What is NASA?

[Kayden]

There haven't been many motivational scientists out there as of late but one does stand out and that is Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson. This is a man I respect and have found myself listening to his lectures just for fun, because his point of view makes sense. Here is an excerpt from a lecture he did at UB (no I'm not sure where that is) and it means a lot to me because he is asking the question that no ONE in our government is asking anymore "How much is the future worth to you?"

We just worry so much about the problems of ourselves rather then that what will inspire our children to dare to dream to be better or try new things. This is something I worry about because I have children and I remember the shuttle launches as a kid and how it inspired me but there is nothing there for my children.

Anyways here is the link and I am interested in what every one else thinks about.

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future

 

[marfig]

I appreciate him more for his irreverence in that he's not afraid of discussing touchy subjects. He did once a impressive 40 minute talk where he "accuses" 80% of the top world scientists of delegating to god's design everything they can't explain yet, and then proceeds to hammer down Intelligent Design. There must have been a few uncomfortable movements in their chairs in the audience, since it was entirely composed of scientists.

That is what I most appreciate about him. But this NASA talk is just not one of those. It's another canned commercial-like version that proposes to solve the current NASA investment deficit by appealing to emotion; and Appealing to Emotion is a fallacy, let's get that straight. Private investors know that and the public in general (the ones paying half-a-penny on the dollar) intimately know that too, even if they may allow the emotion of the moment to transcend any other rational thoughts.

The "God Bless America" tone of the whole thing (complete with someone carrying a poster with an american flag in the background) also doesn't help, at all. NASA is today an American institution that draws the attention of the entire world and works with scientists, engineers, architects, students, teachers, technologists, from around the globe. NASA, along with ESA, are the two agencies that better reflect worldwide scientific collaboration. As a foreigner who sees many of his countrymen doing work for NASA in loan programs, scientific interchange programs, or directly employed, I must say I don't appreciate the, erm, territorial tone of the video. Neither it gives to the american people the real notion of the great foundation that is NASA. The largest agency in the world.

This is just a demonstration of what's wrong with NASA and what needs to change. Bringing nationalistic feelings into play so that one draws the people attention, effectively turns NASA into just another political instrument. It is much, much, much more than that. It in fact is nothing of that. Moreover is tarnishes the agency with this human disease called patriotism that has been more instrumental in separating humankind than it has in bringing it together.

NASA is no doubt an American agency. It no doubt lives off public (but also private) funding. But NASA is also at the frontier of knowledge. As an European citizen I don't give a rat's arse if ESA is an European agency. I'll gladly give my money to them, because:

- These agencies are always at the frontier of human knowledge.
- They have been already instrumental in the advance of human knowledge and space exploration in such disparate areas as health care or engineering.
- They have some of the best potential to directly or indirectly enhance human life conditions in some hopefully not so distant future.
- They are (NASA in particular is) inestimable contributors to the interest in sciences and the rise of the number of scientists in the world.
- ...

I probably should make this post much longer (and more to the point). NASA certainly deserved an account of all the benefits it has brought to mankind in general and the american people in particular. One of the true things that is lacking and that leads so many Americans to disbelief this agency. But I don't want to write a wall of text. Let NASA do their own defense... if they can.

Instead, the real argument here is that half-a-penny on the dollar is certainly not a NASA privilege. It's a citizen's responsibility. In fact, were NASA to lose their regional status, and it would also become the world responsibility to give money to it. The real question is not whether people should pay or not pay for NASA. The real question is what to do with those that think they actually shouldn't pay, next time they:

- use an ear thermometer on their sick child,
- use a tap water filter to prepare water for their baby,
- buy scratch resistant glass lenses to their tired eyes,
- use a cordless drill to fix their fence,
- use satellites to watch TV, talk to their distant loved ones, or use the internet

More importantly what to do with these people that think they shouldn't pay, when they send their kids to school and see them coming home more knowledgeable on how universe (including this planet, and life within) works and where we have sent our probes, our men and our women, and what we have learned from it.

NASA isn't going anywhere. It's not going to disappear behind some uninformed public opinion that still persists in any society, no matter how advanced it thinks it has become. Like ESA, NASA -- which has a much richer history -- is for granted. People will have to pay whether they like it or not. It's another tax for a better life. And governments will have to accept, some more than others, that agencies like this are part of the Brave New World that we are so anxious for; the time when space exploration finally replaces the Age of Discovery as the next most significant event in human exploration.

