/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1700395]

If the Manhattan Beach Project is a success, what do we do about overpopulation?

[Anonymous No.1700400]

well atheism is on the rise.

and atheists eat babies (Fact)

so problem solved

[Anonymous No.1700408]

Bump for transhumanist problems.

[Anonymous No.1700409]

>implying overpopulation is real

[Anonymous No.1700410]

Eventually we'll either have to colonize new planets or just limit who can have babies, probably both.

It seems harsh to tell people they can't have kids but once people stop dying, we're not going to have much choice.

[Anonymous No.1700412]

>>1700400
I'm an atheist, and I believe this will work!

[Anonymous No.1700415]

Another question. What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?

[Anonymous No.1700419]

Okay. Our solutions so far are:
Cannibalism
Birth control
Space

[Anonymous No.1700423]

>>1700409
Right. What are the plans to feed everyone, then?

[Anonymous No.1700425]

One child policy, and then eventually phased down to a fertility lottery. Not really a huge deal, just ask China.

[Anonymous No.1700429]

>>1700425
But... no womens?

[Anonymous No.1700430]

If we can build some underwater bubble-cities the earth suddenly gets a lot more roomy.

[Anonymous No.1700434]

I say we put all creationists, geocentric model advocates, and fundamental Christians onto a generation spaceship, then send them on a direct course to the black hole in the center of the universe.

[Anonymous No.1700436]

>>1700415
I think the last number I heard was 10b. Predicted 2050 IIRC

[Anonymous No.1700440]

>>1700430
Why underwater? Why not floating?

[Anonymous No.1700441]

>>1700429
Create an /r9k/ for every language. The surplus males will eventually just off themselves. Also, sex change tech will probably improve, so that'll help.

[Anonymous No.1700443]

>>1700440
Underwater is cooler

[Anonymous No.1700445]

>>1700440
Because not futuristic enough, faggot.

[Anonymous No.1700447]

If we gain that kind of control over our own genetics, the first order of business should be 3 females for every male.

[Anonymous No.1700448]

>implying humans need to take up as much space as they currently do.

Forget having a physical body -- you'll feel exactly the same when you're an electrical signal on a computer.

[Anonymous No.1700450]

>>1700436
Awesome. I'm trying to convince some people that longer life-expectancy isn't such a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.1700455]

>>1700415

for everyone to be comfortable a happy for their whole lives?

~2 billion or so....why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.1700456]

>>1700448

[Anonymous No.1700458]

That project is bullshit.

Add one or two years of life into you with the help of bullshit chemicals.

Take natural herbs, add 4-10 years of life into you.

[Anonymous No.1700465]

>>1700458
>OH NO BIG PHARMA

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.1700472]

The earth could sustain probably about 50 billion people comfortably. Fresh water becomes the sticking point. Food production is no problem. Distribution of wealth in poorly functioning economies is the only reason why anyone is hungry.

[Anonymous No.1700474]

>>1700465
Enjoy your early death.

Enjoy cancer and alzheimers, too.

I'll be making my own medicine and not having to worry about shit.

I bet you still vote for presidents.

[Anonymous No.1700481]

>>1700465
Anotherfag here. I disapprove of some aspects of large pharmaceutical companies behavior, but a lot of it is just dictated by the market. Legislation would need to be changed for optimum innovation, combined with effective treatments and common use of working public domain technology.

[Anonymous No.1700482]

I think offering free health care to childless people who volunteer for vasectomies and tuba ligation is a good idea. It also does the job of weeding disease out of the gene pool, because free health care is very valuable to diseased people.

[Anonymous No.1700488]

>>1700472
>Distribution of wealth in poorly functioning economies, exacerbated by farm subsidies in the developed world is the reason why many are hungry.

Fixed

[Anonymous No.1700490]

>>1700482
Wow. This is actually a really good idea. Nobody is forced into anything, there are huge benefits either way, we get this by giving, not taking. This is almost like self-selection.

[Anonymous No.1700496]

>tuba ligation

[Anonymous No.1700498]

Overpopulation is one of those problems that eventually solves itself.

[Anonymous No.1700530]

>>1700498
Not really, if you want people to be living reasonably good lives. Call me a moralfag, but if we wish to advance humanity, humanity needs to be healthy. We can just support billions of starving people indefinitely.

[Anonymous No.1700531]

>>1700482
I would support that.

Also, take away all government assistance for those with more than 3 children. And then, if you can't pay for your 4+ kids, have them taken away and possibly charge you with neglect. Cruel, but very effective. Especially in the poorer areas, like in pretty much every major city in the US.

[Anonymous No.1700538]

>>1700531
Give the extra children to wealthy couples who've opted for infertility.

[Anonymous No.1701477]

Bump
Serious issue.

[Anonymous No.1701484]

People people calm down, the solution is simple
71 percent of the Earth is covered in water
so.........
We drain the oceans

[Anonymous No.1701487]

Space.

[Anonymous No.1701490]

>>1701484
What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous No.1701506]

>>1701484
but where would we put all the water?

[None !caG84MXea2 No.1701508]

>>1701506
pour it down your sink, DUH!

[Anonymous No.1701513]

>>1700472

>50 billion people

[Anonymous No.1701514]

>>1700410
Give people a first world enviroment and they stop having so many babies.

