The Impossibility of Growth

[The Mad Monk]

I don't know if you're being intellectually dishonest... or if you're just a blithering idiot.

Why can't he be both?

[Fake Boris]

ecosystems also are dynamic systems

They don't get destroyed, per se... they change.

Of course. The question is do they change for the better, and do they change in a sustainable way?

[Fake Boris]

And still not a single source.

Sava needs a source to prove trade exists

[Fake Boris]

Fun fact: a friend of mine wanted to do his M.Sc. dissertation on the life cycle of a pencil, tracing the source of all raw materials used in the process up until the landfill.

He had to give up; this can't be done in 200 pages.

[kentonio]

There's nothing in physics that prevents us from leaving the solar system. There's an almost 40-year old space probe in the process of doing that right now. Slower than light colonization is slow, yes, but not an insurmountable challenge.

If anyone had any interest in spending vast sums to build ships that would need to be able to send huge numbers of people on a journey lasting tens of thousands of years with enough material to sustain them on an alien environment with absolutely no outside support. Not of course that you could do any scouting to find that suitable planet, unless you sent out probes and waiting tens of thousands of years for them to reach the destination and then send back data.

[Sava]

Sava needs a source to prove trade exists

Trade is a simple concept.

THE SUPPLY/PRODUCTION PROCESS OF THE IPOD IS NOT

If you're making random assertions about such things, it's best to include support.

YOU KNOW, because FACTS

[Bereta_Eder]

talking about high end products and the raw materials needed, you know there are regions of the world which have been ass ****ed by that demand and by the absence of workers rights protections.

it doesn't have to be high end.
even dutchies tulips and africa gets ****ed like that.

there needs to be global provisions that will not make the final product more expensive for the end user, but will reduce the company's profits and adequately protect worker's rights in the areas of extraction. it will have multiple beneficial rippling water circles effects.

but does anyone do it?
no.
why?
they don't know about it
why they don't know about it?
because the media are "Adverse" to expose it
why?
said companies hold shares

[Sava]

OB has proven himself to be dumber than BK.

[Fake Boris]

The discussion with you is over.

[Sava]

Good. The internet has enough unsubstantiated bull****. It doesn't need any more.

[Fake Boris]

Does Oncle have an iPod? I hope he knows he's killing the planet.

I do my best to reduce my consumption of resources, within the possibilities of the world I live in, like riding a bike around or being vegan.

Ultimately the solution can only be political.

Let's make a comparison with taxes.

It's not rational to pay taxes unless everyone else does. If taxes were not compulsory, people wouldn't pay them. This holds true for ecologically responsible behavior. There's a large cost associated to it, but only because few people adopt it. The more people are ecologically responsible, the less costly it is to everyone. The only way to achieve this result though is through collective organization.

[Sava]

Oh. I thought that meant you were finished.

I guess you just aren't responding to me.

Well, maybe someone else will challenge you to post an actual fact.

[Lorizael]

If anyone had any interest in spending vast sums to build ships that would need to be able to send huge numbers of people on a journey lasting tens of thousands of years with enough material to sustain them on an alien environment with absolutely no outside support. Not of course that you could do any scouting to find that suitable planet, unless you sent out probes and waiting tens of thousands of years for them to reach the destination and then send back data.

There are challenges, to be sure, but nothing precluded by the laws of physics. As far as scouting, the better alternative is to improve telescope tech to the point where we can get solid information about planets. That's eminently doable. As far as resources, we wouldn't send colonists to a planet that didn't have any. We would only need to send enough to ensure that we could sustainably exploit the planet's resources. As far as the people thing goes, I suppose that depends on your definition of huge. We could send enough to ensure genetic viability, or we could send only women and a whole bunch of sperm donations, or we could send a giant bank of genetic material only and let robots build the people. There are many options that don't require a "huge" number of people. /me shrugs.

Don't get me wrong; colonizing other stars will be very, very hard. And it's not really conceivable right now. But I don't think it's out of the question. Consider that we used to believe the planets were infinitely distant, perfect celestial bodies, and now we've robotically visited all of them and put humans on one.

[kentonio]

There are challenges, to be sure, but nothing precluded by the laws of physics. As far as scouting, the better alternative is to improve telescope tech to the point where we can get solid information about planets. That's eminently doable.

Considering the trip there would be one way, you'd have to have REALLY good telescope tech to ensure you weren't sending probably tens of thousands of people to their deaths.

As far as resources, we wouldn't send colonists to a planet that didn't have any. We would only need to send enough to ensure that we could sustainably exploit the planet's resources. As far as the people thing goes, I suppose that depends on your definition of huge. We could send enough to ensure genetic viability, or we could send only women and a whole bunch of sperm donations, or we could send a giant bank of genetic material only and let robots build the people. There are many options that don't require a "huge" number of people. /me shrugs.

Don't get me wrong; colonizing other stars will be very, very hard. And it's not really conceivable right now. But I don't think it's out of the question. Consider that we used to believe the planets were infinitely distant, perfect celestial bodies, and now we've robotically visited all of them and put humans on one.

Hey, I'm all for investing vast sums into it and finding out exactly what we can and can't achieve, but it's certainly not something I'd be taking any bets on. A lot of the solutions require humanity to commit to sending vast sums of money off into the galaxy based on some nice idea of continuing the human race without any benefit to the people spending the money and effort. That's not a particularly human trait.

[Lorizael]

Considering the trip there would be one way, you'd have to have REALLY good telescope tech to ensure you weren't sending probably tens of thousands of people to their deaths.

Twenty five years ago extrasolar planets were theoretical only. We've now found thousands and even directly imaged a few. We'll get there. Also, estimates of the minimum viable population for humanity are nowhere near the tens of thousands range. And finally, I'm sure people will die. When we explore, it happens.

Hey, I'm all for investing vast sums into it and finding out exactly what we can and can't achieve, but it's certainly not something I'd be taking any bets on. A lot of the solutions require humanity to commit to sending vast sums of money off into the galaxy based on some nice idea of continuing the human race without any benefit to the people spending the money and effort. That's not a particularly human trait.

I'd say altruism is a distinctly (thought not solely) human trait. Not all of us possess it to a great degree, but we do have it.