Is it possible to make the earth go farther from sun and so make the planet cooler?

As Archimedes noted, you need a place to stand.

Anyone who figures out how to do that, we should send to Mars to practice with Phobos and forget about bringing back.

Someone figuring out a way to counter this stuff is among the smaller of our worries. Texas wanting to drain Lake Superior, to water the golf courses and hunting preserves of its desertifying landscape or refill the Oglalla Aquifer, is a bigger worry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's not imposible but unadvisable

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bravo::worship::roflmao:

 

Even if it's not possible then why is it not possible?

 

Trying to "fix" "global warming," is irresponsible "earth control."​

I can think up all sorts of objections to this sort of "monkeying around." First of all, might there be a far better use or need for the huge amounts of energy involved?

Second, I do not believe in "earth control." In the stupid book, "50 Ways to Save the Earth," I think it was, they said something about people stopping at just 2 children per family to supposedly help "stabilize" (stagnate, is more like it) world population size. But I don't at all believe in asking people to have such pidly small families, and don't agree with imposing such excessive and unnatural "control" upon nature, to such an extent to be at the detriment of man. Sure, alter nature for human benefit, but not all of nature was meant to be "controlled" by man. We can dam rivers, but we can't stop the rain, nor can we stop all natural forest fires either.

So whether or not human activities are supposedly causing "global warming," which I seriously doubt, as how many cars and factories do we have on Mars, which is also warming or so I hear, to try to stop such a "natural" process, would be "tampering" with nature, and thus "earth control." I don't believe in "earth control" as I believe that the planet and nature should be left, at least somewhat "wild." What humans do that supposed causes "global warming," is clearly for human benefit, so that should be expected. But trying to change nature, for no clear reason or benefit to humans, is reckless and economically stupid. Whether or not humans are supposed causing "global warming," let it occur naturally. (Humans are part of nature, so much of what we do, could be more accurately categorized as "natural" as well.)

I have yet to hear any convincing argument of the supposed "global warming" crisis, nor of any need for a fix for it. And why can it only be all bad? That's junk-science rubbish. Political liar Al Gore, rants and raves about CO2 "pollution" or "emissions" that we supposedly must reduce at all costs, never mind that our machines and furnaces and cities can't run without energy (or it may be a grand part of the conspiracy actually), and worries us about all these supposed dire effects of "global warming." Such as hurricanes. Whoops! Turns out there's a theory out, that "global warming" may reduce hurricanes, and hurricanes have indeed fallen short of predictions for the last several years since 2005. Is that evidence for "global warming" or against? Does it really matter? The theory claims that "global warming" causes atmospheric instability that shears apart hurricanes. People don't understand so well, that hurricanes don't result from just heat differences, but by a "perfect storm" of just-right conditions. If hurricanes are sheared apart, they soon disipate.

Of course, anti-people, anti-sensible-energy-policy Al Gore, might not want for the planet to become more like a Garden of Eden like paradise. Isn't it interesting that at first, it was so warm, that Adam & Eve didn't even notice that they were naked, until they had sinned and "their eyes were open," and they weren't so "innocent" anymore. But nature might want to become more like the Garden paradise, to encourage people to do what they did way back when. Breed more, as it's natural.

 

What if you tamper with the orbits of the planets, and it leads to Whoops! unforseen collisions?

"Sorry, we goofball scientists will get it right, next time?" That just doesn't cut it.

 

Hello all

A simpler idea would be to just change the current volume of the atmosphere. Less atmosphere would mean lower barometric pressure and cooler temperatures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have not even mentioned the fact that the Earth is acquiring mass every second. So you would have to eject enough mass to compensate for the millions of tons acquired each day as we move through space in addition to what already exists. The effort would be beyond our capability. And even if we could, I don't know it would be advisable. Our orbit is linked to every other planet in the solar system.

 

The idea of stabilizing (or stagnating) population growth is something I'd agree with. Natural or not the situation on this planet is not going to get better so long as population keeps growing like it's been for the last 100 years, it's going to get much worse. What's not natural is the fact that we have no natural predators, that we have sanitation and medicine that extend our lifetimes, that we have ample food and water (in most places at least). We're sidestepping all of the natural population controls with science and technology.