... something I won't be seeing in my lifetime and that is one of the things that makes me deeply frustrated. What I'd give to live in a period of space exploration. But something we are destined for; doubters, make no mistake.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

We just worry so much about the problems of ourselves rather then that what will inspire our children to dare to dream to be better or try new things. This is something I worry about because I have children and I remember the shuttle launches as a kid and how it inspired me but there is nothing there for my children.

Yet another opinion that is likely to be unpopular... (fair warning)

As a child my "defaults" were curiosity, wonder and trust. It takes an entire society half a child's juvenile years to train that out of them. And make no mistake, we do go about defeating the very qualities that make for progressive science and motivated learning in our children.

As children we accept the world as it appears before us, without bias or dismissal, it's all there and visible before our eyes. We soak it all in being both curious about it and confused by the sheer volume of it. We are in a state of wonder, wanting more and more all the time.

All any reasonable parent needs to do is feed their children's curiosity, solve the small mysteries for them and eventually the big one will fall into place on it's own.

However, as parents, expecting someone else to do that for us is sheer folly. It ain't gonna happen... it is up to each of us to do that for our children. Our children don't inherrit the Earth... they inherit our limitations.

It's all well and good for an expert orator to make enchanting speeches (the "give me money" pitch aside) but when's the last time any of us sat down with our kids, pulled out the encyclopedia and helped them explore the world?

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

We need the Soviet Union back. The second they did something in space, America had to do it too. Maybe China or someone will eventually get the Western world off its ass.

 

[Doomsday]

We need the Soviet Union back. The second they did something in space, America had to do it too. Maybe China or someone will eventually get the Western world off its ass.

Lol!

 

[Kayden]

First off I made a reply to this and then my power went out and I was halfway through it but I didn't get power back for a while and when I did, I lost my entire reply so I'm not replying as soon as I wanted because I got busy with other things so here it is.....again.

I appreciate him more for his irreverence in that he's not afraid of discussing touchy subjects. He did once a impressive 40 minute talk where he "accuses" 80% of the top world scientists of delegating to god's design everything they can't explain yet, and then proceeds to hammer down Intelligent Design. There must have been a few uncomfortable movements in their chairs in the audience, since it was entirely composed of scientists.

That is what I most appreciate about him. But this NASA talk is just not one of those. It's another canned commercial-like version that proposes to solve the current NASA investment deficit by appealing to emotion; and Appealing to Emotion is a fallacy, let's get that straight. Private investors know that and the public in general (the ones paying half-a-penny on the dollar) intimately know that too, even if they may allow the emotion of the moment to transcend any other rational thoughts.

There is nothing wrong with providing facts and then there being an emotional response, to say that we shouldn't be swayed by facts to invoke an emotional response is to deny who and what we are. They say all discussions should be with out emotion, this just will never happen as long as we apart of the human condition, plain and simple. Thus your point with this is paper is not one I can agree with because I am human and I don't let my emotions rule over more, rather I let them be apart of me and if I feel I am taking something with too much emotion involved I will take a step back and try to look at in a more logical way, though others obviously do not do this.

I don't believe Neil is using his facts to evoke emotions either, rather I think your reading his emotion when he speaks and that is provoking the emotional response. He does speak with great passion about NASA in that video but that's because he cares, again back to the human condition. The fact he speaks with his passion to give those facts is not something we should live with out, because he isn't telling what to think he is telling us what the facts are and then asking a question for you to make up your mind, not to agree with his.

This is where I think that paper blurs the emotional line a little too much, they are not saying it's okay to be passionate or have an opinion but rather you should never bring that to a discussion. I think they should be saying you can't let your own emotions in a discussion or lecture be about using them to provoke people so see things your way but rather talk passionately about it present the facts and let others make up their own minds, because you can't change some ones point of view with out with an argument and just yelling about something, you have to provide the facts and say why you are passionate about it so they can see your point of view to make a better informed decision.

I have a saying "I can't make 100% of the people I interact with 100% happy a 100% of the time" and I don't try to, but too many people are concerned about making every one happy and believe that will bring them over to their side and their way of thinking on a topic, I don't believe this to be true. I believe you can make some one upset about a topic and prove a point that they had not seen or considered before and sway them to yours, but you can't always be nice and neat but too many people are concerned with that way of thinking. That's why they try to put too much emotion into what they talk about like saying "I feel" rather than putting the facts out there. I haven't seen Neil say "I feel" with any subject and that is why I respect him so much, he puts the facts out there and makes his points in facts and lets you make your own decision. That is what he is all about and if you look at a few other videos of this man you will see that.