Problem solved.

Also, where is my painless suicide booth for $.25

[Anonymous No.1701524]

Any babies at all when we're immortal is a problem. What do we do about mothering instincts?

[Anonymous No.1701525]

>>1701524
give them kittens

[Anonymous No.1701529]

>>1701514
i wonder what they do with the bodies? must make money off them for suicide to only cos a quater

[Anonymous No.1701530]

>>1701529
Soylent green is people.

[Anonymous No.1701532]

well, the maximum carrying capacity of the earth comes down to 2 things basically.

1. sufficient conversion of C02 into 02
2. sufficient energy supply

part of the reason the earth's population has ballooned rapidly in the last 100 years or so is our use of fossil fuels as an additional and abundant source of energy. while we have oil and gas into the foreseeable future, it will eventually run out. fusion production plants may never happen, so that leaves hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar as potential sources of energy for things like crop production. i'd love to see data on realistic averages for human energy consumption and compare that to the maximum harness able energy from all natural sources. currently we're undoubtedly exceeding the population that should be sustainable given our development level of natural energy sources.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701544]

>they still believe in overpopulation
>they can't imagine having a law of having to use a condom

[Anonymous No.1701556]

>>1701530
i wonder how soylent green tastes?

[Anonymous No.1701557]

>>1701556
it varies from person to person

[Anonymous No.1701561]

>>1701544
Because laws totally work. Nobody under 18 drinks, nobody gets high, everyone drives under the speed limit, violent crime is a myth.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701566]

>>1701561
Or you get the immortality treatment, you get snipped right after.

No condoms required.

[Anonymous No.1701568]

Here's why overpopulation ain't a problem:

Unsustainable levels of population won't...
last very long.

[Anonymous No.1701573]

>>1701557

[Anonymous No.1701598]

lets hope it goes wrong and they make a zombie virus

[Anonymous No.1701605]

>>1701598
What?

I'm not going to hope for that

I'm not going to hope for that at all

Why would you hope for that?

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701608]

>>1701598
Why on earth would you hope for that?

[Anonymous No.1701611]

#1 although age is the top killer 1/2 of us will get cancer and other illnesses.
#2 new laws will be introduced like the one family one child.
#3 probably to expensive for most people to have.

[Anonymous No.1701635]

>>1701608
Because humans are a plague, and post apocalyptic dystopias give me a raging boner.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701640]

>>1701635
Bitch you need to read some Manna.

[Anonymous No.1701653]

>>1701640
I do not believe you understand me, towel boy.
I have no interest in the survival of humanity.
Fuck transhumanism.

[Anonymous No.1701657]

>>1701653
Then do us a favor and kill your self faggot.

[Anonymous No.1701664]

>>1701657
Not when I still have a good 40-50 years to figure out a way to bring about absolute chaos.

[Anonymous No.1701693]

overpopulation or no overpopulation

what d we need 7 billion people for anyways?
wouldn't 700mil be enough to keep mankind developing at a good pace and with much less sustainability issues?

[Anonymous No.1701698]

>>1701693
Fuck off, you NWO shill.

[Anonymous No.1701714]

>>1701698
useless cattle being afraid to get culled, eh?

[Anonymous No.1701716]

>>1701653 This,
and I can't believe nobody has come out and just said, we need billions of people to die, especially all religious fundamentalists. This whole world is ready for a cleansing, of which kind I am not to sure of. The human race needs to reboot, virus free, and undeniably, billions must die.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701717]

>>1701716
Or we can expand to different planets and have our own societies separate from dickheads. You're thinking of the easy way out.

[Anonymous No.1701722]

If we're benevolent, we try to bring the world out of poverty as quickly as possible, secure equal rights for women (especially education and job opportunities), have adequate social security, and watch the birth rate plummet below 1. Then it's just a few hundred years of overpopulation and we'll reach a stable point.

Or, we do nothing, and watch hundreds of millions die in droughts in the coming decade

[Anonymous No.1701724]

>>1701716
You may have sentenced yourself to death. Who decides who lives or dies?

The rich and powerful. And those are the people who often don't exhibit the traits which would lead to a stable society.

[Anonymous No.1701726]

NEW !!! Soylent Green !!!!!

Made of Ultranutritious Algae!!!

For the civilization on the brink of destruction !!!!!

[Anonymous No.1701728]

>>1701717
And surrender this planet to the dickheads?

Fuck you!

[Anonymous No.1701730]

>>1701717
No, you're thinking of the easy way out.
Instead of confronting the problem, you're suggesting escapism.
If anything - the space race would be easier and less costly if all but the top 5% most productive and intelligent people on earth would die and remove themselves from our path.
And why the fuck would we introduce methods of space colonization to the unenlightened masses which will undoubtedly use their new found planets to make more plastic products and cheap cars.
No. Humanity is a virus. It is a plague. We do not need more humans, and especially not the extremely harmful ones.
Earth has suffered enough on our account.
Augmenting the effect of our reach would be a catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.1701735]

>>1700400
>>1700412
[citation needed]

also saged for trolling

[Anonymous No.1701738]

>>1701730
>Earth has suffered enough
Anthropomorphism

When I hear people say "The Earth would be better off without us" I rage.