 

I am very much against "earth control," or seeking to "control" nature to such a bizarre extent, as to be detrimental to man.​

It's counterproductive for humans to try to "control" too much of nature. We expend too much effort, time, and money, and find we have profitted little if any by it. I want to see at least some aspects of nature remain somewhat "wild," including our own natural population growth. Not all of nature was meant to be tamed" or "controlled" and manipulated by man.

Why do you think we have all this improve public sanitation, medical treatments, vaccines, modern clean ways to cook and store food and all that? Isn't it largely, as a result of proper adaptations to a growing world population that is also growing denser?

People obviously can go on enjoying having their "traditionally very large" families, but perhaps some of them may find they have only to do it now, in closer proximity to more people, as there's getting to be so many of us alive these days. Shouldn't we be more grateful to God for that?

Isn't that really a lot of what all that fancy science and technology is really for, to help humans go on enlarging our numbers, for the greater good of the many?

I think that China's 1-child policy barbarism, wasn't even their idea. Commie Chairman Mao encouraged large families and discouraged birth control, claiming that a large and growing population would make China strong. Not necessarily, for it might make them more needy? But at least it would allow all the more fellow human beings to experience life. I think that Wester power-mad imperilists leaned on China to get its burgeoning human population more "under control," for fear that China being the world's most populous nation, "as goes China, so goes the world?" If the world's most populous country can't control it's huge growing population, what does that mean for the planet? But I already advocate a more populous planet, so that all the more people may live, and people may go on enjoying having their precious darling babies.

Conversely, somewhat as the population phobics perhaps fear, I see it going the other way. That China and now India, are both "population billionaires" really does suggest that with especially good leadership, so much more of the planet really could be populated to such high human-rich densities, but more comfortably and safely than even India has done so far. And so that's all the more practical reason to encourage people to relax and trust God or whatever, and let families grow in size naturally, without the bothers and side effects of nasty contraceptives, nor even much-will-power-requiring rhythm. Let our babies push out naturally, and take care of them and provide for them and love them. Welcome more people to marry young and to join in in adding even more people to the world. That's what God requires, not any arbitrary imposed anti-freedom restraints on the natural growth of our numbers.

I understand why world population grows and grows, and I agree with just about every reason that could be cited in defense of that. I don't believe in all the stupid gloom-and-doom anti-freedom nonsense. Here's one of my sayings:

"It's high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and move on in an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

Why do people want to remain stuck in the past? Sure, keep the old useful traditions, live simpler more relaxed lives if we want or can. I don't have a cellular phone, nor an iPod. Too much expense and too little use for me. I'm still on dial-up. But a child can't remain small forever. Similarly, the human race needs to let its "childhood" be somewhat behind and "grow up." If the human race is naturally growing "huge," so much the better for the populous many. Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought to welcome the natural flow of human life to flow unhindered.

Some little side article I read in some magazine, warned of a supposedly coming future "baby blast." If contraceptive use levels can't soon be increased from around half of people, to 75%. Well the recent sagging demographic trends don't seem to suggest this. But human population growth is beautiful, as it allows so many more people to live. Baby booms used to be viewed more positively, and still should be. Let the baby booms persist and spread, as more and more people would be glad to live, if at all possible. It's unreasonable to expect some 75% of people to use nasty shoddy contraceptives, ridden with those underreported "side effects." What of all the "religious objections," and people who either came from large families, claim to want large families, or sometimes end up having large families and being more fine with that than they had first thought? Population growth helps keep the world interesting and curious and less cynical. Having children gives people something to do to keep them out of trouble. A coming "baby blast" would be wondrous, not something to fear or avoid. When people all around are having babies, doens't it make us feel more like taking part and having babies as well? Surely the planet is big enough after all, to hold us all. Let the human race beautifully "blossom" in size naturally, as God would see fit to allow. As I said, I don't believe in either human "birth control," nor population "control," nor "earth control." Sometimes it's far better to let nature "take its course," as nature isn't "out to get us," as some "environmentalists" seem to like to opine, and yet they dare tell us to worship nature?

 

No, I'd say it's the cause of a population that's growing ever faster. Before sanitation and medicine and so on families were having just as many kids as they do today, even more in most cases. But because things like sanitation and medicine weren't available more people died, more infants died, and as a result population growth was much smaller than it is today. It's only after the industrial revolution that population started to sky rocket, more than doubling between 1850 and 1950 from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion, then tripling to over 6 billion in the 50 years after that. This type of growth is simply not sustainable.

