remote 3rd world countries without building large infrastructures (powerlines, powerplants, docks, railroads, etc) that are required before building a desalinization/purification plant. BUT! this is not just a 3rd world problem. So to be blunt you're right desalinization cannot keep up, but it's due to the price of energy. To keep it on track there's a subtlety to the truth.
Be careful when mentioning this subject, and yes you did say peaceful, but the fear mongers/haters out there will scream bloody murder at this. To them it smacks of mandatory family planning that we've seen happen in India, China, etc. I agree that family planning is a good initiative to have on the worlds plate, but the sad reality is that the vast majority of humanity will not be on board for the initiative. It is something that can and will help, but by no means is it a solution to the entire population problems of the world. The only way to make is a comprehensive solution is to make it mandatory, and this is why it is a scary subject.
I do not believe that the world can sustain the current population, and I think we agree here. I do not see Space Power Sats/Moon Colonization as an immediate solution to the problem, but more of a long term soluiton, and I think this needs furthur explaination. So if it is a part of the solution to the problem, why the opposition?
We had some chats on this, but I'll save this stuff for later. I realize I didn't communicate it very well previously. Since this is a green forum, I hope we can has out a lot more about the Gaia theory... Did you know that there's a guy on youtube that has a lot of videos that have to do with Gaia/Moon stuff gaiaselene or something like that.
Thankyou for this discussion, which I have been wishing for. There should be more of it on Green Forum, and I wonder why there is so little.
Modern Man has a delusion that he can replace Nature with technology, but although great benefits come from our technical progress, Man pushes it to such extremes that disaster is too often the result, as we see in the dying Gulf of Mexico.
In the case of space based electrical power, it assumes the need for it by a relentlessly growing human population, which I think we agree the Earth cannot sustain. The solution, in my opinion, is very simple and very difficult: Give all women the legally protected right to decide if and when to birth their children. As it is now the very idea drives male supremists up the wall in a fury of Biblical condemnation, or Qur'anic rage and violence, as it has down through the centuries, because men instinctively yearn for power to make them feel secure and immune to the symbols of death they often feel surrounded by in a World where all life must kill and devour life to live. So, the struggle for equal rights for everyone continues to be many centuries long and extremely difficult -- but absolutely necessary for human survival on Earth.
In our Modern Times when women have the right to decide, very few want 5, 6, 7, or 8 children. More want none at all. But the vast majority want no more or less than 1, 2, or 3, because they can feel reasonably sure of their survival with the help of modern medicine.
In ancient times it was almost the opposite since disease so often killed all but 1 or 2. Then, in a tribal society, a large family meant a powerful family. Not so today, instead only rich people can afford 10 children, while poor people struggle and suffer as the husbands blame everybody but themselves for their families' misfortune.
Thus, if women are free to choose, the human population will naturally reduce itself back into a healthy balance with the Natural World that we cannot live without.
So, there it is: the forbidden philosophy of social eqality for all. I'm not a Communist, more like a very peaceful anarchist (buzz-words!) believing in the ideal of a network of peacefully self-reliant villages, free to trade with harm to none, that use technology wisely and deliberately surround themselves with healthy wilderness, and thus have no need for big corporations or big government. My home page explains more.
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 05-27-2010 at 06:51 AM.
Before I reply I have to ask a simple question.
We are talking about voluntary birth control/contraception, not mandatory, are we?
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 05-29-2010 at 05:36 AM. Reason: spelling
Well if that's the case then we both have very steep mountains in front of us. Both the concepts that we advocate require a large amount of education, and have very little presence in the public consciousness.
That said I do not believe that birth control is a comprehensive solution. The right to birth control or contraception must be voluntary, and the rage that you speak of will happen if it is a requirement rather than a right. This is what many fear from the green movement, a hidden agenda to remove the free choices that people are allowed to make. That fear quickly degrades to hate, and it shuts people out quickly.
Contrarily I have the same problem when trying to show the solution that I'm advocating. Those who want to live in harmony with mother earth see technology as the enemy, humanity itself as the enemy. It is a difficult position to take that technology must be used for the good of life (not just humanity) in order to create balance.
Technology and birth control
I do not believe that the vast majority of women desire to procreate less, sure some may want less, but the numbers are not effective at reducing the population. The only use that allowing access to birth control, and contraception, to the world's women would be growth reduction.
That said birth control itself is a technology, albeit less obvious. Unless we’re like the horses in Gulliver’s Travels that procreate by committee then there is no conceivable way to remove the concepts of choice and technology without the oppression of governance. To see that birth control is a technology, just look at the third world countries and their birthrates. Only more advanced countries are able to take advantage of the “technology” of birth control effectively enough to reduce population growth.
So it is a good tool, but it's use is limited by the education of the people who have access, and only technology seems to give that type of education.