Humans give meaning. Without humans there's no meaning in having a beautiful planet (beauty is a human concept anyway). Remove humans, remove meaning.

It's funny how people give meaning to a world without humans, when that world would have no meaning.

Confused?

[Anonymous No.1701741]

An age cap of 60, anyone who disagrees can go live on the New Mexico Savage Reservation.

[Anonymous No.1701745]

>>1701730

I dont exactly think humans are a disease,
I think that the world is now over-populated
to the point where it is impossible to remove
all humans responsible for the current state of
earth. There are too many too weed out. That
means in the end, good people who probably
dont deserve to die will.

[Anonymous No.1701747]

>>1701738
No you imbecile, I'm referring to the entire biosphere.
It had suffered enough.
Also, our consumerist ways are slowly but surely turning this planet into a desolate wasteland incapable of harboring life.

Clear enough for you?

[Anonymous No.1701755]

>>1701747
This planet will be able to harbour life even if we nuke ourselves to death.

>I'm referring to the entire biosphere.
It had suffered enough.
If I'm interpreting it correctly, you're suggesting the biosphere can suffer?
Stop the Gaia bullshit.

>consumerism
>what the fuck am i reading .jpg

Stop projecting your anxieties onto the world. You'd like to think your actions have an impact; they don't.

[Anonymous No.1701758]

>>1701747
Moron Luddite detected

[Anonymous No.1701761]

>>1701747
>No you imbecile, I'm referring to the entire biosphere.
>It had suffered enough.

The biosphere does not "suffer" because it does not think or feel emotions. It is not a person. Algae does not care whether it lives or dies. That capacity is reserved for a few vertebrates. And of these creatures, only a tiny fraction have achieved the sentience to consider such questions at all. Mainly humans.

[Anonymous No.1701764]

>>1701761
THANK YOU oh god I thought I was the only one

[Anonymous No.1701766]

>>1701755
>If I'm interpreting it correctly, you're suggesting the biosphere can suffer?
Stop the Gaia bullshit.
I'm referring to the ridiculously increased extinction rate of other species.

>Stop projecting your anxieties onto the world. You'd like to think your actions have an impact; they don't.
Of course they have no impact.
None what so ever.

[Anonymous No.1701770]

>>1701714
Are you fucking serious?

You actually believe you're going to get away with killing billions of people?

I'm going to laugh when I find your dead body in the road

[Anonymous No.1701775]

>>1701716
And I can't believe how hard I'll be laughing when I take my G36K and shoot you straight between the eyes.

[Anonymous No.1701776]

>>1701738

Only humans need and care about something like "meaning". The world would be perfectly fine as it is, alive and meaningless. It's like you forget that meaning is our own fabrication anyway.

[Anonymous No.1701780]

If it becomes an actual problem and it is not yet another doom prophecy that will never come to pass, then we will simply adapt.

[Anonymous No.1701785]

>>1701775
You and what army, huh, faggot?

[Anonymous No.1701787]

Gayfag here, doing my best to contribute.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701789]

>>1701728
Dude. We get a green and blue Mars that has a nice temperature and we get lower gravity for more fun with amazing futuristic infrastructure, while they continue fucking up Earth and wallowing in retards and eventually nuke themselves out of existence.

[Anonymous No.1701793]

>>1701785
The I-Don't-NEED-An-Army-Because-YOU'RE-Too-Pussy-To-Actually-Do-Anything Army

[Anonymous No.1701794]

>>1701766
>I'm referring to the ridiculously increased extinction rate of other species.

Most species don't care if they go extinct because they cannot think to care about anything. A tree doesn't care if it lives or dies anymore than a rock cares if it gets split in half. Humans are one of the very few species who actually like being alive.

[Anonymous No.1701796]

>>1701766
>I'm referring to the ridiculously increased extinction rate of other species.
Yeah, the Holocene Extinction Event is really serious. 90% of Ocean-dwelling species to be Extinct by 2050

[Anonymous No.1701802]

>>1701776
No, I realise that giving meaning to something is ultimately arbitrary.

>>1701766
And the only thing wrong with the extinction of other species is that it may reduce our 'pleasure in the world' or our own chances of survival.

Notice how the first bullet-point on "Problems created by plastic" is that it scares away tourists and makes our beaches unsightly?

A few hundred years to photodegrade plastics? Boohoo, we may be shitting on our own lawn but geologically it's an instant.

[Anonymous No.1701805]

>>1701789
It'll only take 100,000 years

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701810]

>>1701805

Think 300

[Anonymous No.1701811]

>>1701805
Imma get on a spaceship and take a trip at relativistic speeds.

[Anonymous No.1701812]

>>1701794
>>1701796
>>1701802
>The only problem with mass killing of other life forms is whether or not it bothers us.
You have got to be shitting me.

[Anonymous No.1701814]

>Holocene extinction
"Over 98% of species that ever lived are now extinct"
"Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

[Anonymous No.1701819]

>>1701796

Don't worry, it'll all be fine.

In a few million years.

[Anonymous No.1701820]

>>1701812
You can make an argument that we should care about some organisms like Pigs and Great Apes that can problem solve and communicate. But most organisms are not like that. Explain to me why it is "wrong" to kill an organism that does not think or feel pain.

