> Bacchus wrote:

> Yet won't be utilized, unless theres a way to throw a meter on the suns ray's to charge you for the amount you use it'll go practically nowhere.

I have 0 zilch, nada, 没有， faith in just about 80% of humanity. Lazy, corrupt, greedy, viral life forms that eat and shit everything they can consume without working for it. Go down your local ghetto and that's just a taste of the laziness. CEOs and owners recording massive and record profits , yet lay off thousands of workers.... The politicians.... I don't even want to get started on that.

Here is something I have been pondering lately:

Which are better, those whom you speak of in your local ghetto, or the CEOs (and their minions) and politicians?

"I'm done trying to explain the obvious to you, Wornstrum"

You have explained very little, in fact all you have done is state an opinion and backed it up with insults. I DO understand what you are trying to explain, I just reject it (there is a difference). You have not once backed up your argument, whereas I have even used references.

Your point is that technological advancement will always be able to compensate for any demand placed by human involvement. Technological advancement is what got us into this sort of problem in the first place. Increasing the population using advancements creates more potential to increase population and thus leads us back to the need for more advancement, "population grows to the limits of current technologies to support it, followed by technological innovation (e.g., long canals in Mesopotamia, green revolution in India, biofuels in Brazil and U.S.) accompanied by more population growth and environmental deterioration" (http://www.ejsd.org/docs/The_Population_Bomb_Revisited.pdf) (which is your point, and is what you suggested you wanted...the need drives advancement). "But West points out an alarming pattern: the cycle of innovation needs to increase in frequency as the size of the population increases. The bigger we grow, the faster we must innovate to keep pace." (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/10/31/why-innovation-wont-defuse-the-population-bomb/). "Lovelock fears we won

"This is just one example of the plenitude of untapped resources available to us"

Not once did I say there wasn't untapped resources...my point (if you actually read before you comment) is that technological advancement IS needed, which is what you also agree upon with your comments. Human growth then becomes dependant on technological breakthroughs to continue unfettered growth.

"You are a propagandist for evil people, of an establishment which historians will convict as perpetrators of the most heinous crimes against humanity every witnessed."

This is why I posed the question, is it better to let people die, or to prevent them being born?

Your argument is pointless. You make arguments based on the very thing neo-Malthusian theory states, that we will become dependant on technological advancemnet as the population grows (WHICH IS YOUR ARGUMENT!). If population continues at the current rate, then technological advancements will need to continue at the same rate. This just creates a dependance on technology to "save the day", at which point the level of advancement itself won't be sustainable (ie. as stated that advancements on the scale of "Industrial revolution or Information Technology Age" will be needed every year).

"proof that you are simply on the wrong side of the debate; and laughable in your ignorance."

You have yet to prove otherwise. Linking posts to possible advancements doesn't dispute my point, but actually supports it.

Still not the point Xeno...I did read the references, and I do understand your point, but you are suggesting that in order to maintain population growth we place a dependance on technological advancement...also according to your articles, the technology is still not capable of actually providing (ie. storage, demand...my family actually use solar already, and anything we feed back onto the grid, so it has it's usages but is still not a solution to the power problem...in fact the articles themselves call for more innovation to make this sort of technology viable)...Don't get me wrong, I understand and agree that technological advancements will make alot of things better, but is not an answer to my question or is not a solution (as per my arguments above, it just shifts dependance from current methods to a need to develop at the same rate of population growth, and any dependance to survive is a gamble).

You have yet to actually argue against my points, and your main argument seems to be more of an emotional response, which I am actually eager to hear more about. WHY does it become a crime against humanity? If it becomes a choice, how does it break from any human rights currently established?

"Ah but the question is, what could we have been doing differently over the past 200 years that could have made the technology available today?"

Innovation comes out of necessity. In fact 200 years ago the biggest concern for human life would have been health issues such as diseases. Changes 200 years ago (Small pox vaccinations) were the start of current concepts such as vaccinations. In an earlier post, you used innovation and technological advances as a solution to the current level of demand, which comes out of necessity. This is the cycle that actually needs to break. Demands/need lead to innovation, innovation leads to excess, excess leads to a growth in consumption, which again leads to demand/needs. With growth, this cycle also grows, and thus the dependance on innovation. Yes, changes can be made now and earlier that would make the supply and demand of today balanced, but it wouldn't stay that way.

"Instead of wars"

Military investment has been responsible for many innovations, such as the jet engine, the internet, even the integrated curcuit's first application was American ICBMs (and reduced the cost to allow IC's to be used in other applications).

I honestly believe we are both unhappy with the current establishment of society, hence the start of this post.

Historians can judge me how they see fit, however I do not back down from my last comment. The last greatest innovation on this earth was due to military expenditure. Do you really think we would have the Internet now if it wasn't for military expenditure? I made this comment because you suggested where we would be without these things, and my point is we couldn't possibly know because global military innovation has created some of the greatest technological breakthroughs out of necessity, a necessity that wouldn't have been there without the military. The point about necessity is something you raised earlier, or at least was my understanding of your comments, that needs lead to innovation, and thus continued unfettered growth will force further and greater innovations (I am sorry if this is not what your point was, this is how I understood your comments about innovation). We have armies/navy/airforce in the world now, I neither created nor continue to fuel their existance, so I doubt historians would ever care or even disagree with my assessment of military involvement in the world. It is an observation or our history.

My point was that innovation comes out of necessity, and by allowing necessity to govern the flow of innovatoin makes us dependant on innovation (ie. exponential population growth forces innovation at a similar rate, and thus a dependance). In the short term that sounds like the greatest thing, but in the long term, it just shifts our own dependance from natural resources (whether renewable, non-renewable, future innovations, etc) to a need to innovate to compensate for future growth.