The "God Bless America" tone of the whole thing (complete with someone carrying a poster with an american flag in the background) also doesn't help, at all. NASA is today an American institution that draws the attention of the entire world and works with scientists, engineers, architects, students, teachers, technologists, from around the globe. NASA, along with ESA, are the two agencies that better reflect worldwide scientific collaboration. As a foreigner who sees many of his countrymen doing work for NASA in loan programs, scientific interchange programs, or directly employed, I must say I don't appreciate the, erm, territorial tone of the video. Neither it gives to the american people the real notion of the great foundation that is NASA. The largest agency in the world.

This is just a demonstration of what's wrong with NASA and what needs to change. Bringing nationalistic feelings into play so that one draws the people attention, effectively turns NASA into just another political instrument. It is much, much, much more than that. It in fact is nothing of that. Moreover is tarnishes the agency with this human disease called patriotism that has been more instrumental in separating humankind than it has in bringing it together.

NASA is no doubt an American agency. It no doubt lives off public (but also private) funding. But NASA is also at the frontier of knowledge. As an European citizen I don't give a rat's arse if ESA is an European agency. I'll gladly give my money to them, because:

- These agencies are always at the frontier of human knowledge.
- They have been already instrumental in the advance of human knowledge and space exploration in such disparate areas as health care or engineering.
- They have some of the best potential to directly or indirectly enhance human life conditions in some hopefully not so distant future.
- They are (NASA in particular is) inestimable contributors to the interest in sciences and the rise of the number of scientists in the world.
- ...

I appreciate your point of view and here is mine on the subject.

I believe NASA can and will do things to further our understanding of the Universe and the world we live in, they can not do this however if they are underfunded. The point about NASA working with other Countries and people on a global scale is a great one to make, but where would they get the money to do that? The "territorial tone" you speak of is about one thing in my mind funding, he maybe saying it's great for America with out talking about why it is great for the whole World but the whole World doesn't contribute to NASA, American tax payers do. Therefore his point about about half a penny on the dollar is where it takes hold for Americans, he doesn't make a point about a half a cent to a Euro because we don't use Euro's here so how else would he have made his point?

I agree with you marfig that he was short sighted to present that view the way he did but he did it in a format consistent with the people he was talking to, not to the whole World. If he were to speak the whole World about it I'm sure he would have worded what he said differently to make his points to a wider audience but that's not what he was trying make his point on. The point he was trying to make was that NASA was underfunded by the American government and we as Americans need to be aware of this fact because it is where the agency gets a majority of it's funding, not from donations and other countries.

The thing is he doesn't want to it stop with what we have learned, he want's (and so do I) it continue learning and pushing the boundaries of our knowledge because better understanding of the universe around us can bring us together and that is what NASA is about.

I really disagree with this point

Moreover is tarnishes the agency with this human disease called patriotism that has been more instrumental in separating humankind than it has in bringing it together.

What I really disagree with is the fact you make it sound like Americans can't take pride in something they have done to bring the world together and work towards common goals or any other country for what they have done for that matter. I am not saying other institutions have not done this from other countries but NASA has obviously done it on a scale not seen before. I believe there is nothing wrong with bringing to light a point of pride for a Country and I'm sorry you don't, but it wasn't about that and he did not undercut any other Country directly with their contributions but rather the American government for not doing what they should to keep alive the things you and I value from NASA.

Now if the only way we can get government to change their decision is by making people aware of what the cost is and saying we need to take more pride in the accomplishments of what NASA has done and can do, then I say lets do it that so that program does not die. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING is political when it is government funded, I don't care what country you are in but it's talked about more here that's for sure. Just look at the Debt Ceiling crap that went on, Obama used the most weak and unorganized group he could to get public opinion on his side, that being the disabled or retired, vet or civilian. Now he got his ass handed to him by the media for saying what he did, but make no mistake every time time they talk about SSI and etc they are talking about that group, Obama just made himself a target because there is no recourse for those people, myself included.