[Anonymous No.1701821]

>>1701812
Re-read your post.

1. The only problem with mass killing of other life forms is whether or not it bothers us.
2. You're bothered with 1.
3. Since from 2. and 1. we're all bothered, we can agree that mass killing of life isn't good.

You just cemented our argument. DUCY?

[Anonymous No.1701829]

So, /sci/, /k/ thinks they can stop us.

[Anonymous No.1701836]

>>1701812
Would you be okay with eradication of mosquitoes, given the diseases they transmit cause immense suffering? (malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, etc.)

(assuming there is no alternative)

[Anonymous No.1701839]

Children are our immortality. They inherit our space on Earth.

Consequently, anti-age treatment should be reserve only for those who don't procreate.

[Anonymous No.1701845]

>>1701836
To expand on that, what about committing genocide against organisms like malaria e. coli? Is it wrong for us to kill these organisms?

[Anonymous No.1701852]

>>1701839
Logic.

[Anonymous No.1701855]

>>1701836

no because there an aliment for other insects, spiders bird an fish

[Anonymous No.1701882]

>>1701811

>implying that not every speed is relativistic

[Anonymous No.1701892]

May I present the master race project:

Kill everybody else, but Finns, Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders. If you think you are better than these people, you're delusional. Gene pool ain't a problem since the genes are perfect in every way to begin with.

[Anonymous No.1701894]

>>1701882

Definition of relativistic: "term used to describe an object moving close to the speed of light. An object becomes relativistic when the energy of its motion (kinetic energy) is much greater than the amount of energy stored in the form of its mass, given by Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^2."

In short, you're wrong.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1701895]

>>1701892
Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Einstein
You may be killing future ones

[Anonymous No.1701902]

>>1701895

Just wait till Cern turns out to be a failure and everything we knew about physics is wrong. Just wait till a Nord reinvents physics.

[Anonymous No.1701905]

>>1701892
Please. Generalizations like that might save time, but you could lose out. Have massive international IQ and fitness tests. Choose the best people to survive, the expenditure of resources to determine these people will hardly matter after we've brought population down.

[Anonymous No.1701906]

>>1701905
So, OH SO many problems with that.

[Anonymous No.1701907]

I say we all become celibates, and make sex into a capital offense.

[Anonymous No.1701908]

>>1701882
I mean at a speed that will make a significant difference to my perception of the passage of time compared to people remaining at Earth.

Better?

[Anonymous No.1701915]

>>1701907
So what do we do after we've killed off everyone who had sex?

[Anonymous No.1701916]

>>1701907

>> Can't get any sex so doesn't want anyone else to have it either.

[Anonymous No.1701919]

>>1701892
>>1701905
Oh man, you guys are fucked when /k/ finds out about this.

[Anonymous No.1701921]

>>1701915
Stand awkwardly in the corner waiting for her to make the first move.

[Anonymous No.1701924]

>>1701919
They already have
>>>/k/7170174

[Anonymous No.1701928]

>>1701924
Tell /k/ it will be our titanium plated automated helicopter armies coming for them. Just so they know.

[Anonymous No.1701934]

>>1701928
Tell them the Illuminati, FEMA and REX-84 are coming for them.

[Anonymous No.1701943]

>>1701934
The government is nowhere near competent enough for Rex 84 to work.

[Anonymous No.1701944]

>>1701943
But /k/ doesn't know that.

[Anonymous No.1701947]

Wow. First time I started a thread with over 100 replies.

Thanks guys.

[Anonymous No.1701950]

>>1701944
Yes we do.

[Anonymous No.1701954]

Destroy all cancer-treatment programs across the globe.

[Anonymous No.1701956]

>>1701950
I don't mean you guys will kill them all. I mean the troops will get lost on the way.

[Anonymous No.1701958]

http://www.ilkka.fi/Uutisetarticle.jsp?article=347172 Seinäjoen poliisi takavarikoi torstaina Ilmajoelta 268 kappaletta varastettuja polkupyöriä. Poliisi valokuvaa pyörät ja pystyttää ensi viikon aikana verkkoon palvelun, josta kansalaiset voivat katsoa, löytyisikö varastettu polkupyörä nyt takavarikoitujen pyörien joukosta.

[Anonymous No.1701963]

It's the poor fuckers who breed like rabbits. They also don't have food or access to education. So just give them massive amounts of free food, but lace it with a drug that makes you permanently sterile. Bonus if lacing the baby formula so they can't have children before. When this gets out, and it will, there will be a shit-storm, but then the deed will already have been done.

[Anonymous No.1701964]

>>1701892
>>1701902

This is the solution. We keep 10%-15% of the highest genetic stock alive on this planet (Most of them Aryan white persons with healthy eugenics) and use the rest as slaves. Pic related to the sort to people we will exterminate, to conserve resources and prevent acts of criminal violence. Soon this will be implemented on a massive scale, bear with me

[Anonymous No.1701965]

>>1701958
Mitä vittua luen? GTFO

[Anonymous No.1701968]

>>1701964

I really hope people don't actually think like this troll.

It really makes me loose any faith I had left in humanity.

