Naat said:
Cities are using cityplanners (sorry, don´t know the right term), who consider threats to environment and new building are built after their advice. Isaac Asimov calculated that if citizens would live in underground caves, Earth would sustain far more people, can´t remember the exact figures thou. Multilevelel buildings are getting more and more common.
Certainly we could use more but the situation is not as grim as you let it look.
City Planners do what their employers tell them to do.
The Isaac Asimovs and others who project what population earth can carry should be focusing their attention on how we can support the people now alive on earth. Until we can feed and sustain the 6 billion people we already have then there is little point in projecting how we can carry more.
Naat said:
People have survived wars, plaques, electricity and MacDonalds. People have been united against threats (Alliance against Hitler, war againts terror, war against poverty, shared emotions when nation wons an olympic medal...) Most those are against other humans but the one for the existence of Earth will be to. Homo Sapiens is definitely a lifeform that can unite if needed.
We needed to do it several decades ago and it has not happened yet. The Catholic Church had an opportunity to appoint a reformist Pope and look what they did. Is this an example of homo sapiens uniting to address the environmental problems our planet faces?
If we are going to address poverty then why don’t we start asking a few tough questions of the Catholic Church. Like:
- If they want kids to be born into poverty then why don’t they feed them all?
- Have they noticed that the church is strongest where people are poorest. Might that be the reason why they oppose birth control?
- And do they really think that the priests live a celebrant life. Do they think we are stupid enough to believe that?
Naat said:
True. So? That doesn´t mean we have reached maximum capacity.
I feel reluctant to debate this. No one knows for sure that we may not have already exceeded maximum capacity. You did not address the point I made earlier about being absolutely sure before you make a decision.
Remember I said if you were buying a business then you would look at the “worst case scenario”; if you were not sure that the business could survive if the economy turned down etc. then you probably would not purchase it. But when it comes to the survival of our planet you will take a punt on some jack ass fool’s suggestion that we should all go underground an live in caves.
Naat said:
Maybe it´s because everyone else don´t see this as you do?
No one agrees with me – they all think I am mad – just ask Dinosaur
Naat said:
Have you ever thought that those people may be right?
No. They are all bloody idiots. I do not know why I bother writing.
Naat said:
"The man with a new idea is a Crank until the idea succeeds." - Mark Twain
Only time will tell...
We have not got time
Naat said:
Are you saying Earth will be saved if there where no optimists?
I am saying we should look at the “worst case scenario”. If we are not absolutely sure that the changes to the environment will not be harmful then we should not make those changes.
I would have thought that is plainly bloody obvious to any person with as much intelligence as a grape. But then again I am the crank and all you eggs are probably correct.
Naat said:
Now, I must admit that I don´t have time for that right know I have an exam period and 20+ books in my "to be read" list. I would highly appreciate a summary.
from Introduction to God Gametes said:
The model presented in “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” assumes our universe is part of a multiverse. In his book “Before the Beginning” Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal) postulates the existence of other universes but God Gametes would simply say that there does not appear to be one of anything else, so why one universe? There is also the history. We started out thinking there was one earth and one sun only to find that our earth was one of many planets and the sun merely a star. People then assumed there was only one galaxy to later find that our galaxy is one of billions. We now of course assume there is only one universe!
From this point God Gametes argues:
1. If there is always more than one of everything there is more than one universe.
2. If there were other universes they would have life as does ours.
3. If they have life, it is cyclical as is all life.
4. If it is cyclical, it reproduces as does all life.
The model in God Gametes then assumes that the multiverse is hierarchical with the older and more complex universes on top and the younger and less complex below. Again this conforms to what we know to be true of reproductive systems. For example we can say that animals have two levels of the hierarchy (adults and their reproductive gametes) with the adult form living longer and being more complex than its reproductive cells.
We argue that each level of the multiverse is the reproductive system of the level above. Universes are assumed to have gender; female universes made of matter and male universes anti-matter. The Planet of the Butterfly Queen (earth) is made of matter and is the reproductive system of a single female of our parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse. Our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell she hosts from our companion antimatter planet.
This concept might be better understood if we look at it another way. We could say that planet earth has been colonised by the parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse for the purpose of reproduction. God Gametes takes a fictional look at our parent species on that higher level to find they are far more complex creatures than us but their universe is older and will soon run out of fuel, to then die. Parent species know that to preserve their life and the billions of years of heritage they created, they must reproduce on a lower multiverse level.
Our model takes a provocative look at Darwinism challenging the belief that our universe, the forces that hold it together and the intelligent life that we know exists on at least one planet, could be the result of a random process. It is argued that natural selection could never have created life and even if it had, could not have driven the evolution of greater complexity. We believe the formula for complex body parts and the motivation to evolve them is sourced from our parent species on that higher multiverse level.
God Gametes points to creation having a purpose, claiming that life and matter did not arise by accident and that our rapid evolution from ape to homo sapiens was driven by the need to host the male reproductive cells of our parent species. Human consciousness is attempting to fertilise a female egg and our goal in life is to become a new member of the parent species and be elevated to that higher multiverse level.
Naat said:
Then I suggest that all the other planets are eggs to. since they don´t seem to have any life on them, those are the rejected eggs. Earth seems to be the one with vital life, that will evolve into higher level.
There are 100,000,000,000 stars in 100,000,000,000 galaxies. That is 10,000 million, million, million stars. If all those stars were grains of rice, and you had 1,000 50 ton trucks. And each of your 50 ton trucks carried away one load every hour, of every day, of every week, of every year, it would take over 400,000 years to carry all your rice away. So we do not really know yet what is out there. (Note: the big numbers is consistent with reproductive systems.) So it is likely there are other life forms that will survive (and live to reproduce to that next higher level) should we fail.
Naat said:
That seems like a presumption based on human knowledge. Why would higher lifeform have two sexes?
I am not saying I know for sure my model is correct. I just presented a model that best fits what we know to be true of life here on planet earth.
Naat said:
Earth would be an experiment and I have heard that theory many times.
See any similarities with GG theory? I certainly do.
GG argues that we are part of an external reproductive system; not an experiment of some kind. But if you do hear of some theory with similarity to GG I would love to hear about it. It would certainly be comforting to know I am not the only lunie.
Naat said:
So, my mind is actually someones sperm (cell)?
Crudely put but yes. That is the GG theory in a nut shell.
Naat said:
Then, was Big Bang really when God ejaculated? (Not mocking, just asking)
There are many analogies that can be drawn. That one did occur to me but it does not really fit the GG model.
I have chosen not to speculate much on what that external being might be like or (if the GG theory is correct) where we came from and where we go after death. I believe we can never know and it is quite pointless to pursue such questions.
I do however believe it is reasonable to ask; “What might be our meaning and purpose in life?” I also believe it is reasonable to hold that we have a creator. And if we are part of that creators reproductive system then there is a reason for our creation and a purpose for our existence.
I can not see what is wrong with arguing that but it really pisses off a lot of people on this (and other) forums.
But it pisses me off that earth is an egg.
Is that all it is?
I was hoping for better than that.
I have an exam period and 20+ books in my "to be read" list. I would highly appreciate a summary.