Wednesday, December 23, 2009

People Just Don't Think Before They Speak

Sometimes, I get into debates with really stupid people. I hate to say that. I don't like calling anyone stupid, but stupid is as stupid does. They are probably nice people, but God do they say stupid things without thinking. That drives me nuts. This reminds me of what I said about Nancy Pelosi's dumb statement about human spaceflight, but that's not what this rant is about. :)

I've stumbled upon a really interesting group called The Venus Project. This ties into Monday's posting. Of course, any time you come up with something this different, this radical, and this detrimental to the status quo, you'll definitely find detractors and people who have nothing serious to contribute, so they say stupid things. Case in point, a discussion between a guy I will simply call "Him" and me. It started off because he hates the architecture depicted in the animations:

Him: Wow...how to make life completely sterile and lifeless...
____________________________

Me: Your comments are indicative of the current symptoms of the problem we have today. You've been conditioned to think that having completely unique and special places of living, even at the expense of efficiency, is the best method. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Certain methods and structures are scientifically better than others, period, regardless of how much you may like Victorian architecture, or Gothic structures. A change in thinking is required.
____________________________

Him: The only way? This sounds a lot like the Christianity movement. The overall intent is good but is selfish and based on very limited knowledge of technology and our WORLD. The problems of today are a result of greed, ignorance, and lack of good education/leaders.
____________________________

Me: No, it's all based on the Scientific Method, and every bit of technology spoken of is completely available right now, today. I think you don't know enough about current technology to make that statement, else you would not have made it at all. Greed, ignorance, lack of education and more ALL revolve around a broken Monetary Economic System that promote scarcity and division. Eradicate that, and all can prosper.
____________________________

Him: Personally I don't care to live inside a cold machine...And I'm positive there are a lot of people who would agree. Hell, one could say technology is a result of greed and the scientific method. We don't need these things to survive. People are afraid to die and think it will somehow save them. But all is not lost, it will balance out.
____________________________

Me: Tesla developed a crap load of things, furthering technology significantly, and died broke. He's the true inventor of the radio, but was not a money grubbing profiteer. Einstein, Newton, and many other major scientists didn't become millionaires off their work. People used their work to become millionaires. Scientists and Engineers love the pursuit of knowledge and truth, natural truth, not fictionally developed 'truth'.

Yes, we do need technology to survive, to survive longer and live better. You don't need to be a genius to know that human life expectancy is twice as long now than just 100 yrs ago. Science made that possible. I refuse to revert back to caves.
____________________________

Him: Yes the scientific is method at the core as well... However the scientific method is uncovering quite a bit about ourselves and our reality that will permanently change the way we perceive. Everything is coming to a critical point and it's all inclusive.

I am not against the movement, I am against seeing people put in little compartments stacked on top of one another...the entire building is symbolic of the monetary system...There is plenty of room for everyone on floor1.
____________________________

Me: Jacque definitively states many times that his models don't represent what will actually happen. People will design the city to be as "pretty and useful" as necessary. As for everyone living on the ground floor, that's retarded. You'd run out of usable land for farming and animal cultivation real fast if everyone took up a parcel of land. Hell, the whole world can't sustain that anyway.

6 billion+ people even taking up just 1 acre a piece would consume 6 billion+ acres for living. 1 acre is roughly 4 square km. So now we're looking at 24 billion square km needed for this. Even if you averaged 4 people per plot of land, you're back to 6 billion square km. The entire known land area of the entire world (including Antarctica) is 148.9 million square km. And this includes coastlines, inland bodies of water, like lakes, rivers, etc.

Sorry friend, it's impossible once you apply...I don't know...MATH! Do some research before you speak, it might serve you well.
____________________________

That's it for now. No idea what he'll come back with, but I love it when math and proper logic trumps flippant statements that are completely B.S. :)

9 comments:

Norman Copeland said...

Life isn't a roller coaster when people think of it like that...

Hey, here's something for that intellect...


Moooooo!!!


[Watch an original star trek episode]

On the homepage...

''Dagger of the mind''

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/index.html

Fledi said...

Sorry but I have to correct you on this, 1 acre is 0.004 square kilometres.
An international acre is defined as 4,046 square meters.

A square kilometre is a square with a side length of 1000 meters, so there are 1 000 000 square meters in a square kilometre.

But otherwise knowing you I'm sure the site you've found is quite interesting, so looking forward to check it out.

I've found some interesting places, too. The ideas there could be extremely useful for space colonisation.

One is the "do it yourself" movement, who advocate sharing blueprints over the internet and aim to create automated mini-factories that can produce all sorts of things.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~adl/


The other one is transhumanism

http://humanityplus.org/

(Although I have to say their present website articles are not the best I've seen. Just a few months ago it was complaining about their site being blocked in China and now this... But the people, videos and discussions in the mailing lists are still worth a look.)

Douglas Mallette said...

Fledi - lmao, you are absolutely right! I only carried over 3 digits...not 6. Duh! Funny thing, that guy never called me on the math error. He could have blasted me on that.

Well, I am anything if not correctable. I appreciate that. This does change things a bit, no?! lol. Now we're at 24 million acres needed to pull that off. Given the rough 149 million available, this we can do, but how practical is that? Discount lakes and rivers, unlivable land areas (crazy mountains, the arctic, etc) and land necessary for livestock and such, and I think we'd still be pushing the envelope on sustainability for that scenario.

Still, thanks for the correction. Huge difference and my bad.

Douglas Mallette said...

Oh, and I love the technology site, micro-factory idea. Technology is the solution for all humanity, such that we use technology to help reconnect to nature on a whole different level.

I will read up on this H+ thing some more. Thanks for the link.

Fledi said...

Yes but still this planet is inefficiently arranged in terms of its matter. O'Neill cylinders would make more sense...

By the way it's not your bad, I guess you've just seen the km² and assumed it is k(=1000) m². Which would be scientifically correct, but I guess most school teachers teaching in countries that have adopted the metric system long ago don't even notice this fact.

The correct syntax for a square kilometre would actually be (km)². Anyway, it's no big deal, but from rocket scientist to rocket scientist, I hope we don't loose another Polar Lander because of these conversion issues ;-)

Douglas Mallette said...

Fledi - Thanks, but I know better. A square shift from m to km requires a 6 decimal adjustment, just like a cubic shift would require 9.

I do agree that the Earth is not exactly laid out with engineering efficiency in mind. lol. Those cylinders would be great, but once again we run into the fact that money is more important than human progress and humanity in general. The cost to make such things just isn't viable in today's system.

Time to change the system.

Fledi said...

Definitely.

Now imagine if we managed to set up automated factories that would fit in a room and could produce everything we need independently of the "system". Sharing blueprints over the net that would be read in directly by the software of these factories. In the end we could maybe even manage to get an independent open source space program going...

Douglas Mallette said...

And not to mention that every new idea could be cross referenced in the system in an effort to improve the technology and better the system as a whole. Every idea that anyone would have would be cataloged and checked to see if would make things better. No stone unturned, no improvement sheltered or bypassed.

Norman Copeland said...

I read the posting and knew the figures were correct, but, I calculated conversion Newtons to Pascals. Douglas... You will ponder conversation...

Lol...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLprXHbn19I&feature=related