It has nothing to do with romanticism about a time when the world was only sparsely populated, it's about being able to sustain growth like this. There's simply not enough land, not enough fresh water, not enough food, not enough resources in general. Until you can wish whatever resource you need out of thin air this problem remains. Either we slow population growth, or everyone will have to make do with less than they have now, those are the only two options.

 

Large families don't make people poor, but make them rich, as children are worth so much more than money.​

So you want to put the brakes on, and unnaturally hold up progress? But that wouldn't seem to be what the vast majority of the "breeders," wants. "Stop the world, I want to get off." What kind of option is that? The world's going on, the world must go on. They say you can't go home again. You sell your home, to move someplace else, and you have to be content to just hold onto the memories. You can't really go back, as it's not yours anymore. So many people, somebody else has already filled it. That's what we want, so we can get our money out of it. You can't put the brakes on, and stop the planet from rotating. (God did once in the Bible, or kept the sun up in the sky or something longer for some battle, but that's the power of God, not man. Still the world went on though.)

Growing ever faster? You must be speaking of the naturally enlarging population base, the natural exponential growth of women of childbearing age. But wasn't the absolute numbers added per year, didn't that peak in the 1980s or so? Now birthrates have dropped, no thanks to nasty rampant contraceptive pushing, but it seems even nature has compensated by increasing the numbers again, by a population base that has grown significantly larger, adding more billions since then, and also by a whole lot of poor people, and people with "religious objections" or other reasons to not have bothered much with "birth control."

I know of the "demographic transition" theory. But I just don't buy into it. Just because we come along, and add all these things that supposedly help people to live longer, does not at all obligate people to select any shoddy anti-life method of "birth control" at all. We aren't supposed to have such "progress?" Parents should just slay some children now and then, to compensate for progress made in eradicating diseases or cleaning up otherwise filthy water? People don't just have children because "it feels good," or because it's in their genes, or "it's tradition," but for about the most altruistic reasons sometimes imaginable. To expand the human race, to allow all the more precious human beings to come to life. Because it's nature, because it's natural. Sperm is harmless. All it can do, is maybe make a baby, and probably "not this time" anyway, but more like next time. And it's supposed to be a good thing to welcome more people to come to life. It's not just that babies are supposedly so cute and adorable, but that such feelings about babies are manifestations of the natural desire God put in our hearts to seek humanity's multiplication and increase.

I don't want to have children, just to "get my jollies," or to "have some pet," or as "something new to do." No, children are too much work for all that. No, I want to have children, because I believe the human race should go on, and that God meant for most people to enjoy raising children. It's very rewarding and worthwhile. I know quite well what it's doing to our population size, which is yet another reason for wanting to have children. Why should everybody else get to have the children? I want to do my part and make my "contributions" as well. I do believe the planet should grow naturally denser with people, and that future generations should be encouraged to grow naturally larger and denser. There's so many people who could potentially benefit by coming alive in the future, that of course any spare bedrooms, or anybody with a little room in their hearts, should welcome children to come into their families and brighten their otherwise dreary lives. Without the marvel of seeing things through children's eyes again, and seeing them discover the world, the world is too much a "rat race," too cynical, and starts to lose purpose and direction.

I am concerned that China must have some 350 or 450 million women now of childbearing age, many of whom who much yearn for their "traditionally very large" families. So what do they need then? Lots of babies. To be free to grow their families naturally.

You say this type of growth is "unsustainable." Don't you know I just detest those lying words that enviro-wackos so often like to toss out, without even bothering to properly define them. I say it is sustainable. Why do you think we are getting so numerous now? Apparently it's possible after all. In spite of radical "environmental" commies that try to block us from developing our resources. More countries are reaching the "tipping point" (another word abused by enviro-radicals), of going from having multiple acres of land per person, to multiple people per acre. I would be inclined to agree with a few minor points of the so-called "environmentalists." We can't keep adding more and more people to the planet, and keep doing everything the same old ways. But what if we were to naturally and wisely switch, to doing some things in better ways, to better accomodate our naturally rising populations?

