Feed all the starving babies or send a man to Mars ?

Scioch

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Africa doesn't need money, Africa needs education and strong governments to tell ruthless capitalists to get ****ed.

Africa needs vasectomy clinics and lots of em. Stop them having kids and you'll reduce the amount of starving kids dramatically. It could be wiped out in a generation.

crazy cabbage

havent read most of replys so sorry if something similar has already been posted

Has anyone ever thought that maby we are the reason that africa is starving. We are all in the top 20% of the worlds population that consumes 80% of the worlds natural rexources.
We are also apart of the top 10% of the worlds population that has 90% of the worlds wealth.
If you want to cure starvation that is the place to start....
Anything else is just like putting a sticky plaster on a double barral shot gun wound to the head from point blank range. Ie: is pritty much pointless in the sceme of things

As for sending people to mars. I am totally against it until we sort out all of our problems on earth including all wars. They can not happen. All violence. From a kid robing a candy bar to murdure and rape. All economy issues. (even if it means a complete overhaul/trow out the current system. All enviromental issues and sustaining ourselves with little to no impact on the enviroment. All rasicm/sexist. All problems need to be solved for good before we consider moving to another plant.

Shryke

crazy cabbage wrote: »

havent read most of replys so sorry if something similar has already been posted

Has anyone ever thought that maby we are the reason that africa is starving. We are all in the top 20% of the worlds population that consumes 80% of the worlds natural rexources.
We are also apart of the top 10% of the worlds population that has 90% of the worlds wealth.
If you want to cure starvation that is the place to start....
Anything else is just like putting a sticky plaster on a double barral shot gun wound to the head from point blank range. Ie: is pritty much pointless in the sceme of things

As for sending people to mars. I am totally against it until we sort out all of our problems on earth including all wars. They can not happen. All violence. From a kid robing a candy bar to murdure and rape. All economy issues. (even if it means a complete overhaul/trow out the current system. All enviromental issues and sustaining ourselves with little to no impact on the enviroment. All rasicm/sexist. All problems need to be solved for good before we consider moving to another plant.

It's massive decades long corruption that has kept Africa starving. We send a lot of aid over. It doesn't go where it should. China is the main industrial power base that we rely on, not Africa, and China do have their hands on a lot of resources in Africa but at the same time that is at least prompting the Chinese to invest some money in infrastruture which is more than some African countries can be bothered to do for their people.
The west is the reason for social injustice for plenty of reasons around the world but this isn't really one of them.
Percentages are useless, they don't mean jack. It's a complex problem.

There will be wars in space and everything else unless you want to lobotomize people at birth.

Helix

crazy cabbage wrote: »

All violence. From a kid robing a candy bar to murdure and rape.

a kid robbing a bar of chocolate is violence now?

pragmatic1

LordSmeg wrote: »

Africa needs vasectomy clinics and lots of em. Stop them having kids and you'll reduce the amount of starving kids dramatically. It could be wiped out in a generation.

Educate the women and the whole mess will sort itself out.

Jester252

Mars Human should try an advance

Canis Lupus

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Educate and empower the women and the whole mess will sort itself out.

Added to your post

Re space travel. I've said in other threads that I think we've potentially missed the boat. People are saying look how far we've come in the last 100 years and all the great things we've created but I also take the view of look at what we've also destroyed and squandered in the same time period.

We're running out of oil, destroying rainforests etc and environmental changes are heating up our world ( which is affecting the oceans as well). We're running out of resources imo fast and yet we live in a world that has some war/conflict going somewhere and large parts of the rest are in a state of friction.

We've got Chinese and Asian (India etc) powerhouses growing using more resources and due to their developing nature making more of an impact on the environment.

I reckon we need a large global consensus to make real, viable space exploration/colonisation a genuinely feasible proposal and frankly I don't think we'll ever have it in time and that's my 'best' outlook.

If we look at the damage done to the earth in the last 100 years and project how long it's going to take to colonise say... Mars, never mind anything grander then is there time? It's a bit dramatic but I reckon we're already on the top of the curve and it's now heading down. If in the near future we throw in a serious natural disaster (as previously mentioned Yellowstone etc is overdue to blow) then it's curtains for us as a species as I don't think we'll recover in time.

(as an aside, can we even create sustainable food sources on other planets. Had a quick google and it wasn't terribly clear)

Wibbs

Shryke wrote: »

The idea of beaming consciousness was used in Richard Morgans near future sci-fi, the idea being the mind would be sent in a needle cast to a receiving station and then placed in a body.
There does exist with that idea the possibility of duplicates.
Banks is king with the culture and future concepts though.

I've no idea S, I don't read fiction.

I don't believe that humanity would choose to evolve beyond physical form or give it up so easily.

