How Can We Survive

[Ozymandyus]

Seriously, learn what a logical fallacy is before you try to claim that people are making them. Someone citing a peer reviewed study is not an appeal to authority. Now if someone was quoting what Chuck Norris thinks about farming methods, that would be an appeal to authority.
Of course, if Chuck Norris's quote happened to include a reference to evidence, such as this study, then we are back to not a fallacy. In any case, you clearly have no idea what constitutes an appeal to authority.

 

[Miranox]

No offense, but I think your knowledge on this subject might be a little deficient.

The cumulative effect of multiple nuclear explosions can create massive firestorms, and seismic activity, the dust and rock kicked up by them could cause a global darkening similar to a largescale meteor strike, or super-volcano, and high yield nuclear blasts in the upper atmosphere might even destabilise the Van-Allen radiation belt that protects us from much UV radiation.

And then there's good old radioactive contamination to consider which could poison the atmosphere, both natural and human controlled water supplies, and all the food.

If a large scale nuclear war broke out nowhere would be safe, and our survival as a species would be uncertain.....of that we can be certain.

It would take a LOT of nukes to deliver the same energy as the impact of a meteor only a few kilometers across. True enough a large number could cause all the things you mentioned but just like a meteor impact it`s hard to work out what the effects would be and how many nukes it would take to trigger firestorms, seismic activity, etc. I did not say it`s impossible to wipe out all humans with nukes. However, cities occupy a small percentage of all landmass. Most of them have no reason to be targeted so humanity may survive a nuclear war. It all depends on the number of bombs used and where they are detonated.

You are very optimistic. We could destroy most life on this planet in the next hundred years from global climate change alone.

But even if some of us did survive our stupidity, that would just reboot the problem and we'd end up given the chance to wipe out everything all over again in a few millenia or centuries perhaps.

I think it`s a big exaggeration to say humans cannot survive the next 100 years of climate change. Yes, if drastic climate change happens too quickly over the entire planet then it may kill most life. This does not mean that all humans will die. Most animals would be doomed if their environment changes quickly but the difference between them and humans is that they rely on genetic adaptations. Humans can adapt quickly to just about any environment on the planet thanks to the use of tools, clothing, etc.

 

[5810Singer]

@Miranox

Actually if properly placed the interlacing effect of multiple nuclear blasts could do comparable damage to the asteroid that hit at the end of the reign of the dinosaurs (can't remember epoch name, too tired).

In regard to cities being the main targets,, missile silos and other military sites would be key targets, and they are often found in rural and wilderness areas.

 

[xman]

Nope, I won't do that. Not because there aren't any out there but because you're falling into a logical trap of authority.

This emperor has no clothes. Unless you can provide the evidence, you FAIL?

 

[Niocan]

This emperor has no clothes. Unless you can provide the evidence, you FAIL?

Sorry, but this discussion is about surviving the future and my idea of moving to more decentralized skills (Or rather, educating the populace on self sustainability) still stands; My additional point about the benefits of growing your own food stands on its own. On top of that, you won't have to encounter any cheap shortcuts that the food industry tends to use to compensate for their own weaknesses like intensive growing methods, transportation, shelf life, and the like (as I've said before).

The study linked is a fallacy of trusting your father-state, and is nothing short of a PR champaign aimed at the 'logic'-locked to prime the populace for Codex Alimentarius; You see, it's their own justification for not growing food the way it should be.

 

[scalyblue]

...end of the reign of the dinosaurs (can't remember epoch name, too tired).

k / t boundary event, or chicxulub event, if you ascribe to the alvarez posit

@Niocan, state the evidence which you have used to determine that the published and peer-reviewed paper you haven't read is fallacious.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Stop trying to make him produce evidence he obviously doesn't have. He doesn't trust the authority that you cite, and apparently evidence will not sway his opinion. Just ignore him and move on.

Anyway, We can survive by paying attention, and monitoring our environments, tracking the changes, and focusing our resources on problems as they arise. I know, not very specific, but the question isn't really all that specific either. I honestly do not believe that we are in all that much danger. But, if it takes us being afraid all the time in order to pay attention to the possible threats to our survival, then so be it.

In any case, the need for growing your own crops and learning to fend for yourself has been a common theme in doom sayers for a long, long time. Do it if you want, but I'll keep doing the work of educating the young and urging people to look at our problems and seek solutions - there is nothing we face that cannot be fixed by hard work and imagination.