More toilets for the developing countries. More gas and electric cookstoves to eliminate the respiratory problems being caused by burning dung, trash, and wood to cook food. Besides, the modern ways we do such things, often is more efficient and safer. Our stoves get to the desired temperature, almost immediately, within our homes, generally rather safely, and don't generate the smoke of millions of cooking fires in huge, growing cities. So such innovations are for dense and vast human populations living in cities. So why can't the whole world use what we already know so well how to build more of. Especially that considering if people were paid decent for their work, they could afford to buy such things, and we could expand markets and profits by serving rather than harming people.

If the world is headed towards some sort of crowded global "Hong Kong," actually a gross exxageration of where it appears to be headed BTW, then hadn't we use the opportunity, to eliminate poverty along the way, and make sure it's more beautiful, and make sure everybody has their place? I am not talking about rampant economic-robbing socialist schemes, but rather, reigning in the abuses of corporations, and working to see to it that people around the world are afforded decent working conditions and a more reasonable level of pay for their work. And that they can act more as their own sovereigns, and start their own businesses if they wish.

You speak as if we had a choice. I don't see this "choice." I don't see people as cattle or pawns on a game board to manipulate. If the people are growing more numerous, they must have some place to live, they must have food, and all these things the people need, can make wise people much money, by building businesses that seek to provide these things. I wouldn't want to sell people nasty shoddy contraceptives to rob them of their precious darling children, but to make money building more disposable diaper factories, or toys or something, that might encourage them to go on breeding all the more precious sacred human souls. The idea of letting babies emerge from the womb, that's much like the idea of letting people's hearts go on beating. We would want to do this, if at all possible? If it means converting more land into cities, then why not? Eventually, I imagine the rather quaint farming techniques may become obsolete, and all that land could, not be returned to nature, but rather be used for our "nature," to be converted into residential space to house all the more people.

Nonsense. The recent trends indicate just the opposite. American homes are gaining more square footage, more bathrooms, more cars, more gadgets in our homes and cars, cable or satelite TV and air conditioning, once thought "luxuries," are becoming more and more ubiquitous or universal, more people have not just dial-up internet but high speed.

That's one thing I just can't stand about the environmental "religion." It's obsession with promoting poverty, and claiming that anything good for people MUST be bad for the environment. With more population, we do not need to make do with less, but actually, as the trend tends to go, with more. As human populations populate up vaster and denser, they need more options and more technology, as the old ways of smelly outhouses and polluted drinking water, just don't cut it anymore. Education is a big "sacred cow" these days. Well people may need a bit more education, but I wish it taught more of how to think and seek truth, and less government or socialistic propaganda.

About the only thing we can't have more of, per person, with continuing population growth, is acres of land per person. Presumably on a spherical planet that isn't getting any bigger, human bodies, on the global scale at least, are just going to have to, become closer together, for everybody to fit. But I'm mainly talking of a little urban sprawl here and there, for the forseeable future, letting people live where they want, but expanding the housing stock to make way for so many. But there's ways to make less seem like more, in that as well. Walls between housing units, do sort of "hide the crowds" lurking behind them. Walls could be better soundproofed, especially in higher-end urban housing. I knew an apartment developer who put fire sprinklers in his units, even though not required to. Good protection of his investment, and insurance for residents against moron neighbors who do stupid stuff like smoke in bed. Cities and towns can grow bigger and closer together. More small towns can be built, for those who like small towns, but they might not really be all that far from a few big cities. And people can be stacked into highrises, if or as it comes to that, or where lots of people want to live in the most "desirable" areas of town or near the jobs. I favor distributing more of the jobs to where the people live, and allowing more people to work at home. Also more home-schooling, internet-schooling, Churches in people's homes, etc. But time will tell, and any developments must be flexible, to work with what the people actually want to or are willing to do. At least in some areas, people are finding they can take their jobs home again, thanks to improved technological options and people's home offices. Many people in Korea live in the back of their businesses. Why can't we do that? Stupid zoning restrictions?

 

If we ever had technology to move a planet, then what's a little "extra mass?"​

The amount of mass the planet is acquiring, from dust and meterorites falling from the sky, is very trivial compared to the great mass it has already.