Well I don't see the shimmering beings of light ballsology a la star trek, but I reckon we may be quick enough to give up quite a bit of our humanity if the rewards are worth it. I don't see us as cyborgs or any of that guff either. Well not the way we think of them in movies and such. Actually we're already "cyborgs" IMHO. A mix of technology and human. If you take artificial insulin, have fillings in your teeth, had laser eye surgery, take SSRI's etc that's all technology. That's more likely where the "cyborgs" will spring from, rather than springing an arm that looks like you broke the terminator for spares It'll be incremental mind you and not all humans will plug into it. You'll likely always have "natural" humans out of the loop, by choice or circumstance. Even with those technology will drift down from the others.

I don't see a galactic network of human consciousness as the end result for humanity, not that that level of tech might not be reached.
I see neural uplink to a network and sensory feedback being something real but your idea Wibbs is to me far too utopian. We're still going to be human. We'll be different but the same.

If the level of tech comes along it might be unavoidable that we cease to be human as we think of it today. Imagine a human with an increasing IQ but lets peg it at 1000, essentially immortal, plugged in on a very intimate level with other humans and other technology. A very different mindset is going to come out of that mental and physical reality.

Take immortality, or near as makes no diff in our current minds(living for 10,000 years say), that's gonna change the maps. I suspect only a handful will buy into it, selection pressure will "kill off" the rest. Currently we're a very finite species, enslaved to time, limited by it's actuality and the idea of it. Remove that and you change the game in a way barely imaginable to us today. The new human that emerges from that is going to be a very different creature. Actually I reckon that's where sci fi and futurism type stuff throughout history falls down*. The sci fi/future is a stage where we place current humans as actors. Current humans with current thinking and concerns and foibles etc. It might as well be any other stage, like say westerns. IIRC Star Trek was a kinda Wagon trail in space. The next phase of humanity is hard to predict, because they'll likely not be current in thinking when the very engine of thinking will be so radically altered by enhancements and longevity.

Canis Lupus wrote:

If we look at the damage done to the earth in the last 100 years and project how long it's going to take to colonise say... Mars, never mind anything grander then is there time? It's a bit dramatic but I reckon we're already on the top of the curve and it's now heading down. If in the near future we throw in a serious natural disaster (as previously mentioned Yellowstone etc is overdue to blow) then it's curtains for us as a species as I don't think we'll recover in time.

True, but I'd play the long game in this. For a start it would take a lot to make humans extinct. It's been tried before . At one point humans were squeezed down to less than 20,000 individuals by environmental pressures in Africa(and elsewhere) and we came back. Rome fell and a surprising amount of their knowledge and technology went with it, but we came back(and I would strongly argue much better than if Rome had continued). The plague, indeed various and rolling yearly plagues ran through Europe like shít through a goose, lowering the average age of death to a point where being 30 was "old" and we got the renaissance, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution out of it. All this took time, lots of it, but we kept going forward. If Yosemite blew it's top, yep we'd be fcuked, but fast forward a thousand years and we'd be back on track, likely ahead. It would require an extinction level event like the Permian extinction that would have a good crack at wiping us out. My worry about today is how delicate our information storage is compared to the past. More and more of it is less and less concrete and permanent. Something like a humungous solar storm that fried electronics might have a worse effect than a super volcano.





*as I said I don't read fiction books. Never could, even as a kid. Wired funny it seems and alway envied those that can. So I'm going on films/TV which is gonna colour my take so....

OMARS_COMING_

we need the african babies

Dave!

I don't think the staving babies is a money issue. It's a bit more nuanced than that. We could do both.

Canis Lupus

Wibbs wrote: »

True, but I'd play the long game in this. For a start it would take a lot to make humans extinct. It's been tried before . At one point humans were squeezed down to less than 20,000 individuals by environmental pressures in Africa(and elsewhere) and we came back. Rome fell and a surprising amount of their knowledge and technology went with it, but we came back(and I would strongly argue much better than if Rome had continued). The plague, indeed various and rolling yearly plagues ran through Europe like shít through a goose, lowering the average age of death to a point where being 30 was "old" and we got the renaissance, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution out of it. All this took time, lots of it, but we kept going forward. If Yosemite blew it's top, yep we'd be fcuked, but fast forward a thousand years and we'd be back on track, likely ahead. It would require an extinction level event like the Permian extinction that would have a good crack at wiping us out. My worry about today is how delicate our information storage is compared to the past. More and more of it is less and less concrete and permanent. Something like a humungous solar storm that fried electronics might have a worse effect than a super volcano.

Oh I agree that it'll be hard to wipe us out as a species, near impossible infact. My point is more along the lines of being wiped out as an expanding, intergalactic species :P I reckon it's all heading towards Mad Max in another 100, 200 years. We'll have wasted the chance to get off the planet and won't have enough viable resources to get off the planet.