[Anonymous No.1701970]

>>1701968
/k/ does operator shit to kill people like him every day, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.1701974]

>>1701968
Jewish nigger detected.

[Anonymous No.1701977]

some kind of airborne virus is the best option, subvert the WHO so that only the bright people get the vaccine, all others get placebo or the virus. With a properly mass-released virus it could all be over in a couple of weeks, then its just a matter of picking off the survivors who don't agree.

[Anonymous No.1701979]

>>1701977
You think they're just going to sit back there and choke to death like faggots?

Hell no, nigger, chances are, you're going to get millions of people in gasmasks with AKs going all STALKER on your ass.

[Anonymous No.1701982]

>>1701974

>> is wrong

[Anonymous No.1701988]

Every male has his sperm stored at an early age then he is vasectomized. If he is considered to be fit enough to breed he may inseminate an allocated of quota of women.

[Anonymous No.1701990]

>>1700482
What do countries that already have free universal healthcare do?

[Anonymous No.1701991]

>>1701988

Good luck getting the general population to agree to that. Also good luck stopping all the illegal vasectomy removals that will pop up in back alley clinics everywhere.

[Anonymous No.1701992]

Just kill all women! I hate women. Let's do it.

[Anonymous No.1701995]

>>1701988
Every faggot like you is selected at an early age, then implanted with a tracking chip. If they are considered faggoty enough to deserve death, then they may get shot with an allocated quota of 7.62x51mm NATO rounds by our OPERATORS.

[Anonymous No.1702000]

>>1701979

You act like we haven't thought this out already. Please, there have been genocides of monumental scales all throughout human history, just because there is a Lull in the devastation over the past 65 years doesn't change human nature (for the competition of survival and resources)

And I'll be damned if any of the mud race swine think when shit gets real they will have priority for their life over myself and my race, just as you want to happen. If they use force against us, they will be met with superior and immediate force against us on a scale never before fathomed. So sit back, I predict shit will get real within the next several decades , and at that point your politically correct thoughts will stop nothing. Do you hear me? Laugh while you can, there is life to conqure

[Anonymous No.1702003]

How will they know who to look for? Are they going to wear gasmasks forever? Remember the survivors will be immune so periodic re-release of the virus won't hurt them but will take out ppl who've sneaked through the die-off. Besides high-IQ ppl can operate guns too.

[Anonymous No.1702009]

>>1701977

There are those of us that are intelligent but have no piece of paper (Doctorate etc) to prove it. How would you fix this?

[Anonymous No.1702012]

>>1702000

Brah, this is the current occupants of the american government. Do you think they will allow your pathetic aryan revolution to take place ? you will be the first person in a FEMA concentration camp, take care. From your friendly neighborhood hebrew

[Anonymous No.1702013]

>>1702000
Oh please, now you just sound like some shitty villain off of a B-rated saturday morning kid's show

HURR DURR TAKE OVERRA WORLD AMIRITE

I'm going to just be sitting here in my OPERATOR shelter laughing like fuck when I hear the story of you tripping on your own scissors and dying on the news.

[Anonymous No.1702014]

>>1702000

You sound like a Jew.

[Anonymous No.1702018]

>>1702003

If you can't figure out the problems with your scenario, you're not going to be one of the "High-IQ elite" that would survive it.

[Anonymous No.1702021]

>>1702018
>>1702003

>Implying IQ Has anything to do with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.1702025]

>>1702021
>Implying I associated IQ with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.1702032]

>>1701611
I disagree with one child per family. It takes two people to reproduce, if each two people can only have one child, then the population halves over time. Also, in China, people often abort female babies in favour of male ones, which causes further problems (more males than females is a BAD thing). So that is only to be used AFTER we have an overpopulation problem.

With a one child per _person_ system you avoid those problems. There are still issues that would have to be fixed, but it's workable. With this system, you need to have a man and a woman to have a child. If every couple has two children then the population only decreases slightly (for those members who don't want or can't have children, or those that only want one child) but it cannot increase. You therefore solve overpopulation. It also solves the problem of there being more males than females because most families will have one of each (obviously a lot of people will have two males or two females, but statistically it would even out). One problem with this is that polygamous relationships would be illegal. I guess that's a small sacrifice to make, though; and polygamous relationships aren't really natural for our species, except where there is an excessive amount of females.

Of course, it is more complicated than this and there are other things to take into account, but it's a more workable system than we have now.

[Anonymous No.1702037]

>>1702025

>"subvert the WHO so that only the bright people get the vaccine"
>"you're not going to be one of the "High-IQ elite" that would survive it."

[Anonymous No.1702043]

>>1702021


a high IQ will be useful for the human genetic stock when all other options are used up, and we must repopulate the planet (or save it from overpopulation) because they always have the best qualities of humanity. See this photo for proof

[Anonymous No.1702046]

There will be problems, doesn't mean it's not a good idea though? I'd like to distance myself from the nazi dude though, frankly most white nationalists are retarded. As for the high-IQ ppl who can't prove it... sorry, eggs/omlettes...

[Anonymous No.1702050]

>>1702032
I didn't quite follow that. Why can't we have polygamous relationships? If I have six wives, and all together we have 7 children, what have we done wrong?

[Anonymous No.1702051]

>if each two people can only have one child, then the population halves over time

wrong.