It's sort of like how I've told people, if ever they could make electricity portable enough to power cars, it would likely have some curious benefits. Say like maybe "instant" heat. Electric motors presumably don't produce enough waste heat, to heat the cabin of the car, and to compete, surely electric cars would be heated. How? Well what's the obvious source of heat? How about that super battery? If it can propel a car weighing a ton or more at 65 miles an hour down the freeway, then it's easily going to be able to handle the added burden of an electric heater. Obviously an ordinary battery can't power much of a heater. But that kind of battery, could. But electric cars aren't practical, because both hydrogen and batteries, simply aren't dense enough. Electric cars can't seem to get any farther than 50 to 100 miles on a charge. That just can't compete with 300 or 400 miles on a tank of gasoline. And the best time I have heard of for a recharge, is 15 minutes, with is rather slow compared to refueling delays. 0 to 60 mph in 8 seconds, that's reasonable, but an electric car must perform well, in every area, to compete.

I am also not impressed with hybrids. Twice as much stuff to break, more cost up front, for slightly better fuel economy. And you still have to buy price-gouged gasoline, that who knows how high the greedy oil corporations will jack up prices, since nobody seems to want to do anything about it. Where hybrids start to get interesting, is now that there is a little talk of completing the hybrid concept, and admitting what a hybrid car supposedly is. It's not a gasoline car, it's not an electric car, but both rolled up into one. Converting gasoline into electricity to store up in a battery, isn't really all that efficient, as energy is lost in most any transition like that. Better milage comes from using an underpowered gasoline engine, and then "hiding" how seriously underpowered it is, with the boost of the electric motor, which of course will soon fade, if one is climbing the mountains? Completing the hybrid car concept, is to admit that Yes, it's an "electric" car too, so it should come standard with, a recharge cable. And a solar panel. That's what makes highly experimental hybrids, start looking interesting, that is, if those batteries really hold up for long. I hear that running a car on electricity, runs at about 3¢ a mile, versus 10¢ a mile for gasoline. So for city driving and commuting to work, why not use electric only, and burn gasoline on long trips? Then they can trump up claims of up to 100 miles on a gallon of gasoline, because more of the time, the gasoline isn't even used. A solar panel isn't near enough energy. But a solar panel should be able to keep the charge topped off, while parked in the sunlight, for dear old granny who drives to the store and to Church, but only a few days a month. A solar panel might give you another half a mile, before the gasoline kicks in, on a trip?

Sure, the sun is getting warmer, and that's the best theory I have heard so far, for this supposed "global warming" that I can't even detect, but it's minor and a natural cycle, and for the good. It's not at all a "problem" in need of man's idiotic "fixes." As if God needed any "help" in his department?

I see nothing wrong with the planet's orbit, and I am against such idiotic money-sucking boondoggles as that, or even sending a manned mission to Mars. Too expensive, with neglible benefits to humans. Those over-educated "scientists" need to live on a budget too. We taxpayers aren't made of money, and I don't even understand why we are even asked to fund so many of their studies. Why not work on something much more modest, say like an "anti-gravity" beam to lift my flying The Jetsons cartoon-like car of the future? Think of all the money that could be saved, not having to build roads anymore.

 

Who said anything about stopping progress? The world will go on, progress will be made, except now we'll be making progress toward a better future, instead of one of overpopulation.

You use the word natural a lot. If it's so natural how come we're not being overrun with rabbits? They breed like crazy. We're not being overrun because nature keeps their population in check, through short lifespans, limited food supply and natural predators. Nature used to keep our population in check too, not anymore. Our population growth stopped being natural when the industrial revolution began. Hell it stopped being natural when we gained agriculture. What other animal plants crops instead of foraging the little that's growing there naturally? What would happen to the rabbit population if they suddenly had all the food they could eat year round, no natural predators and lifespans of 20 years? Would that be natural?

Well then, how would you define sustainable?

Sure, and because of this stuff we're running out of oil. We're cutting down forests faster than we can plant them, when we bother to replant them at all. We're facing a fresh water shortage in many parts of the world. Resources are not unlimited, sooner or later demand in all areas is going to outweigh supply, and when that happens everyone will have to do with less. This is high school level stuff.

The biggest problem is not fitting people into the land, it's the massive swaths of agriculture needed to feed these people. There's only so much crop-supporting land in the world, and we're damn near using all of it already.

 

i dont know why you would want to but i would say its TECHNICALLY possable. you would just need to build a big enough rocket that pointed towards the sun and fire away, exactly the same way we launch rockets off the earth. But again why would you want to?

 

Why enjoy the good life, when you can worry about The Resources, instead?​

Overpopulation and manufactured poverty, are not the same thing.

