Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. The sea, our primary food source, will thank us.

All human waste should be used to make arable land instead of killing our primary food and cooling source. The sea.

Funny as it may sound, the wold has been producing arable land from animal waste forever. We lose that benefit by pumping our human waste into the sea.

A sea that will cost us trillions and impoverish many in the next 25 years, as it rises and forces us to spend trillions on infrastructure.

Add in the trillions that the wars that famines create and you have a depression style of life. All in the next 25 odd years. Happy days?

And all of this happens as the world population increases to its estimated plateau of 10 billion people, who will need to burn even more fossil fuels and add even more to global weather carnage.

I think we all suffer from a case of collective insanity.

A good reversal of that would be a collective protecting of our primary food source and create more arable land to feed the hordes of bodies that we will have to sustain. Human food needs fertilizing and human waste makes a great fertilizer after it becomes arable land.

Let us all poop in the bushes instead of in the water. I mean pump our sewage onto land of course.
This links leads to a longer one that all should view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSjE8xw_-Dg

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They already pump hog waste on land in the south, and it's not exactly environmentally friendly. Maybe there was a time, perhaps in China, where this was possible, but there are just too many people, and better ways to get fertilizer and process waste.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no way to get fertilizers to where the top soil has been blown away and not replenished by good old natural poop fertilizer.

The sea is presently taking the discharge of our un-natural fertilizers and killing off fish stocks.

Follow that link to see just how short a time we have to change our ways before change is forced upon us.

To continue to do as we have and expect to remedy the damage we do is insane.

The bottom line is we have to drastically reduce our beef stocks as they pollute a lot more than most think.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We've been using manure of herbivores. Generally, it is a bad idea to use carnivore feces as fertilizer for human-edible crops.

 

... Go ahead and give it a shot GIA... When the inevitable parasitic infection or possibly even a prion takes claim of your body, you might then realize why this idea is so terrible...

 

maybe people are meant to die at some point? world war 3 is coming. soon. there just isn't enough space on this planet for unbridled population, besides the pollution from plundering/exploitation/greed of resources. the world would need to implement a one-child policy and that's draconian for many.

the colonization of mars is fraught with so much risk and implausibility. people die so easily here on this planet, life on mars would be even more dangerous that only a select few could do it with an artificial atmosphere and to be able to maintain it. you sure wouldn't want someone to go postal there and start shooting. even that would be an eventual band-aid unless people controlled reproduction period and that reproduction is no longer will be an inherent right, sadly i guess for those who want a lot of children.

because humans have to compete for just about everything but air, they can't stand eachother for the most part, they end up killing eachother. this bubble/biosphere is a trap because the universe does not have many habitable planets that would fit us and within reach. what i mean by habitable is we are adapted to this.

even if there were another habitable planet somewhere, it's ecosystem would differ and we would need to develop new immunity as well as a host of other adjustments.

we don't have many good choices. we don't live in a life friendly universe like star trek where planets with life is abundant everywhere like taking a hop. unless we figure out some miraculous way to travel beyond the speed of light to spread out and search every nook and cranny of the known universe for a similar habitable planet, it doesn't look too good.

this does make me wonder if life was just an accident here and not any type of larger plan/design of the universe.

unless interstellar travel beyond lightspeed barrier would be possible and then to materially engineer a hull that can withstand debris such as large asteroids and meteors that will be in the way, then all life on this planet is supposed to become extinct.

that whole 'familiarity breeds contempt' is about right and will reach a boiling point. no wonder some people wish for aliens, ufo's etc. people have had enough of eachother, we aren't learning anything worthwhile from eachother except repeating the same crap throughout history. we've heard it all from eachother repeatedly. it's like we need fresh alien blood and a wider perspective.

humans need a new frontier or else people will go stircrazy from redundancy. it's not just physical resources. humans are running out of discovery on this finite planet. there are very few virgin places left too.

it's going to come to a critical point and for humans to progress, we either will have to discover or be open to the possibility of other dimensions/realities around us or look deeper into the micro (even just for sanity to expand our world or just for discovery) if space is or will remain unreachable for a very long time. that's the thing about humans, they need to discover and expand constantly. so stop telling people they are silly or stupid for either speculating about aliens, ufo's, ghosts, alternate dimensions/worlds/universes etc. they are more saner than you think and trying to remain sane but you some of you don't get it so stfu yourself, instead of killing our desire for possibilities. we are just trying to expand our reality because we can't do it physically. and many are sick and tired of the human species already.

 

Death by prion is not the way I want to go

 

Yet in some countries they use it quite a bit without harm.

If you followed that link, you will know that we are putting our eco system in peril and need to change our ways rather quickly if we want to protect our water sources and the many species we are driving into extinction.

Beef being the worst offender in polluting water as well as using a lot of fresh water to raise them as well as other farmed animals.

Regards
DL

 

Spoken like one who has not looked into the problem.