Of course, I do have a vegetable and herb garden. But only because I don't like going to the store every couple days.

 

[scalyblue]

Stop trying to make him produce evidence he obviously doesn't have. He doesn't trust the authority that you cite, and apparently evidence will not sway his opinion. Just ignore him and move on.

Have to keep giving him a chance, ^.^

 

[Grimlock]

I just played through Bioshock 2 (great game ) anyways it made me think, up until now we have only some surface areas to populate and it has its limits as we are running out of space.

But what if we could use the sea floor also? As we all know 70% of Earths surface is covered by water that,´s a lot of potential living space and if nothing else it would be a brilliant testing ground for colonizing Mars and other planets.

Now i know there will be several problems with such a task: First of any human living on the sea floor will be cut of from the sun and as such will need extra vitamin D as would otherwise be gained from the sun, because as we all know without them we would soon face serious health problems.
Another problem would properly also be our waste (not just the ones our body exceeds) but also other kinds of waste product we humans are known to produce a lot of times such things are just burned and the airborne particles let out into the sky, down there such things would properly kill all life in the sea for miles around.

There would be tons of other problems combined with it.

But still i can,´t help but to think that such drastic measures (as trying to make a city down there) might be what would be needed if the human race is to survive.

 

[sgrunterundt]

Does anyone ever read this topic line?

How did this thread become only about food production and population growth?

Hawking was talking about things that could lead to the extinction of the human species. Exponential growth is hardly going to do that. If half the human population were to die of famine because of overpopulation in the future it would just mean that we'd be back to 4 billion.

Nuclear war, designed pandemic and asteroid impact are about the only things that have a shot.

 

[IvantheLizard]

I just played through Bioshock 2 (great game ) anyways it made me think, up until now we have only some surface areas to populate and it has its limits as we are running out of space.

But what if we could use the sea floor also? As we all know 70% of Earths surface is covered by water that,´s a lot of potential living space and if nothing else it would be a brilliant testing ground for colonizing Mars and other planets.

Now i know there will be several problems with such a task: First of any human living on the sea floor will be cut of from the sun and as such will need extra vitamin D as would otherwise be gained from the sun, because as we all know without them we would soon face serious health problems.
Another problem would properly also be our waste (not just the ones our body exceeds) but also other kinds of waste product we humans are known to produce a lot of times such things are just burned and the airborne particles let out into the sky, down there such things would properly kill all life in the sea for miles around.

There would be tons of other problems combined with it.

But still i can,´t help but to think that such drastic measures (as trying to make a city down there) might be what would be needed if the human race is to survive.

Too many problems with that idea. Way too many in terms of logistics. Now a well placed city simply floating on the water would reduce the logistics problems significantly. You get the necessary sun exposure, You do not have to worry about reinforcing everything to withstand massive pressure over a long period of time. But since wee are considering the ocean floor as an extreme, why not the Moon?

 

[xman]

Some more ideas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtol8mBqEXI&feature=sub

PS Sorry, I can't get this one to link properly. If a mod can fix, my gratitude.

 

[Grimlock]

Too many problems with that idea. Way too many in terms of logistics. Now a well placed city simply floating on the water would reduce the logistics problems significantly. You get the necessary sun exposure, You do not have to worry about reinforcing everything to withstand massive pressure over a long period of time. But since wee are considering the ocean floor as an extreme, why not the Moon?

That was my point with the ocean floor, as it could more or less serve as a kind of training camp for the moon and other places, as we would be facing the same amount of problems(though not all the same) when going to the moon as we would with under the sea.

Instead of the giant pressure, we would have rouge meteorites(i think that,´s the term) that could puncture the roof or a suit a problem that would need to be solved, if a permanent stay is to be considered.

Then we have the radiation problem, though not diagnosed with cancer i think most of the Apollo astronauts today have mild forms of radiation damage, eye deceases and so forth.
This is something we would have to overcome as well.

Then we have food and oxygen supply, i know we can perhaps use tree,´s and plants to take the edge of the oxygen problem, but i don,´t know if they are efficient enough to resupply the amount of people we are talking about with oxygen(but i could be mistaken) if an entire moon full of plants is needed to supply a half moon full of people with oxygen its a bit uneven.

As for food well i don,´t know if plants can give us all the minerals we need to have a healthy diet.