In fact, once the modern conveniences go it'll be the damn Africans laughing at us poor rich, pandered folk :P

PS in regards to advanced life, seeing as you don't read sci fi I always liked Peter Hamiltons idea. Essentially, humans have colonised many galaxies etc and cloning is possible and the moving of consciousness into a clone (so you can essentially live forever) but once you're sick of the real world you download to the matrix/computer heaven essentially to do your own thing. Knowledge is kept forever.

vangoz

Canis Lupus wrote: »

PS in regards to advanced life, seeing as you don't read sci fi I always liked Peter Hamiltons idea. Essentially, humans have colonised many galaxies etc and cloning is possible and the moving of consciousness into a clone (so you can essentially live forever) but once you're sick of the real world you download to the matrix/computer heaven essentially to do your own thing. Knowledge is kept forever.

I believe conciousness transfer will always be science fiction, whether its to another body or computer, it may be possible to "copy" it, but not transfer it, you would have to effectively destroy the original. The film "The Prestige" is a good example of this.

seamus wrote: »

Money in the form of direct aid is of fnck all use to Africa anyway. It would be better spent on a Mars project rather than simply lining the pockets of charity executives, arms dealers and warlords.

Definitely the most ignorant, highest thanked post on boards I've ever seen.

Chuck Stone

Meh. Within a century or two we'd probably have starving babies on Mars. There'd be Trocaire boxes with little deprived Martian babies on them.

bbam

In fairness we need to consider the fact that major technology advancments will be made while developing a mission to mars strategy..

A big issue will be mass food production in a hostile environment. This technology will surely benifet African nations with producing food.. However we are still back to the old chestnut that African nations are as a whole ran by severly corrupt governments whos primary goal is self serving rather than for the better of their own population..

Mars or not they need to get their act together and manage their resources for the good of the whole population rather than the top elite governing and military classes..


Also... Surely the thing is to send convict space ships en mass to Mars... then in a few hundered years the Irish will have another place to emigrate to and become "Aerlingus Qualified" carpenters and sparks... win-win

Donnielighto

Eh Africa is ruined when the oil runs out anyway. Global food supplies will plummet for a decade or 2 as gas based fertilizers run low. They need to sort their own house out before the developed world can get involved really. Imposed regimes tend not to be overly stable.

up for anything

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Educate the women and the whole mess will sort itself out.

Bugger the education. Give them guns for when the men who won't take no for an answer come calling.

Capt'n Midnight

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

we need the african babies

Yay !

We can solve the energy crisis with baby oil.

ScumLord

bbam wrote: »

A big issue will be mass food production in a hostile environment.

Sort of already happening. Americans grow food in the desert in completely artificial farms. They are also planning farm skyscrapers for the centre of New York. They reckon between 10 and 20 of these skyscrapers could make NY self sufficient when it comes to food. So we have the practice put in for growing in space under controlled environments.

This technology will surely benifet African nations with producing food..

One other thing that may help Africa is the fact it's easier to get into space from the equator. The centre of Africa could become a big space port making Africa the gateway to earth. It would be quite fitting too, Human development on earth starting and ending in Africa.

IrishAm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Has anyone ever thought that maby we are the reason that africa is starving. We are all in the top 20% of the worlds population that consumes 80% of the worlds natural rexources.
We are also apart of the top 10% of the worlds population that has 90% of the worlds wealth.
If you want to cure starvation that is the place to start....

They live in the most resource rich and fertile continent on the globe. Not our fault they can't get it together.

Practice what you preach. Sell the ould laptop and all your material possessions and donate the proceeds to them.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

One other thing that may help Africa is the fact it's easier to get into space from the equator. The centre of Africa could become a big space port making Africa the gateway to earth. It would be quite fitting too, Human development on earth starting and ending in Africa.

If launching at sea level then you might as well launch from the sea for safety and political reasons. Or Kourou in French Guiana.

Launching from altitude is also good, but you need the transport links and infrastructure so you need political stability if you want to invest. Having low population density downrange is important as shown by China. Mombasa rules out using Kilimanjaro. Othewise the Andes may be easier too.

Shryke

@wibbs There are plenty of limitations that could stop any such societies advance, or rather alter it into something else entirely. I would argue that increased intelligence isn't going to mean increased benevolence which to my mind would be more the prerequisite for the formation of what you suggest.
I wasn't thinking balls of light myself. More a data construct cloned from the biological construct - from neural imaging/mapping, which is feasible.
I'm aware mentioning fiction stirs the ire for some and rightly so sometimes. I don't fancy star trek myself. It's a pity that's what comes to mind. I'm a fan of the written stuff mostly and i'm picky enough there too.
If you fancied fiction you would find that some of it does indeed agree with you. I wouldn't consider something like star trek to be anything other than melodrama in terrible outfits.