What you meant to say is that the population would have every generation.

But this is still wrong, since we're assuming people wouldn't die due to age related causes.

The whole male/female preference is largely due to bullshit traditions and customs + males being better at manual labour.

[CAPTAIN AMERICA !!aTinGK9BfOH No.1702052]

You know guys... We could also start getting into that vertical farming thing... You could literally feed a whole city with five of them, and store them in the city. Only problem is that the whole world would look like blade runner after a while.

Other than that we need to focus on space exploration. I just personally refuse to limit people's rights when we have the abbility to do something different that doesn't limit people's rights. I just think we need to come up with a cheap way to get off planet. We already have a cheap way to travel through space thanks to Ion propulsion. Though, the new propulsion method for using intense light to turn our air into plasma could be a cheaper way of getting into outer space.

At that point our building size really isn't limited for a specifically space faring craft anyways, so we could even make it the size of a mountain and make it carry almost a couple million people each to make it even somewhat economically feasible. Although that still sounds like a bad idea, because shit, even I know mars is not suitable for terraforming at our current state of technology.

Although if we ever fucking find out how to make faster than light speed travel, that would be fucking great, but I wouldn't expect that maybe for 300 years.

CAPTCHA: universe commeta

indeed.

[Anonymous No.1702061]

ITT; Kids that think they know how to solve all of the worlds problems in an instant.

[Anonymous No.1702066]

>>1702037
"bright" is an adjective a third grade teacher uses in her end of term parent reports. I replaced it with something that is at least testable.
>I'm implying you can't test for brightness
>Yes you heard me

As to what I think should be done, I think people should be forced to read Russell's essay "On the Value of Scepticism" (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell4.htm))

But then again it would be preaching to the choir.

[Anonymous No.1702069]

>>1702061
Mr Nofun McGrumpypants reporting in.

It's speculation, like sci-fi. It's better that we discuss potential solutions than just throwing our arms up in despair, even if these particular solutions aren't going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.1702074]

>>1702069

Good point I suppose, But either way - It's not like any of us here will ever be able to do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.1702075]

>>1702069
By not taking action now, you are pretty much painting a sign on yourself that says KILL ME NOW, /k/!

[Anonymous No.1702076]

>We could also start getting into that vertical farming >thing... You could literally feed a whole city with five of >them, and store them in the city

As long as there is no economic incentive to do something, we won't do it.

This applies to more things than you think, i.e. morals.

[Anonymous No.1702081]

>>1702074
I'm thinking of specialising my studies towards nuclear physics/engineering to lend a hand in getting LFTRs into use.

It sounds like something where I could contribute and which might make a difference

[Anonymous No.1702084]

The trouble is not food or energy. Yeah, it's gonna be a big problem when all the fish die, and yeah it'll be a big problem when no more oil, but they're more than survivable. The trouble is water.

[Anonymous No.1702087]

>>1702050
>I didn't quite follow that. Why can't we have polygamous relationships? If I have six wives, and all together we have 7 children, what have we done wrong?
Nothing, I guess; it does fit, but polygamous relationships aren't normal for humans anyway, so they would be legal but not endorsed.

>>1702051
>But this is still wrong, since we're assuming people wouldn't die due to age related causes.
No. If the entire fertile population can be divided into male/female couples and each couple has once child before they die, then the fertile population halves. Of course, taking into account other causes of death and sterility, the population decreases by MORE than half every generation because some couples won't even get to reproduce once in their lifetime. So the population decreases MORE. Which is BAD. We want a somewhat stable population, not one that halves every few years!

And so, I thank you for re-inforcing my point: one child per person > one child per couple.

[Anonymous No.1702088]

>>1702084
If we can get enough energy, we can have massive desalination plants.

[Anonymous No.1702096]

Is there a futurism wiki? This stuff is fun.

[Anonymous No.1702098]

Overpopulation is a problem that solves itself.

Countries like America will have no problem with over population. China won't either. In fact, all developed nations will be fine, so a place like England or Japan were there is a huge population/land ratio, they will still be fine.

All others will have hundreds of millions starve. What's real interesting is there is enough potential on Earth that it doesn't have to occur.

Only ONE PERCENT of Earths surface is arable and used for farmland. That can easily be doubled. :)

[Anonymous No.1702107]

>>1702098

Nuke Africa, Amirite?

[Anonymous No.1702108]

>>1702098
1%? Source? Although with oceans being 72%, then you have antarctica, siberia, northern canada, sahara, australia, himalayas, it may be close.
>>1702088
Since most of the world lives close to the oceans desalination is the way to go. Thorium breeder reactors are the way to go for the energy

[Anonymous No.1702124]

>>1702084
It shouldn't be a problem when fossil fuels run out because by then, hopefully, we will have solved the problem. I don't know about the USA, but the UK is one of the windiest countries in Europe. If we build masses of wind farms and solar farms, that mostly solves the problem. The USA can use geothermal energy and solar energy (a few of your states are mostly deserts and wasteland that are completely empty, you could set up huge solar farms there and use superconducting power lines to transfer the current with a very low rate of resistance).