And then of course there are the gravity problem its a well known fact that low gravity will lead to bone and mussel degradation, though properly not that big of a problem on the moon it will turn out to be a problem, if the humans living there were ever to go to other planets Mars or even Earth.
All those problems would need to be cleared before it would be realistic to even consider permanent settlements on the moon.

But yes living atop the ocean isn,´t such a bad idea yet with the hurricanes and such those city,´s can face quite a few problems, (if a city on the ocean, is torn to peaces by a hurricane, its likely there will be no survivors at all)

But despite that i think we can both agree that using the ocean (either above or under it) as a living space might be a good idea if we need to solve the living space issue.

I recently read an articles (in Illustrated Science) about plans for a kind of indoor farm in a sky scrapper, didn,´t sound like such a bad idea and if people living in a city on the ocean (or below) such a feature could defiantly solve the food issue more or less.

 

[IvantheLizard]

Too many problems with that idea. Way too many in terms of logistics. Now a well placed city simply floating on the water would reduce the logistics problems significantly. You get the necessary sun exposure, You do not have to worry about reinforcing everything to withstand massive pressure over a long period of time. But since wee are considering the ocean floor as an extreme, why not the Moon?

That was my point with the ocean floor, as it could more or less serve as a kind of training camp for the moon and other places, as we would be facing the same amount of problems(though not all the same) when going to the moon as we would with under the sea.

Instead of the giant pressure, we would have rouge meteorites(i think that,´s the term) that could puncture the roof or a suit a problem that would need to be solved, if a permanent stay is to be considered.

Then we have the radiation problem, though not diagnosed with cancer i think most of the Apollo astronauts today have mild forms of radiation damage, eye deceases and so forth.
This is something we would have to overcome as well.

Then we have food and oxygen supply, i know we can perhaps use tree,´s and plants to take the edge of the oxygen problem, but i don,´t know if they are efficient enough to resupply the amount of people we are talking about with oxygen(but i could be mistaken) if an entire moon full of plants is needed to supply a half moon full of people with oxygen its a bit uneven.

As for food well i don,´t know if plants can give us all the minerals we need to have a healthy diet.

And then of course there are the gravity problem its a well known fact that low gravity will lead to bone and mussel degradation, though properly not that big of a problem on the moon it will turn out to be a problem, if the humans living there were ever to go to other planets Mars or even Earth.
All those problems would need to be cleared before it would be realistic to even consider permanent settlements on the moon.

But yes living atop the ocean isn,´t such a bad idea yet with the hurricanes and such those city,´s can face quite a few problems, (if a city on the ocean, is torn to peaces by a hurricane, its likely there will be no survivors at all)

But despite that i think we can both agree that using the ocean (either above or under it) as a living space might be a good idea if we need to solve the living space issue.

I recently read an articles (in Illustrated Science) about plans for a kind of indoor farm in a sky scrapper, didn,´t sound like such a bad idea and if people living in a city on the ocean (or below) such a feature could defiantly solve the food issue more or less.

As a training ground for astronauts I'd agree that an ocean-floor base would be smart. But it'd be too dangerous for civvies. Now I don't want to assume anything but I do hope you realize that the floating cities do not need to be built in the equatorial zone. Put the cities further North, out of the Hurricane zone and far enough out to sea to make tsunamis a minor issue as well.

 

[Grimlock]

. Now I don't want to assume anything but I do hope you realize that the floating cities do not need to be built in the equatorial zone.

Well yes and no i think your not including the sense of nationality that many people would have, like Americans might want to live in America and not in Europe.

Lets say you live in a city that,´s in a hurricane and other natural disaster zone dangerous to be sure yes, BUT most of your family lives there or the job your working at is placed there and you wouldn,´t like to be separated/living too far away from your family or have to drive for hours each day to get to the job.

Now you want a house of your own in the vicinity unfortunately, there isn,´t any left or at least none you can afford on the ground now what do you do?
You don,´t want to live too far away from your family or have to drive for hours each day to reach your work station, but you need a home and there isn,´t any available in the vicinity.

So any guy with enough brain will say well then we just a separate floating city/homes on water not to far from town, yes i know its in the hurricane belt but people will pay good money to be able to live close to either their family or work (or both) so we,´ll build it there anyway.

And there,´s the problem with cities floating on the water , even though they don,´t have to be build in natural disaster zones, you can bet your ass that they are going to be built there anyways, no matter the dangers such cities might face.