I probably should make this post much longer (and more to the point). NASA certainly deserved an account of all the benefits it has brought to mankind in general and the american people in particular. One of the true things that is lacking and that leads so many Americans to disbelief this agency. But I don't want to write a wall of text. Let NASA do their own defense... if they can.

Instead, the real argument here is that half-a-penny on the dollar is certainly not a NASA privilege. It's a citizen's responsibility. In fact, were NASA to lose their regional status, and it would also become the world responsibility to give money to it. The real question is not whether people should pay or not pay for NASA. The real question is what to do with those that think they actually shouldn't pay, next time they:

- use an ear thermometer on their sick child,
- use a tap water filter to prepare water for their baby,
- buy scratch resistant glass lenses to their tired eyes,
- use a cordless drill to fix their fence,
- use satellites to watch TV, talk to their distant loved ones, or use the internet

More importantly what to do with these people that think they shouldn't pay, when they send their kids to school and see them coming home more knowledgeable on how universe (including this planet, and life within) works and where we have sent our probes, our men and our women, and what we have learned from it.

NASA isn't going anywhere. It's not going to disappear behind some uninformed public opinion that still persists in any society, no matter how advanced it thinks it has become. Like ESA, NASA -- which has a much richer history -- is for granted. People will have to pay whether they like it or not. It's another tax for a better life. And governments will have to accept, some more than others, that agencies like this are part of the Brave New World that we are so anxious for; the time when space exploration finally replaces the Age of Discovery as the next most significant event in human exploration.

... something I won't be seeing in my lifetime and that is one of the things that makes me deeply frustrated. What I'd give to live in a period of space exploration. But something we are destined for; doubters, make no mistake.

I totally agree with you here marfig. The problem isn't with what NASA deserves but rather what do we deserve as a species to help one another? If you put little effort into something you will get little back, if you but nothing you will get nothing in return. The pursuit of knowledge isn't with out risk but it isn't going to happen in a test tube or a basement any more, we need agencies like NASA or ESA to push new ideas and find new ways of looking at everything. The problem is people are too concerned with personal gratification rather then the pursuit of knowledge, our own underfunded school system for the arts and science is proof of that, but where does the money go? To sports because it gives personal gratification immediately not over time and that's what scientific discovery is, taking time to do things right and learn.

There is nothing holding back the pursuit of knowledge but our own human condition, it's our strength and weakness. Now maybe if more people knew what NASA has contributed to make our lives better other then a trip to the Moon then maybe people would get on board, but unless we put a NASA sticker on every product I don't think that will happen, because people don't want to learn this stuff on their own so they would have to be reminded every day. Thus our primary option is to have people like Neil doing what he does to push those boundaries, but it wont happen with just one person we all need to do it and trust me I am making darn sure my kids are well educated and can make their own decisions with what they are told, not what others tell them teachers included.

 

[Kayden]

Yet another opinion that is likely to be unpopular... (fair warning)

As a child my "defaults" were curiosity, wonder and trust. It takes an entire society half a child's juvenile years to train that out of them. And make no mistake, we do go about defeating the very qualities that make for progressive science and motivated learning in our children.

As children we accept the world as it appears before us, without bias or dismissal, it's all there and visible before our eyes. We soak it all in being both curious about it and confused by the sheer volume of it. We are in a state of wonder, wanting more and more all the time.

All any reasonable parent needs to do is feed their children's curiosity, solve the small mysteries for them and eventually the big one will fall into place on it's own.

However, as parents, expecting someone else to do that for us is sheer folly. It ain't gonna happen... it is up to each of us to do that for our children. Our children don't inherrit the Earth... they inherit our limitations.

It's all well and good for an expert orator to make enchanting speeches (the "give me money" pitch aside) but when's the last time any of us sat down with our kids, pulled out the encyclopedia and helped them explore the world?

Oh no I totally agree with you dude. I have problems with parents who don't care to teach their children and only let others do it for them, now this isn't something that will change over night because for some reason were more concerned with keeping up with the Jones's or getting things to define who we are and that isn't right. Our children are more important then having a new car and if it comes down to giving them a better education to learn at home then a new car and getting a used one, I'm all for it but unfortunately most people are not.