Capt'n Midnight

bbam wrote: »

Also... Surely the thing is to send convict space ships en mass to Mars...

I don't think there would be any shortage of volunteers for a one way trip to Mars if it was reasonably chance of survival. At present there is a 1% chance of death with spaceflight. Back in the days of Magellan the survival rates of a long trading mission were very low.


we have the capability of sending robots to mars that could test the suitability of the tunnels for inhabitation. Opportunity has only travelled 35km


Mars has all the major ingredients for sustaining human life if you can find a source of energy.

Some way of making glass / smelting would be handy

but greenhouse bamboo might be a good choice for construction material

Oxygen should be easy since perchlorates and stuff in the soil

Cheapphones

Where did all the funny photos go??

Mugser

I was going to suggest sending a mission to Pluto,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
but figured that's only a Micky Mouse of a planet.

Sea Filly

Shryke wrote: »

I would argue that increased intelligence isn't going to mean increased benevolence which to my mind would be more the prerequisite for the formation of what you suggest.

+1

losthorizon

seamus wrote: »

Money in the form of direct aid is of fnck all use to Africa anyway. It would be better spent on a Mars project rather than simply lining the pockets of charity executives, arms dealers and warlords.

Its worked in plenty of cases however it doesnt work in tied cases which is what most aid is. All Irish aid is direct aid. Most American aid for instance is tied aid. Tied aid is where say America gives an african country millions to buy typewriters made in America. Now, this African country may not want typewriters, has no need for typewriters and may end up dumping them. But American keeps its typewriting industry going. Loads of nations do this. It only benefits the contributing nation.

Capt'n Midnight

losthorizon wrote: »

Its worked in plenty of cases however it doesnt work in tied cases which is what most aid is. All Irish aid is direct aid. Most American aid for instance is tied aid. Tied aid is where say America gives an african country millions to buy typewriters made in America.

It gets worse with US corn aid. This is a subsidy for us farmers agri-business conglomerates. And one case a while back (in Malawi ?) the aid was rejected because it was GMO. The problem was that local farmers might plant the corn and that would screw up future exports since the EU won't import it later on.

Corn is evil. Actually it's not but the use of it everywhere is, as it's relatively empty calories not to mention that we aren't able to handle all the fructose in corn syrup. Really annoys me that so much money is used to subsidise corn instead of higher quality foods.

Wibbs

Shryke wrote: »

I would argue that increased intelligence isn't going to mean increased benevolence which to my mind would be more the prerequisite for the formation of what you suggest.

I would suspect if that increased intelligence runs concurrently with increased networking at the mind level it would. If you can feel in reality what before was only running on empathy(or not if you didn't have it) it would likely make an individual and society less likely to be "evil". Like an exaggerated example of seeing the reality of famine on the TV makes people more likely to be charitable, or those programmes which found criminals feel remorse more than they don't, even repent and change tack, when faced with the victims of their crimes. Even psychopaths can feel their own pain kinda thing. Would Jack The Ripper have kept slashing if he could feel each cut and the pain and the fear feeling it was visited on him?

I wasn't thinking balls of light myself. More a data construct cloned from the biological construct - from neural imaging/mapping, which is feasible.

Oh sure and ditto. The angle I was coming at was if we get to a point where that data construct that is you is mobile. At the moment we're driving the car but also part of it, the car stops we stop, if (very broadly) get out of the car, get into another one, get on a plane etc.

Hey we may be doing it now, or maybe some of us are. I did read of one theory - not put forward by nutjobs either, actual scientist/physicist types - that mused maybe we could build time machines of a sort in the future. If we got to a level of technology beyond current belief where we could simulate on the very smallest level times in the past. We could run these simulations, populate them with fully conscious self aware alive avatars and visit those simulations. Maybe choose whether to be aware we're tourists or not for the full immersive experience. The majority of us could be hyper complex versions of the Sims in a holographic spacetime simulation with the odd "player/tourist/time traveller" among us. The Matrix on high powered blotter acid

I'm aware mentioning fiction stirs the ire for some and rightly so sometimes. I don't fancy star trek myself. It's a pity that's what comes to mind.

To be fair S that's more me. I'm odd that way. I dunno why, but I just can't "do" fiction, unless it's visual. So I could do comics as a kid, but the same story in a book, entirely in the written word just disconnects for me. Hell I couldn't listen to a radio fiction either, but the same thing on the telly works. Funny enough even with factual texts I had to work on the text only ones as a kid. Like I say odd and I do envy normal people on that score.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Corn is evil. Actually it's not but the use of it everywhere is, as it's relatively empty calories not to mention that we aren't able to handle all the fructose in corn syrup. Really annoys me that so much money is used to subsidise corn instead of higher quality foods.

+1000