Wild animals aren't meant to live like humans. Pets aren't meant to live just like humans. Humans are kept "in check" sufficiently, by a long gestational period, by that we don't (usually) have "litters" of children, but usually one baby at a time, and that it can sometimes take years to get pregnant. And our generational delays are long, compared to other creatures. If people supposedly reproduce "too fast," then a larger proportion of the population becomes of children, too young to reproduce. Such natural "controls" are sufficient. Although they don't seem to place much "limit" on just how large human populations may presumably ultimately get, it does naturally limit the pace at which we may get there, to allow ample time to adapt and prepare.

Humans aren't supposed to have limited food supply, we aren't supposed to have predators. We are supposed to have and use the intelligence that God gave us, not to prevent human life, but to welcome human life. A proper and natural function of human life, is to produce more human life.

It's not natural, for people to deliberately be stupid, and refuse to use the intelligence that God gave us. It's not fitting to the sort of creatures that we be. It's not respecting of nature, nor of God.

When God gave humans dominion over nature and other creatures, were humans to dominate merely because we are supposedly so smart, or because "we can?" No, I think it speaks in Genesis, that humans would dominate, because God caused it, and because God would cause there to come to be so many of us. We would come to dominate, largely by sheer numbers. It was an invitation, for humans to grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals. Because we are created in God's image, may have something to do with why humans seem to be actually "favored" by nature or God. God even removes some of the supposed natural "controls" on our population size. Live in a huge city with people all around? No matter, we are still free to reproduce naturally. We can build more cities or suburbs, if or as we have to. And being more free of supposed "natural" population controls, that would seem to be a function of intelligence. Humans aren't merely part of nature, but we transcend and alter nature. And that's natural in its way as well. Contrary to the view of "environmental" extremists, humans aren't "parasitic" upon the planet, but more "symbiotic." Both benefit from each other. Nature wouldn't consider our cities to be "intrusions" upon nature, if they are built sensibly and maintained, as the natural force of humans is needed to maintain the cities. Nature even permeates our cities, and at least the squirrels and birds and our pets seem to benefit, as I see quite a lot of them as well.

Agriculture traces back all the way to the children of Adam & Eve, probably to Adam & Eve as well. When they got themselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden, for sin, God said that they shall earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. God shows us grace then, by allowing our machines to "sweat" for us. Farmers may grow our food, riding along in air conditioned farm equipment. So while agriculture may not be completely natural, it's natural enough for our benefit. Surely with the 7 billion or so people now on the planet, hunting and gathering just isn't going to cut it anymore, at least not for the vast majority of us. Agriculture frees us from the land, to congregate in growing cities, and to specialize in trades that can produce so much more than merely food, and make us so much more money. It reduces any apparent need found among "wild" animals to be "territorial," so that all the more humans can in fact, live closer together if or as we need or choose to.

Well I sure wouldn't define it in the poverty terms of the religious "environmentalists." Nor would I assume that everything will always be done the same old ways.

Lots of people say there's no shortage of oil. Just today, some guy was saying that the environmentalists won't even let us develop our resources or oil in Alaska. Does anybody you know, have their own business, developing oil? Of course not. So much these days is monopolized by giant greedy corporations, that grow so big they find it easy to manipulate markets, for the greedy benefit of a few elite rich bigwig stockholders, who likely don't need any more money anyway. It's a sick "king of the molehill" game, by which they "get to the top," by stepping on people along the way. Why should cars be reserved as a priviledge for only the elite rich? They should be for everybody. It's hard to acquire wealth, if you can't even hardly carry your stuff home. It's hard to explore the world adequately, if you must walk everywhere. The world's now much too big, for walking everywhere. People don't want to do only grueling back-breaking labor in the fields anymore. Jacking up gasoline prices, is a way to oppress the working poor, for no good reason, and promote class warfare. Not the sort of thing that an increasingly populous world needs. It's not "supply and demand," but market manipulation. And too many people are too apathetic to do anything about it, perhaps partly due to the socialistic-leaning government monopoly schools that are doing a pathetic failing job of teaching people how to think and search for truth.