There is a point he makes when he speaking with Richard Dawkins and they take a question at 50:30 and I think that is your point as well. He explains that children are curious and the problem isn't with children but with adults trying to take that spirit out of kids because they break something or it's ruined and not usable. Honestly this goes back to the point "How much is the future worth to you?" and obviously if you take that sense of discovery out of a child's life it obviously doesn't mean anything to you and I find that quite pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ&feature=related


Neil also talks about this a little here as well, but on another subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hig74yhS3SA


Here is another video he talks about education and I again I agree with him as well. This is where education should be going but isn't and with me being a parent I am worried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwioVE_83p4

We need the Soviet Union back. The second they did something in space, America had to do it too. Maybe China or someone will eventually get the Western world off its ass.

Your totally right, we didn't care about going there as a nation until we felt our interests threatened. Sad but true.

The only problem is were now more concerned with keeping our own interests then doing something new and that's every country right now. I am hopeful we can turn this thinking around but I'm not holding my breathe.

 

[GFreeman]

I think many are unaware what purpose an agency like NASA actually has. They have not much insight in what space travel has given us in terms of knowledge and new technologies.

In terms of economy yes things are tough, but I agree we have to keep dreaming and looking ahead as well. It's what keeps us going. It matters to be positive and passionate about our future. But then again there are many things to take care of, like helping the hungry and sick in this world. But in terms of advancing our technical showcase and further innovations I agree it's needed to invest in further space exploration.

I liked the video, it was informative. I was a little aware that NASA's future was so uncertain. But them being under funded worries me a little. If you think about are defence against the threats of this universe I consider it needed for the future of humanity. I didn't find the nations pride in the video disturbing. I think it's good to be proud of where you come from and to share that.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

In terms of economy yes things are tough, but I agree we have to keep dreaming and looking ahead as well. It's what keeps us going. It matters to be positive and passionate about our future. But then again there are many things to take care of, like helping the hungry and sick in this world.

If you've ever read/watched Prof. David Suzuki you should be aware of his "Last Minute" scenario... We live on a planet with finite resources that can only sustain a certain number of people. If our population doubles in a given time period (he says minute for drama) then we have a limited time on this planet. Eventually we will hit capacity. If by then we do not have someplace else to go, we are screwed. Now, the key point in his presentation is that when that critical population is reached (and we are close...) even a second Earth-like planet, with a 50% relocation, only buys us one more Suzuki-minute.

No Nasa isn't idly curious about other planets and life in the universe. They are driven by the rather obvious --but seldom spoken-- notion that at some point, if mankind is to survive we're going to need another planet to go to...

We are in the last minute, on Earth. To buy another minute we need another planet. So, yes, in one sense NASA is taking care of the hungry and poor of this planet...

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fPcgW6zPzg

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

All we need is something like this:

"Russia announces its intention to put a man on Mars."

Five minutes later, Obama says America will put a man on Mars, build a permanant colony, and do it all before the Russians.

Competition, while annoying, serves a purpose!

 

[marfig]

I think we are still a long way from Mars. The major problem being transporting building materials (not necessarily raw materials since those can be obtained locally) in order to populate the planet in a manner that could justify a repopulation program to solve Earth's over population. The costs in transporting materials, personal and colonists... In 100 years we will probably be still discussing this problem.

There's a grimmer scenario to overpopulation on Earth that will likely come first. Back in the 80s, under the role of Alberto Fujimori and with the support of the World Bank, Peru experienced a Population Control mechanism that forcefully sterilized between 200,000 and 300,000 women, mostly from rural areas. At the time (but still today in a manner) there's still economists linking economic development in third world countries with birth control. So, in order to obtain foreign aid, the country had to adopt population growth measures. And being this pretty much a dictatorship, the program took the shape of a violation of human rights, of which most of the western world was complacent with and would give aid money based on results.

I have very little doubt that if we were faced with an overpopulation crisis of planetary dimensions, with the potential to question established democracies continuity, we would experience governmental enforced birth control. In many countries (make no doubt, including 1st world countries) with effects and practices that would make Peru in the 80s look like a happy maternity ward.

Make the problem even worse, and even worse measures could take place. Horrors like Social Darwinism and Eugenics could became common policies or even a ideological movements driving entire western countries. Nothing new, to be sure. Eugenics was practiced in the 19th century and early 20th century and many western countries. The idea that anyone unfit should be sterilized, guaranteeing only the fittest (or privileged) could generate offspring, would drive a stake through the heart of everything our civilization achieved in terms of human rights.