Malthusianism: technology, ambulation, and trade
I do agree that the delusion to replace nature with technology exists, and disagree with the desire in full. Man needs life to live, for air, for food, and for beauty. There is a yin/yang effect that does occur with tech. To quote a man in my industry:
“…the Industrial Revolution which brought humankind civilization (positive) but also inflicted on us the problem of pollution (negative)…” Michael Niu Airframe Stress Analysis
The Malthusian theory has been proven wrong since it’s conception. The reasons stated for this has been cited as technology, and the industrial revolution. I would add several other reasons that it has been shown as false; trade, our nature to explore, and a moral case against war and killing. Where other species tend to lack an enormous desire to move to new environments, men tend to seek out, to wander. Also, in general, we are the only species that trades; this means that inhospitable environments can become hospitable, because non-existent resources can be brought from a remote location and traded for abundant resources in the given locale. More recently in history, we have removed the “natural” means by which we control our own growth, but if war is nature, I cannot agree, that it is… a paradox. I think this paragraph reads like Al Gore’s intro to Inconvenient Truth. These desires reach so far that we have a presence in Antarctica, and the people there trade knowledge itself for their livelihood.
The Gaia Theory
The Gaia Theory has profound implications if true. The basic principle is that life requires opposites. The truth is that man needs life, needs nature, needs it to breath, needs it to eat, needs it for beauty. Science fiction portrays a future where men live in lifeless spaceships, and barren wasteland worlds, it is quite a stretch of reality. This cannot be! If we go into space, the impetus will be technology, but without bringing other species along we will die in space. The lesson will be learned or it will not happen. Biomass is extremely important, yet underestimated by all but the fewest who advocate for space. Without a mass ratio of 1000 to 1 of life man dies, it’s needed to be there for our air, for our food, and for our souls. The point to make is quite profound though, if man cannot replace life/nature with technology, he must learn to live with Mother Nature, and protect it.
Before, I spoke of the Gaia Theory being earths “xxx organ”, that was somewhat incorrect. I doubt Mother Nature is a tranny. I guess a better way to say it as Earth/Gaia/Mother Nature is pregnant with man. Our purpose is to take life, and give it new frontiers, to free it from the bounds and chains of earth, to make more places like earth. This is difficult to explain most of the time. These are only personal beliefs, that stem from GT so do with them what you will.
I will cede that technology has caused an imbalance, at the very least a heavy imbalance. Until our abilities (tech) are used for the good of life, instead of just the good of humanity the imbalance will continue. That is why I advocate for SPS, space is the only place where it is a requirement that technology be used for the good of all life. So if I speak of a relentlessly growing human population, it must include all of the factors that have helped us beat Malthusianism, or else famine, plagues, war, and pestilence will take over.
Notes on Communism and Anarchism
The only flaw in large scale communism is that, for it to exist, the resource must be infinitely abundant. Effectively we’re all communists when it comes to air, in some ways to our detriment. Since the sun puts out so much energy, we could eventually become communists with energy. I’m not sure I like the idea, but I’m just putting it out there.
I find a funny thing with Anarchists is that often they are also agnostics, and are very opposed to Globalization and world government. What I find funny about this is that the Bible has a story about the moral implications of a united/monolithic humanity. The Tower of Babel.
I look forward to a lengthy reply, and hope that we can keep the flame out of this discussion. I have some points about the village thing, but as I’ve typed to much already I’m going to cede the floor for a while to you.
Last edited by moonus111; 05-31-2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason: s
I must in good conscience reply to all your many valid points so as not to seem to be ignoring any of them, but this will take awhile.
The rage against birth control does not come from fear of a green dictatorship, but fear of a loss of domination to any influence at all. Male supremacy is an instinct, which is why it is so hard to overcome, in one man, or in a society of men. Thus, the struggle for equal rights for women and minorities continues to be very difficult because the advances can be overturned at any moment by organizations of men who refuse to think about what they are doing, but make every rationalization to promote their impulsive desire for power, to avoid thinking about death. Power over others gives a false and addictive sense of security, so the tyrant must have a demonstration of subservience at least once a day from an intimidated wife or child or an exploited employee or servant. So, because this desire is both neurotic and impulsive, any threat to it is met with rage and violence, as millions of wives, children, employees and servants have experienced down through the centuries. But little boys can be educated to respect their sisters and the girls at school, if their fathers would allow it, and if the law would require it, and today most U.S. men and laws do so, but the struggle goes on here and around the World.
Technology certainly should be used for the good of life, but how it is used depends on who controls it, and in this World it is under the domination of power hungry men who each have a personal agenda for always more wealth and influence onward an upwards to the other planets and stars. The sci-fi "Alien" series expresses this very well.
But used for gentle purposes by ladies and gentlemen, technology gives all of us longer and happier lives.
