Reply #19

In the discussion thread: Population control will NOT save our environment; and why Stephen Hawking was right. [View all]

Response to Zalatix (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:52 AM

Zorra (18,806 posts)

19. "Live simply, so that others may live". (Kopi, circa 800 AD)

Quotation is halfway down the panel, on the left

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

61 replies	Author	Time	Post
Population control will NOT save our environment; and why Stephen Hawking was right. [View all]	Zalatix	Jun 2012	OP
It's not an either/or proposition.	wickerwoman	Jun 2012	#1
Population growth isn't indefinite when the whole populace is prosperous.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#3
I'm sure there are useful minerals on the moon/asteroids.	wickerwoman	Jun 2012	#5
Why should we ruin other worlds as we have our own?	Skidmore	Jun 2012	#11
LOL, you know how many stars are just in OUR Galaxy..	snooper2	Jun 2012	#22
Go with the energy source which contributes nothing to global warming	golfguru	Jun 2012	#7
Always available? Nukes are always available?	RobertEarl	Jun 2012	#42
i'm getting really sick of the use of the "breed like rabbits" crap. world fertility rate = 2.47	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#31
At the moment that's at least 1.47 more than is sustainable	wickerwoman	Jun 2012	#34
It isn't "breeding like rabbits". that phrase has so often been used to denigrate foreigners and	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#35
Inability to provide adequately for children isn't a completely subjective stance.	wickerwoman	Jun 2012	#36
bill gates has three; but since he can "adequately provide for them" why peachy keen. albeit	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#37
Sorry but I have better things to do than argue online with someone	wickerwoman	Jun 2012	#38
yes, i'm sure you have much better thing to do, like talk about poor people breeding like rabbits.	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#39
She's already declared "victory".	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#45
2.47 =1.47 = 1.0 kids per 2 parents. That's an implosion, not sustainable. Look at Japan.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#44
oops, sorry, misread you.	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#52
Uh-oh, the Luddite brigade will flame you for supporting colonizing space.	Odin2005	Jun 2012	#2
Better recycling of the resources we use, couldn't hurt, either.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#4
Well, not exactly	Scootaloo	Jun 2012	#6
Propulsion technology is inadequate to even take humans to Mars	Kolesar	Jun 2012	#9
A manned Mars mission would only cost $30 billion.	Odin2005	Jun 2012	#14
If you call the atrophied passenger that crawls out of the capsule at the end a "man"	Kolesar	Jun 2012	#21
Nuclear-electric engines would make it much easier.	hunter	Jun 2012	#24
We gotta dream!	Kolesar	Jun 2012	#25
The challenge is landing a craft capable of taking the crew back into Mars orbit	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2012	#27
I think Odin2005 meant that $30 billion would be using conventional "chemical" rockets ... eom	Kolesar	Jun 2012	#28
Elon Musk designed Dragon to land on Mars	bananas	Jun 2012	#46
That lands unmanned, and does not take off again	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2012	#48
Future versions will land and take off again.	bananas	Jun 2012	#50
Nuclear-electric makes it harder, and it is dangerous	bananas	Jun 2012	#49
The energy and effort to get something from an asteroid are magnitudes higher	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2012	#10
"an effort far greater than anything that humanity has ever done" = the space age in general.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#13
No, the space age was not that much of a technological leap, and has been tiny in scale	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2012	#17
Never heard of a space elevator, I take it?	Odin2005	Jun 2012	#15
Of course I have:	muriel_volestrangler	Jun 2012	#18
IOW we can't do it, we can't do it, we can't do it.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#30
I favor unrestricted access to birth control for all	eShirl	Jun 2012	#8
women do that when they have political-economic agency,	BOG PERSON	Jun 2012	#47
Glad to K&R	cbrer	Jun 2012	#12
You lost me at ...	GeorgeGist	Jun 2012	#16
"Live simply, so that others may live". (Kopi, circa 800 AD)	Zorra	Jun 2012	#19
The plan is to seed a number of extraterritorial colonies with a small number of elites	FarCenter	Jun 2012	#20
GREETINGS FROM ALPHA CENTAURI	Capt. Obvious	Jun 2012	#23
Greetings from Tau Ceti!	GliderGuider	Jun 2012	#26
2 things-we quadrupled in 1/2 century, soon to reach 9billion & we're not adapting to earth in time	stuntcat	Jun 2012	#29
world population in 1960 = 3,039,451,023. If it had quadrupled over 50 years population would	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#40
excuse me, in 3/4 century	stuntcat	Jun 2012	#41
i really despise the denigratory phrases like "sexing each other" "squirting out miracles"	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#53
Especially since so many rich people have more than 2.47 kids.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#56
You know I am all for colonizing space	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2012	#32
All the money in the world will NOT protect the very rich? It does in Mexico.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#57
No, that is not the kind of crash we are talking about	nadinbrzezinski	Jun 2012	#61
Population control, sustainability, space exploration, colonization and resource mining	Uncle Joe	Jun 2012	#33
Hawking was just being entertaining	KurtNYC	Jun 2012	#43
Physicist Bartlett: sustainable growth is contradiction	Democrats_win	Jun 2012	#51
duh. we'll have socialism once all the wealth is consolidated into 4 families' hands &	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#54
Population control isn't enough by itself, but it's a NECESSARY part of the solution.	Jim Lane	Jun 2012	#55
Hawking was speaking about the threat to Humanity of alien invasion	IDemo	Jun 2012	#58
That doesn't contradict what I said.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#59
The best form of population control is ending poverty.	Dash87	Jun 2012	#60

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.