• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Science NASA predicts the end.

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
What happened to space exploration? NASA?s new project predicts the end of civilization – Glenn Beck

Seriously?

I think this trio (especially Pat and Stu) just ripped environmentalism and liberalism a new one. Some of you will vehemently disagree with this simply because it came from Glenn Beck, why not give it a chance though and really sit down and think about this?

How is overpopulation a problem? There are 36 billion acres of land in the world, we have a population of 7 billion. You do the math. Also, the West is not to blame for overpopulation if it's a problem at all, that would be the East.

Environmentalism also stopped us from really going for nuclear power which by this time would have completely solved our dependence on oil with hydrogen. Many of these same people that were protesting the use and development of nuclear power now admit that they were wrong. Guess what? If we had gone down this route then we'd have 0 emission cars right now.

Since NASA doesn't appear to be doing anything useful with their time and resources they actually called for the defunding of NASA. Now, that's probably not going to happen and I don't think I agree with that, there is a point to be made though.

Thoughts on this?
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
I read the article and watched the entire video. While I don't necessarily agree with the proposed solutions put forth by the study, I think some of the findings are entirely plausible, such as overpopulation or wealth inequality.

What evidence is there that these things won't cause a collapse? Glenn Beck calls it "bogus science," but he and his partners didn't really have any fact-based arguments. It was all "We can't overpopulate the Earth because more people is a good thing!"


How is overpopulation a problem? There are 36 billion acres of land in the world, we have a population of 7 billion. You do the math.
If land area is the only thing you factor into overpopulation, then you may have a good point. There are obviously many other factors. How many of those 36 billion acres are suitable for living? You can't just build a city anywhere you want, like in the mountains or desert, or in the arctic or antarctic.

How many acres are currently used for agricultural, commercial, or industrial purposes? Where is the food going to come from to feed the growing population if more and more farmland is being used for new housing? What about water? There are many places in the US that are already stressed for water, particularly in the west, but even here it's not an unlimited resource, and we get our water from Lake Michigan.

At what point does the Earth become overpopulated?
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I think once you start draining the aquifers faster than they are being refilled you already have a problem. We are doing that now. We are at peak food production right now so I don't know how we could feed more people. Tearing down more forests for farm land isn't the answer either.

I think we are already overpopulated or getting dangerously close. There may be the physical space to hold more people but much of that land is not inhabitable.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.
The resource depletion thing really bugs me about this argument. I live in a crowded State and there is unused land that could be farmed everywhere. When food really starts to be a problem, we can meet the demands. These guys said we'd never meet the needs in the 70s and we've far outpaced food production. Sadly many people in the world are still starving, but getting the food to them or stabilizing their country is a different matter.

Its the same with energy. The Earth has an abundance of energy and is making more all of the time.

I also see zero evidence that population is a problem. In a free society, the most dense population areas are often the most prosperous.

Of everything, water is the only thing that could be an issue but we will reach the capacity to desalination sea water and that problem will be over.

NASA should be ashamed getting involved in political garbage.
 

Sim

Registered Member
What happened to space exploration? NASA?s new project predicts the end of civilization – Glenn Beck

Seriously?

I think this trio (especially Pat and Stu) just ripped environmentalism and liberalism a new one. Some of you will vehemently disagree with this simply because it came from Glenn Beck, why not give it a chance though and really sit down and think about this?
I don't feel like watching a polemic political video now (these kind of things just make me sad, because usually, these political polemics are never intellectually honest or even interested to educate people and discuss problems, but just rallying "our side" up against "the enemy", and they'll use any lie, dishonesty and BS pseudo-argument to advance their cause), so I'll just reply to the points you bring up.