There have many reports of forests growing at least in many parts of the world, and we have so much forests, that overgrowth and natural forest fires, are an inconvenient problem. Whatever happened to the logging industry? There once was a time that Americans actually produced stuff, but oppressive socialist taxation schemes and so-called "free trade" nonsense, have helped drive so many of our good jobs overseas to exploit cheap labor in other countries. It's not about benefiting people, but about corporations redefining society, and reducing people to pawns or worker bee slaves for their own stupid money-grubbing games. They want to create a global market of labor, so they can reduce working conditions and pay level to the lowest common denominator, bid workers against other workers, to maximize their profits along with maximizing human misery, as they bring back class warfare and slavery. Because corporations are currently legally defined, largely upon greed. See the DVD, "the Corporation," for some explanation of what's wrong with "the corporation" currently.

Malthusian "overpopulation" gloom and doom is coming under more and more criticism, and being discredited, and so why do I keep seeing people parroting its many tenets?

Corporations, have, in the past, and still do to some extent, mass-produced lots of inexpensive incredible useful stuff, but people have become intellectually lazy and apathetic, and don't even bother to make themselves well-informed as to what's going on, and they aren't holding the big money decision makers, hardly accountable for anything these days. Many corporations are being ruined by unaccountable morons at the top, who continually make bad decisions, invest little into their workers who build the company, and then have the nerve to act surprised, when customers complain, profits turn into losses, and they end up going out of business. Good riddens, but we should have more means to hold them accountable, than "the last straw" when customers finally have to take their business elsewhere due to continual bad service. A case in point. While traveling some years ago, I stopped at some gas station, and some guy actually wanted to gas up my car. "No, I'll do it myself. I don't want to pay for full service." It's free he says. He's an independent. What! You mean I actually found a place that gives good service? I don't even have to go inside to pay him? So many of these corporate-owned chains, you're doing good just to find some washer fluid in the do-it-yourself windshield washer bins. Long since dried up, and the pay-at-the-pump credit card slots, are often out of receipt paper. Well what do you expect hiring a couple of overworked mimimum-wage, minimum trained workers to just take people's cash all day? Good thing I don't have to use their bathroom, eh? No telling why I may find? Flies, unflushed toilets, dead bodies, slime on the floors and walls?

But most all your "Mom and Pops" always give great service, don't they? But you can hardly find any help, at America's poster child for what's wrong with corporate America™, low wages always Wal-Mart?

Yawn. Resources again? Yeah, everybody says that. It's not so much the "living space" issue, it's the — Ya- ...aawn — resources. Didn't I read something in my Bible, of Jesus talking to his disciples, or something or other, telling them not to worry about what to eat or drink or what clothing to wear, for the pagans worry about such things? And here we have so many people living in fear, easily controlled, easily manipulated. No vision, no imagination, little or no faith. Leaving all the opportunities to pass them buy, so that some other entreprenuers, perhaps off in India somewhere, can make all the money?

 

I just had an idea...build massive solar panels over Earth and connect them by extremely strong carbon nanotube strings to pull the Earth...the sun's photon pressure will do the action slowly but surely. Meanwhile we will sit in darkness for some centuries until Earth has been moved far enough

 

Uh, rockets are technically riding up into outer space upon precariously-balanced explosions. Is that really what we want?​

Hmmm. I would rather have those "rockets," to launch me away from this place, before the morons in charge of the assylum, manage to blow up the planet. Look how many times humans destroyed the world, in the movies. Good thing it's not near so easy to do, as the movies make it appear.

How many years have I been asking for a spaceship for Christmas? My idea there is, that Christmas wish lists are merely to describe what I might like to get, to tell something about me. They don't necessarily have to be "realistic."

But then, if I had a spaceship, where would I go? I better bring a lot of people with me, or I would soon go raving lonely, and have to turn around and come back. And then all those people would bring along the same crazy mess I had sought to leave behind. Maybe my own personal spaceship, isn't such a hot idea after all. But wouldn't the technology be cool at least?

Rather than move the planet, wouldn't it be so much easier, just to allow for everybody to have their own personal spaceships? Even if they are "spaceships" that don't actually go anywhere, and can't escape Earth's gravity well? What if I could just simply recycle my own water, generate my own electricity, and just cancel all my utility bills? Sci-fi spaceships seem to do all these things. Maybe have my own nuclear reactor in the basement, like on that crazy NES video game, "Maniac Mansion." Of course, don't drain the water out of the swimming pool for too long, trying to get the key, or Ka-Boom! Game Over. What a great idea. Using the waste heat cooling rods, to have a nice warm toasty swimming pool.

 

Pronatalist i never said it was a good idea

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just said it was POSSABLE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!