When a woman has a baby she is occupied for at least several years of intensive care-giving, which means all of her other activities must be put aside. If a woman is required by church dogma and her husband's ambition to birth "as many babies as God will allow" then she has no life of her own, but is forced to work most of her life without pay or relief, unless her husband is rich and can afford servants. In one form or another, that has been the history of women for thousands of years, until modern democracy evolved from all the suffering to create a more rational and humane way of life. But any political movement masquerading as a freedom-loving cause may reverse the progress and re-install the tyranny, if the people have been sufficiently dumbed down to allow it, like the "Tea Party" movement.
I don't bother with Malthuse, who wrote so long ago his theory is irrelevant. My thinking arises from my own experience and that of others. If there is any similarity it is accidental.
The "Gaia theory" is not a theory, but a fact, in my opinion. But it's more than we have realized until very recently. Scientists thought no life could exist without sunlight. Then they discovered living plants around undersea volcanic vents, and eventually a whole ecology is being revealed. This means that, following the law of opposites, planet Earth is divided into two adjascent but seperate ecologies, one above the ocean and one below. This also means that the origin of oil could not have been a series of catastrophic earth quakes and volcanoes compressing and cooking huge amounts of vegetation, but instead an ongoing gestation within the core, mantle and crust system that creates the Earth's gravity. Thus, oil is being continually produced, like a blood stream to lubricate its inernal movements. So, the Earth really is a living system, more so than we ever imagined.
But I disagree that Gaia is pregnant with Man whose purpose is to take life into Cosmic space. If that were true, then it would be a cancer cell, since Man impulsively conquers, kills and devours everything he discovers. Instead, we have a choice, follow the macho instinct to invade and exploit everything forever, or live in peace and balance here on Earth and let appropriate technology provide us with a virtual paradise, all our reasonable needs and wants satisfied. Obviously, I choose peace and balance, but I fear the Earth may not survive long enough for the human race to get even close to such a decision. The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico could spread around the World.
Peaceful Anarchism is confounded by violence, but I agree with the theory of local self-reliance and cooperation. Communism and Socialism fail as economic systems because no bureaucratic committee can plan for every town and village across a nation. Only free enterprise is capable of doing so because money exchange involves everyone everywhere. But too much of any good thing turns it bad, so capitalism rode rough shod over the World for the upper class of robber barons that today rule the World using the tactics of organized crime. What is the solution? Peacefully reduce the human population and there will be no growing Market to corrupt and pollute the Earth. Besides, on a cooling and shrinking planet a growing economy has no future.
To survive, Mankind must learn to control and re-educate the macho instincts that threaten the Earth with ecocide and all of us with self-extinction. Is there still time to decide, or must we greedily and stupidly bleed Mother Earth to death?
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 06-01-2010 at 09:54 AM.
I don't think society should get paranoid about the earth for it has ways of cleaning itself and I don't like the thought of some eliteists thinking the earth is over populated and destroying the earth and plan something to counter it that we will all regret. Don't get me wrong, the earth needs our help.
Why can't we harness the energy from the earths core?
You admit "...the Earth needs our help..." but you don't say from what. Obviously it needs help to protect it from us humans. So, what are we doing wrong? You say "there is no population problem" so I guess you assume it's OK to grow our population to 7 billion and beyond and expand our industrial economy all over the planet. The problem is the Earth is not growing to accomodate that growth. Instead, it slowly cooling and shrinking, as is has ever since it was formed as a huge glob of swirling hot gases with its parent Sun. So our human ambitions are on a collision course with the Earth's declining resources as it shrinks with each volcano and earthquake, and the more oil and minerals we extract the more shrinkage. But a growing population needs more and more, not less, but that means more pollution, billions of tons accumulating in land fills and ocean dumping, and now millions of gallons of leaking oil from B.P.'s money-saving violation of safety procedures.
So, what is the answer? We certainly do NOT have to "do away" with anyone, as you suspect is the intent of "elitists". The solution is quite simple and very difficult because it requires self-discipline from each and every one of us, especially men. Give each woman on Earth the legally protected right to decide if and when to birth her children. Only a few want 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 children. More want none at all. But the vast majority want no more than 1, 2, or 3 because today they can be fairly sure they will survive with the help of modern medicine. Then, a smaller and better educated human population will not need more and more of everything, but live voluntarily within the ability of the environment to support them, and then there will be plenty of resources for everyone.
But the women of poor nations who are dominated by organized religions and trapped in poverty and male supremacy are expected to birth "all the children that God will allow", God in this case misrepresented for the lust and power of churches and ambitious men who think a large family is automatically a powerful family even if there is no way to support it. It is a delusion.
We are dealing with a growth instinct here, so it is very difficult for people to think outside that box, but if they fail to do so, the consequences will be as you say "the Earth has ways of healing itself", like.........? We know it's a living biosphere, so it could simply die from the toxicity of growing tons of pollution, including millions of gallons of spilling oil that could spread throughout the global ocean.
Ask this question: How many people and how much pollution can the Earth support and tolerate, and for how much longer?
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 06-02-2010 at 07:43 AM.
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 06-03-2010 at 01:32 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)