How is overpopulation a problem? There are 36 billion acres of land in the world, we have a population of 7 billion. You do the math. Also, the West is not to blame for overpopulation if it's a problem at all, that would be the East.
You can't seriously tell me that you actually believe living space is the only thing that matters when it comes to maintaining a population ...? :-o

Uhm... where to begin ... you know we have to eat, and this food has to grow somewhere? You know we need air to breathe and that the only thing that creates oxygen are plants? You know we all do not just breathe and eat, but have to pee and poo too, and that has to go somewhere, and that we need huge amounts of fresh water to solve that problem? And on top of that, don't you think that most people think a certain living standard with certain luxuries is required for a good life, and that depends on resources, most of which are not regenerative ...?

Environmentalism also stopped us from really going for nuclear power which by this time would have completely solved our dependence on oil with hydrogen. Many of these same people that were protesting the use and development of nuclear power now admit that they were wrong. Guess what? If we had gone down this route then we'd have 0 emission cars right now.
It's true that nuclear power has its advantages, but it's not as rosy and unproblematic as you (or Glenn Beck?) picture it here. After a bit more than 50 years with nuclear energy, we know that statistically, one nuclear plant melts down every 25 years. As long as that does not happen, it certainly is a useful source of energy, but whenever that happens, a huge region is radiated and is no longer suitable for human life for centuries, if not millennia. And that does not even factor in deliberate meltdowns such as terrorist attacks.

On top of that, there is no suitable solution for the problem of nuclear waste power plants regularly produce. Estimates show that the stuff is radiating for at least 10.000 years. And when only a tiny drop of it gets into the ground water, it can poison millions. Where do you want to put that? How can you make sure it's safely stored for 100 years, let alone 10 millennias?

Nuclear energy is NOT a "clean" energy. It has its pros, but there are serious cons too, and it has to be weighed against the pros and cons of other energy sources.

Since NASA doesn't appear to be doing anything useful with their time and resources they actually called for the defunding of NASA. Now, that's probably not going to happen and I don't think I agree with that, there is a point to be made though.

Thoughts on this?
I have much more trust in NASA, where actual scientists are working, than in dishonest liars and partisan hacks such as Glenn Beck. Any time of the day, any day of the week and any week in the year. Because hacks like Glenn Beck (and partisan pundits in the corporate media in general) are not interesting in genuine debate, in facts, reason or anything else -- either they are paid off, or make money by playing the stupid "the other side is bad, our side is good"-game of politics.

If you really want the truth, don't look for it at politicians or political pundits. Look in science journals, and/or the Bible, if you like. And no, Republicans are not anymore Christian than Democrats.

And if you really care about your country, then stop supporting this bipartisan game by joining the chorus that actually thinks "the own side" is somehow better and will really make a substantial difference when it wins the election.

My two cents.
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
I live in a crowded State and there is unused land that could be farmed everywhere.
Unused land owned by whom? You think the rich people are going to sell off their 500 acre estates to make room for more farms? They're not the ones who have to worry about going hungry.

I also see zero evidence that population is a problem.
Environmentally, it is already a problem. If you don't see any evidence, then you're not really looking.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
What pisses me off, is that NASA gets its funding stripped, constantly and one man makes one comment about a very scientifically sound conclusion of how the civilized world will collapse and all of a sudden it's a scandal? How about funding NASA again? Let's stop pretending they're just doing nothing right now, if you believe that then you've been under a rock. NASA has plenty to do and a lot less funding to do it.

And sorry Dave, but I have to comment on it, but Glenn Beck .. I mean, shit just look at this:

“When we saw that NASA’s main mission was changed from exploration to telling the Muslim world how great they are, we should have called for the banning or dissolving of NASA. That’s not something I call for lightly, but shut it down. Shut it down,” Glenn concluded. “This is taking NASA and trying to fit them into an organ to play the music of Karl Marx. That’s all this is. NASA should be defunded right now.”
Typical sensationalist trash. You've got all the mislead xenophobic and communist fear-mongering you can handle! I mean, this sort of hyperbole is common for guys like Beck or Maher, but it still bothers me that people are this uninformed and guys like them are telling you that they are the ones who are in fact, informing you.
 
Top