Mars, on the other hand would not be an option. Ignoring for a moment the actual practicality of moving millions or billions to Mars, as 2Tired2Tango notes we aren't actually solving the problem on Earth. Without birth control, we would be consistently increasing expenses since people would have to be continuously moved out of the planet. The other problem, perhaps even more serious, is what kind of colonization would be made of a planet when the motivation is to reduce population excess on Earth? Can you see a social drama unfold here? And would we force people to move? Who would go? Why?

No. Mars will not only be unreachable (for any practical purposes that is) for maybe 200, 300, maybe 400 years. We will no doubt get there sooner than that. Science will be however the early motivator. Space travel poses real problems that aren't only dependent on technological advancements, but also on social, ethical and political issues that will remain unsolved for a very long time after we finally muster the technology to send human beings to other planets. Who will own Mars? There will be countries there? What's the price of the land? Who will go? Why should they go? At what monetary cost? etc.. etc... etc... You can for sure start to imagine the kind of conflicts between countries, economic and political interests this will generate if the motivator was an urgency in reducing population excess.

However, I'm not so much an apologist of the idea we are overpopulating the planet. What we are doing indeed is experienced a never seen before consumerism and misusing the planet resources. It's late over here and I don't feel like looking for it, but the percentage of the planet resources consumed by western countries in comparison to the rest of the world is absolutely staggering. Something within the 80% mark, if memory serves me right. On the other hand we are extremely inefficient and wasteful. The problem is that these are hard practices to solve politically. There's simply not a clear interest yet in changing our lifestyles. And very few technologies that can adequately replace the current production and energy consumption practices.

On the other hand, humankind has experienced periods in its history of large population reductions before. There's a cyclic nature to our planet we simply cannot avoid that affects life on it. Global catastrophes can solve the problem for us at the expense of a few billion lives. Nothing that our planet hasn't done before.

Other than that we are indeed on a path of self-destruction, with very little hope of the problems being effectively tackled by our own hand until the effects become too visible, and irreversible. Most organisms on earth have this potential in fact. An introduced species, for instance, can destroy an ecosystem and in the process destroy itself. We know toads, fish, plants, mammals do this. We've seen it happen. We humans follow a similar pattern it seems, regardless of the fact we developed our brains.

We will probably screw it up good enough, we end up killing ourselves in big numbers due to climate changes, starvation, civil and global wars, take your pick, or all together. Bringing our human civilization back to more sustainable numbers of a couple billion. If that much. If we don't, if we solve the problem of planet resources before we rear our ugly head, we need great strides in scientific and technological advancements that can only be achieved by a society that actually promotes science with the same fervor and monetary aid they use on such things as entertainment.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Marfig... well enough said. Two quick comments if I may...

For the question of who do we send... Lets hope we don't follow the historical pattern of the first colonists being refugees and criminals...

For the question on poplulation growth itself... There are numerous sources but most of the credible ones are saying that World population has doubled in the last 40 years... If Suzuki is right... that means we are very near the critical levels. I'm thinking we need to smarten up and we need to do it fairly soon... like, major change has to come in the next decade... certainly not the century it would take to get Mars ready for colonization.

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

I'm wondering what remedies you guys have in mind?

 

[2Tired2Tango]

I'm wondering what remedies you guys have in mind?

Up front... given that people are basically stupid, self-centered and aloof, I'm not sure there is a remedy. It seems that the human race is destined to die the death of a thousand tiny cuts as we wreck our air, water and food supplies then end up running out of needed resources. It won't likely be some grand calamity like Niburu or Krackatoa that takes us, it will almost certainly be our own foolisheness that does us in.

If people could be convinced of a solution...

1) Global birth control... one child per family for the next 200 years.

2) Mass relocations to get our best farmland out from under concrete and pavement. City building was fine when that meant 50 buildings and a store taking up a few achres of farm land but that model just doesn't work when you're talking about cities of 3 and 5 million people.

3) A concerted effort to end our reliance on petrochemical fuels which are the major contributor to environmental degredation right now. The technology to scrap the internal combustion engine has existed since the 1950s... now is the time to put it to use.

4) Governments that are more interested in their populace than their electorates. Ending corruption and graft will go a very long way to ending the current tendency to favor campain contributions over the better interests of the people.

5) (and the big one) We need to rethink our notions of morality and law. Those who do not care about others are far more to blame for our current predicument than any fossil fuel or dirty water... It takes an almost sociopathic lack of concern to wreck a whole planet in the name of greed, power and money.