Every country has a sustainable method for energy production available to it. It's getting the money and willingness to develop those technologies that's a problem. I'm also wondering where fusion is going, because if we can figure it out then we're basically set. There's so much hydrogen in our solar system that once we can get fusion working, all we need is a way of reaching the gas giants. Jupiter's atmosphere is about 90% hydrogen, Saturn's is about 96%, Uranus' is about 83% and Neptune's is about 80%. If we can get rockets to and from the outer planets, which are comprised of massive amounts of hydrogen, we can take a shitton of it without only a miniscule effect on them.
>>1702088
Also this.

[Anonymous No.1702133]

Protip - Energy companies already hold the solutions to all of the worlds "Energy crises" of the next 200-300 years.

[Anonymous No.1702148]

>>1702133
Care to cite any sources? Because last I knew they were just busy pumping oil, trying to keep public opinion of them only halfway in the red, and making as much money as possible while not giving a fuck about anything more than one quarter in the future.

[Anonymous No.1702158]

>>1702148
You know, although I agree with you, you could just have typed
>[citation needed]
instead.

[Anonymous No.1702164]

>>1702158
Yeah but these conspiracy types don't just lack evidence. So I presented an argument which would hit home for someone of his calibre.

[Anonymous No.1702165]

>>1702148

Energy = Money. What point is there to having money in the future if you create no demand/need for it?

As much interest as the companies have in lots of money short term, they would be severely foolish to leave the future... "Un-capitalised"?

[Anonymous No.1702176]

>>1702165
dude like..... what..... have you been smoking?

I wanted sources, you're only hurting your cause by trying to run with the banner on your own

[Anonymous No.1702180]

>>1702165
Not having money would be a good thing. Creative people (artists and scientists) will create for the sake of creation. For a real artist or scientist, the product is it's own reward. I, for example, write software not to earn money, but because of the joy of creating things.

The point is, creative people will still create if you take away the financial incentive.

[Anonymous No.1702188]

>>1702180
Hell, creative people create even with a financial cost.

[Anonymous No.1702194]

>>1702188
Exactly. You could mention those guys who made a submarine and are now working on a rocket. Creativity is something that must be expressed for those that have it. And those that don't can benefit from it.

[Anonymous No.1702202]

I have to say, this is quite a good thread.

[Anonymous No.1702212]

Overpopulation wouldn't happen because we'd plateau. People naturally are resisting marriages and reproduction, eventually the baby boomer generation will die, and we'll live indefinetly. Most of us won't have kids, and so the death rates from random accidents will balance the population. Most experts think it'll plateau at 11 billion.

[Anonymous No.1702213]

>>1702194
Most science isn't done by "creative people" in their garage for free. A mass spectrometer costs at least a hundred thousand dollars. A supercomputer for simulations can cost millions. Clinical trials of a drug can cost tens of millions. Research requiring these tools just cannot be done without huge amounts of money.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1702214]

>>1702213
Um.... If there is no money, these things do not require money anymore to 'purchase'

Get robots to build this shit for you for free out of resources they mined for free.

[Anonymous No.1702216]

>>1702213
Of course it can. In the examples you gave, someone had built e.g. a supercomputer and sold it to earn money. In a society without money, they would build the supercomputer for the sake of it, and make it available so that people would marvel at them and say "Wow, you're so clever!"

It works perfectly if it's designed properly from a top-down perspective. If you completely remove money from society, you don't have the issues you enumerated. Obviously getting the resources to build the supercomputers is a problem; but it is one that can be solved if you can figure out a way to recycle everything (literally, everything).

[Anonymous No.1702230]

>>1702213
Voice of reason
>>1702214
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Resources (Time, energy, natural resources) are SCARCE. That means there has to be a way of allocating them based on need.
These days it's done with money. Whoever is willing to part with more money to get something has a greater need for it.

In your utopia how would you allocate resources? By a "resource allocation committee?" Perhaps a communal showing of hands?

Even in the good old days artists had to have someone supporting them. If it was a spouse or a true patron

[Anonymous No.1702238]

>>1702216
What if everyone just wants to paint? The natural inclination of people would be to want to do the easy and simple and fulfilling jobs. Even if you got robots to do all the manual labour, who does the boring administrative shit?

Supply and Demand bitches. There won't always be someone willing to do a job for free. That's why there has to be an incentive.

FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE

[Anonymous No.1702248]

>>1702238
Think about where we're actually heading right now. More and more control systems are implemented. Computers control the stock markets, computer algorithms control budgets, human resources, etc. In the end it will be computers controlling robots, with the future's equivalent of open-source nuts doing any maintenance required.

[Inurdaes !lololSGJBw No.1702249]

>>1702230
1000 credit system every week. Does not stack, cannot trade more than 5% and that does not stack either. However resources and goods and services are so cheap that it's quite hard to get rid of all 1000 credits unless you're doing some project or something.

For instance, a family earning and spending 100,000 grand a year would use 170 credits a week or so. Also, with everything being this cheap and mass produced by robots you can have the best infrastructure on demand. Gigabit networks to the home, vaccum maglev trains and so and so.

Yes, this will seem reminiscent of Manna.

