• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can humans live sustainably?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yes, we just need to give back what we get. 2 people need to have 2 kids. Not 22. That's the root of the problem.
 
No chance with current population sizes, growth rates, or standards of living.
 
in the long run, possibly no.

Humanity is coming to the end of opposite sexes. We are at the final phases(50 years maybe) of having to require sperm from a man and an egg from a woman for procreation. Once we can create using technological means, the human body will evolve even further into not being able to reproduce physically.

This has just sped up in the last 75 years with the equalization of women.(no offense) Once birth could be controlled through contraception the once strong opposites were seen as equals. That strong opposition took humainity through millions of years of evolution. If you take that away, you take away evolutions need to make 2 humans so different.

The people who should be having kids aren't, the ones who shouldn't are.

My theory: Humans evolve into 3 separate sub groups which we already seem to be on the path of.

Sub Group 1: Wealthy, Tall, but less numbers.

Sub Group 2: Medium wealth, medium size and very techy.

Sub Group 3: Poor, small, menial labor based and multiply like rabbits.
 
..get rid of the home mortage deduction and dependent deduction and start a public school tuition and then understand the true sustainability and cost of having a family.
 
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
So

I've one more question for you-would you mind having spent fuel rods plugged down within a 40 mile radius of your home?

Rogo
Click to expand...

Yes, now get a life.
 
The datacenter where I'm now working uses outside air and baffles to mitigate the energy usage. The BPA is releasing contracts that just ran out (50 year old contracts to sell power to PugetPower and others) and the big movers are signing contracts llike crazy (Microsoft, Yahoo!, Intuit, Google, and Intel).

The Columbia river and the electrical/fiber infrastructure is changing eastern washinton.

Every KW of power used by our facility and every other center on the Columbia is renenwable.

Rogo
 
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Yes, but all punctuation will become scrambled and sentence fragments will roam the Earth.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the rest of the thread, this is too hilarious to not be appreciated.
 
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
You should care about the thread Triumph, the implications will effect your sordid life.

Rogo
Click to expand...

When it's important enough that people other than yourself start bumping it, maybe I'll come back... 😛
 
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
You should care about the thread Triumph, the implications will effect your sordid life.

Rogo
Click to expand...

How do you know that my life is sordid?

I for one welcome the coming of the end. I'm reading my Zombie Survival Guide book right now, and have 1,000 rounds of ammunition stored at home. Bring it on!
 
No
Because cheap oil is what has alllowed us to populate the earth at 6+ billion
If we don't replace it somehow the carrying capacity of the earth is a about 2 billion humans from what I've read with a significantly smaller resource allocation 'read lifestyle'
 
I think it's time to spend more more into NASA for human expansion into space now. Better do it now before it's too late. Otherwise when the time comes, we'll be telling our children or grandchildren: "WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!1 WE DIDN'T LISTEN11 NOW THE PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDED DOWN TO OUR CHILDREN!11 WE DIDN'T LISTEN!11"
 
Originally posted by: desy
No
Because cheap oil is what has alllowed us to populate the earth at 6+ billion
If we don't replace it somehow the carrying capacity of the earth is a about 2 billion humans from what I've read with a significantly smaller resource allocation 'read lifestyle'
Click to expand...

We have enough coal to last for centuries at our current level, and enough uranium to last until the sun burns out if re reprocess it and use breeders.
 
Coal reserves have been overestimated and the increased demand on it as we turn to it to replace cheap oil.
It also can't replace liquid fuel demand which is what moves the nation you don't drive a car on radiation.

I'm still optimistic we can turn it around though but it will have to come at significant changes in how we live.
 
We've already turned massive amounts of rainforest into garbage farmland (you sure as hell can't call that 'reclamation'. When hydroelectric projects create desert into farmland you can believe that it's "reclamation", but it's a angle of perception that is completely wayward and without a valid premise.

I'm glad to see that the truth of our sustainiblility isn't recognized.

Rogo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top