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

Wow, another good post. Unfortunately, people are so stubborn I'm doubtful they would voluntarily do anything you suggested.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Wow, another good post. Unfortunately, people are so stubborn I'm doubtful they would voluntarily do anything you suggested.

Voluntary? Who said anything about voluntary?

(Just kidding)

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

Well, when the government decides it wants something, who are we to tell them what to do?

Canada would probably be the last place to implement such measures, I imagine. In fact, 90% (something like that) of our country is unused land! There's a reason, of course. In winter it's around -40 C there, and in summer it can go up to 40C. Freeze and bake! Sounds fun, huh? Wonder if climate change could somehow open it up to human habitation?

 

[marfig]

1) Global birth control... one child per family for the next 200 years.

This I cannot agree. Not just because I actually don't think overpopulation is an issue, but also because I don't see how this could be implemented without bringing serious issues of human rights breaching. It would also have to be seen what kind of legislation would have to be passed, the type of social unrest that it could bring, and what would it mean to be an offender and what type of punishment they would be served...

I can fully understand the good intentions behind such a law in a situation where we would have little choices left. But in order to enforce such a thing, it's very possible that even on so-called democratic and free societies, freedom would be undermined. It would also be extremely hard to justify especially among traditional or conservative segments of the population. Particularly because if you look at many countries in Europe, higher birth rates have in fact raised the average age of the population to levels that are becoming economic problems.

Ideally, the birth rates should be controlled based on regions and their social, demographic and economic characteristics. But this would pose a serious problem, since such a profound decision in the life of many families would almost certainly raise anger and social unrest if the rules weren't the same for everyone.

I don't think birth control is a doable nationwide practice if it becomes enforced.

2) Mass relocations to get our best farmland out from under concrete and pavement. City building was fine when that meant 50 buildings and a store taking up a few achres of farm land but that model just doesn't work when you're talking about cities of 3 and 5 million people.

Absolutely! Similarly there's an interesting grassroots movement on a few american cities (I think) and a little over the world too called something like Urban Farming, in which city dwellers plant their own vegetables on their backyards, or unoccupied land is used to plant stuff up. It's a somewhat interesting concept.

3) A concerted effort to end our reliance on petrochemical fuels which are the major contributor to environmental degredation right now. The technology to scrap the internal combustion engine has existed since the 1950s... now is the time to put it to use.

Again, absolutely! It's even embarrassing in this day and age when we like to think of ourselves as an advanced society. Heck, it's more than a century old. It's a relic from the late 19th century we definitely need to get rid of. It's highly inefficient, power hungry, noisy, pollutant... I'm very happy to finally starting to see alternatives to the combustion engine. I just hope what we aren't seeing is a sand in our eyes to make us believe something is being done about it.

This brings us anyway to the point I'd like to make.

The actual solutions to the problem (whether it is in fact overpopulation or inefficient and overuse of resources) reside in technological advancements as I see it. Take a look at how wasteful we are of our energy sources. Our computers for instance; the fact we cannot solve the heating problems (or at least harvest that source of energy from them), leading us to consume more energy to keep them cool.

We need not only to reduce power consumption, we need technologies that can significantly reduce waste and reuse it. Nothing in physics is actually wasted. So our materials and our systems need to be designed closer to this natural property in which matter and energy just transition states. As an example, imagine a car engine that can extract part of the kinetic energy produced when the car is moving and use that to reduce energy consumption or power other things in the car. Or a cellular-based computer that is powered by feeding it light and nutrients (being such a simple system when compared to a living organism, a computer would probably require the same amount of energy as... I dunno... an ant?)

Anyways, the point being that the focus must not reside only on reducing power consumption. There's a bottom to that well with our current sources of energy that once reached cannot be crossed. Instead looking for scientific solution to the problems of efficiency and reuse of energy, would very likely produce the biggest impact on our planet resources.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

marfig... While I do not disagree with you and I certainly do agree that much of my "fix list" isn't going to happen... We are facing a choice... Despite energy and wastage issues, the fact remains there is only just so much room on this planet. If our population doubles again over the next 40 years, we're going to be into one massive food, water and waste disposal problem... Wall-E will become a national hero!

Anyhow... as these debates go, opinions at end usually match those at the beginning, so I'm going to shut up now and see what everyone else has to say...

 

[Kayden]

Another good point from Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc&feature=player_embedded