I see though that you did not follow that link or you would bring up the other even more important changes we need to make to our lifestyle to start reversing the ecological damage we are passing up to our next generation.

Regards
DL

 

Snip for brevity but a good reply.

To those two points.

A one child policy is not required as the population will level off at about 9.5 billion. That is a sustainable number unless the environment changes a lot more than I think it will.

As to Mars or any other planet, if we cannot or do not develop what we need to terra-form the earth with all the bodies and resources we have here, it is not a hard thing to know that we will fail at terra-forming a planet where even the air has to be changed for human consumption.

If we cannot clean up our world, we certainly cannot change another. If we could and tried, the world would rightly revolt against our scientific community.

Regards
DL

 

Whether or not 9.5 billion is the max sustainable population, I gotta ask, what makes you think the pop will level off when it reaches that limit?

I presume your answer will be something of the form "because no more than that will be able to feed themselves since there will not be enough food."

But doesn't that fly directly in the face of your mandate - to provide enough food for everyone?

In fact, if it is the food supply that causes the population to level off, wouldn't that suggest we should not make advances to provide more food, since that will cause the pop to continue to climb?

 

Not true. It is cost-effective to extract the materials we need from a habitable place while they are cheap/easy to get. But - once it gets more difficult to extract them (say, having to dig deeper mines), then it is an effective strategy to move on to new, fertile ground, where materials are in plentiful and cheap supply. That's the nature of civilization growth.

Imagine you're living 2 centuries ago, on the frontier. You have cultivated 1000 acres of land, and now need more for your growing community.
To the East of your land, there's a giant swamp, which would be real pain to turn into arable land, but to the West there's an entire country of virgin, fertile land.

Which do you cultivate? The easy one. You need to cultivate the one that doesn't put you out of business. Your community depends on you.

The issue of sustainability is only a concern when you're trapped and can't grow. Like we are here on Earth.

If the stellar neighborhood is unlimited, we don't need to be greatly concerned with sustainability.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking "that's a terribly unethical position to take. We should always be looking for sustainability."

No, sustainability is a conditional goal, based on circumstances - it is not always the ultimate goal. Establishing new colonies off-world is a goal in-and-of-itself, regardless of how inefficient we may go about it.

Sure, we'll get better at sustainable practices, but not at the expense of growth.

 

Things aren't looking too good in the universe either when it comes to intelligent life. Listen starting at 48:20. it might be a rare phenomenon. you can see evidence of that with darwinan evolution on this planet which does not favor intelligent life. if darwin was right, society would be flipped where the majority would be the top one or two percent's iq and the minority would be the average. There is a huge difference within the human species when it comes to iq that it would be literally comparing a human being to a dog/cat or even lower. you don't see this in the animal kingdom, the wide variance/gulf isn't there. there are no genius cats and dogs that can read and talk while the average ones can't etc, for example because it is that wide of a gulf and difference between humans of human geniuses vs average and lower iq's. if it weren't for geniuses, average humans would still be living in huts or cabins and using the horse and buggy, maybe just the horse.

now, there is a possibility that the reason why there is that huge difference is that within geniuses, that part of the brain is unlocked or structured somewhat differently. unless humans are improved genetically to make them more intelligent, conscientious and responsible, it's going to be on a descent to ruin.

otherwise, those of the one to two percent should just be rid of the excess baggage which is the majority population. they are the only ones who would not only have the intelligence to colonize another planet but also be responsible enough to maintain/sustain it.

 

You are wrong on my reply so I will just deal with that for the moment.

I think the population will level off from demographic forecasts, not only in the link I provided but from this link as well.



Regards
DL

 

We are not even making the changes on earth that would clean up this atmosphere and you think we can on Mars. How droll.

Do you have any idea how much it costs per pound to ship anything off a planet.

Cost effective does not apply to space travel. At least not at this point in time.

Regards
DL

 

Interesting.

Our own dinosaurs were here for millions of years and remained relatively un-intelligent while man has only been here for a few thousand years and has become somewhat intelligent.

That indicates that most planets with life will have un-intelligent life.

I guess, when we become a space faring world, commerce between planets will be all about exotic creatures and zoos.

Regards
DL

 

Poor comparison.
Mammals were around for millions of years, and their intelligence exceeded dinosaurs for most of that time.
The intelligence of humans rode on the shoulders of its mammalian ancestors.

But I agree with the conclusion.

 

1] We weren't talking about cleaning up the atmo of Mars; we were talking about moving there.
2] We will alter the atmo of Mars because it will benefit us economically. While a laudable goal, altering the atmo of Earth is less economically beneficial. It is more remedial.

This is an entirely separate argument than any you've been making. It does not support your primary thesis.

 

True, but researchers say that if the dinosaurs had not been driven to extinction, our mammalian ancestors would have not been able to evolve to what we are today.

Regards
DL

 

Science disagree.



Regards
DL