[Anonymous No.1702253]

self sustaining/replicating arcologies with space capibility

only earth has been completely absorbed we move on to the next planet/solar system

[Anonymous No.1702259]

>>1702238

>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE
>FUCKING LEARN TO ECONOMICS PEOPLE

[Anonymous No.1702261]

>>1702248
Computers control the stock markets

Well we all saw how that turned out.

There will always be scarcity of resources. There is not an unlimited amount of anything.

How did bartering and the concept of money develop in the first place? Think on it, pray on it and you may find why your utopia wouldn't work either.

[Anonymous No.1702269]

>>1702261
>Computers control the stock markets
[retard needed]
Oh wait, that's you.

[Anonymous No.1702276]

>>1702238
>What if everyone just wants to paint?
What if your question is irrelevant? I can't paint for shit and don't enjoy it, so I wouldn't be painting. I'd be doing Physics and writing programs.
>The natural inclination of people would be to want to do the easy and simple and fulfilling jobs.
Bullshit. Using myself as an example again, I'm currently writing a microkernel. OS development is one of the hardest things to do in programming. I'm probably never going to release it, let alone get money for it. So why do I do it? Because it's fun. Because I need to create.
>Even if you got robots to do all the manual labour, who does the boring administrative shit?
Not only does a lot of "boring administrative shit" disappear when you lose the concepts of money and beauracracy, but again, people will do those things because they want to. Some people simply like having power and responsibility. Others like to create things. Others like getting their hands dirty and doing manual work. Of course, most of the boring manual work can be done by robots as you said.

>Supply and Demand bitches. There won't always be someone willing to do a job for free. That's why there has to be an incentive.
Yes there will. The incentive is the finished product. I know many people willing to sit and do boring shit like Lathe programming if what they get out of it is a cool toy. Of course, recognition as being one of the leading scientists/artists/workers in your society is also another incentive.

Further, people could exchange favours instead of currency.

[Anonymous No.1702311]

>>1702108

Source here- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+I+arable+land+derp+8%2F

[Anonymous No.1702313]

>>1702311

FUCKING VIRUS ON THAT LINK

[Anonymous No.1702323]

>>1702313
>lmgtfy
>virus
ha

[Anonymous No.1702440]

sage

[Anonymous No.1702474]

>>1702261
The computer controlling the market are flawed because there is moron behind them that ask them impossible things.
"Hey let's base your economy on whoever is increasing his own production the most in a world of limited resource !"

A luck there is thing of incredible value that only necessitate knowledge and few material or we would have depleted Earth resource just for the sake of "economic growth" even if we didn't needed them.

Do you realize there is people paid to make sure the things you buy will breakdown when their company's next product will go out ?

And you also have 2 company fighting to make you buy something that could be better&cheaper if it was built in cooperation.

I laugh at overpopulation, because someday the system will break down, machine will take the job of so many people that nobody will be able to buy anything.
That day, maybe shit will change. For now we can still try.

[Anonymous No.1702502]

>>1702474

there's a tipping point though, either we get overpopulated and consume ourselves into oblivion stuck on this rock, or we make it out and start harvesting asteroids etc.

Metallic asteroids are mostly iron. We aren't talking about enriched ores with a pound of iron per hundred pounds of rock like on the surface of the earth, we are talking a huge mass of pure fukkin iron with a bell curve of heavier elements mixed in. One good asteroid and a way to bring it down to the ground and iron would become free, titanium, chromium and other expensive metals would be come cheap, and gold and platinum would no longer be precious metals. We would have limitless resources for the foreseeable future, all bets would be off.

[Anonymous No.1702620]

there is a reason why evolution and the process of natural selection occurs and that is so the universe can sort its own problems out. If humans decide to mess with this system terrible things could happen

[Anonymous No.1702632]

>>1702620
>implying mankind could somehow transcend the functionality of reality

[Anonymous No.1702709]

>>1700415
around 11 billion

[Anonymous No.1703061]

Interesting thread.
bump

[Anonymous No.1703084]

I thought mother nature is already on its way to fix it, all those floods, hurricanes and earthquakes are part of the solution

[Anonymous No.1703182]

This fucking thread again.
No such thing as overpopulation.

Developed countries already have a negative population growt rate.

Even if there will be 1 trillion people around we could still have more.

Imagine artifical reality better than the real thing.
I imagine a lot of people would want to live in something like that.
You could house billions of people like that in a small area.

[Anonymous No.1703192]

> what do we do about overpopulation
Earth can still support a lot more of us.

However, as a political scientist, I can tell you that increasing wealth correlates with a huge drop in birth rates.

If children are no longer required as a living pension for their parents, people will have less children. Also richer couples tend to have less children because they want to provide a good education for their offspring and simply cannot afford to educate too many children.

Improving maternal health and infant mortality also lowers the birth rate as people tend to make more babies if they can not be sure that the ones they make survive.

Birth control is another contributing factor. If you can afford to take the pill, you will of course do so in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Enforced birth control schemes such as the Chinese one child policy have always failed. So you can forget about that.

tl;dr: Make everyone sufficiently rich and birth rates will drop, minimizing global population growth.

[Anonymous No.1704102]

>>1700458
>>Take natural herbs, add 4-10 years of life into you.

Excellent trolling, my friend.
10/10

[Anonymous No.1704156]

sci is fagets

[Anonymous No.1704181]

fagets