Talk:Human

Line 105:

Also, I have to say, I was really unimpressed by the population estimate. In the form I found it in it demonstrated a gross lack of understanding concerning population growth and generational demographics within developing nations. First of all, the historically record high population counts has less to do with perceived increases in "birth rates" and WAY WAY WAY(!) more to do with *drastically* reduced death rates. You know, what with us not engaging in bloody combat cause my monarch has some kind of emo love affair with your monarch and all. You know, what with us no longer getting pwn'd by no0b diseases, etc, etc. Additionally, many people, have unheard of the typical demographic shifting of generations as a nation goes from "2nd World" to "3rd World". While a society is still developing, its common from them to exhibit an explosion (note that explosions are known for being brief) of birth rates for the first generation (a baby-boomer generation as its known), followed by hyper reduced birth rates for the next generation after its up to full speed; birth rates that are even lower than what was happening before the baby boom hit. In otherwords, birth rates are LOGARITHMIC across genarations, not linear, and again, not that it matters because the real reason more people are on Earth today is because NO ONE IS DYING THE WAY THEY USED TO, giving old people more time to plot neo-communist takeovers of the entire solar system. Ahem, had no choice but to make the population section reflect that. Hope no one minds.

One last thing: Space is not finite. We can reorganize our architecture to make it do more with less if the time comes. Market forces will, as always, dictate how we develop our land, but its like like "OMG ~~EVERY SQUARE KILO OF THE~~ EARTH ~~PLUS ITS~~ ATMOSPHERE ~~IS OCCUPIED SO ITS~~ NOT ~~EVEN LIKE~~ WE CAN ~~EVEN JUST SIMPLY MAKE A SLIGHTLY TALLER APARTMENT BUILDING~~ OH NOES!!!" Nah, if we develop FTL, that's not how its going to be. The real reason we'll colonize isn't because we "need" to as though our very survival depends upon it, but simply because the real estate over there is cheaper and more convenient. And cheap convenient real estate that also happens to sit on a mountain of titanium (or what have you) = $$$ = migration efforts reminiscent of the Gold Rush. Some vague prospect of "develop FTL to colonize or face extinction" would had nothing to do with it, more like humanity had to move lest it had to pay a higher stupid mortgages. Planets, by definition, are pretty whopping places that are hard to fill up, hence, if in the future suddenly "we" (as in, humans) decided that "we" (as in, not the planet itself), had run out of "space" it probably has more to do with something lame like bureaucratic zoning restrictions or ~~something~~ inhibiting our ability to reshuffle our currently utilized space in anticipation of new real estate demands.

One last thing: Space is not finite. We can reorganize our architecture to make it do more with less if the time comes. Market forces will, as always, dictate how we develop our land, but its like like "OMG eVErY squar kILO Of daE EARTH pLuS ItS ATMOSPHERE iS occupIed sO itS NOT Even l1KE WE CAN EV3N jUS7 simply mAke a sLIGHTly talleR aPARTmENT buILding OH NOES!!!" Nah, if we develop FTL, that's not how its going to be. The real reason we'll colonize isn't because we "need" to as though our very survival depends upon it, but simply because the real estate over there is cheaper and more convenient what with less bureaucrats getting in your way. And cheap convenient real estate that also happens to sit on a mountain of titanium (or what have you) = $$$ = migration efforts reminiscent of the Gold Rush. Some vague prospect of "develop FTL and colonize or face extinction" would've had nothing to do with it; more like humanity had to move lest it had to pay a higher stupid mortgages. Planets, by definition, are pretty whopping places that are hard to fill up `''especially'' given creative enough architecture, hence, if in the future suddenly "we" (as in, humans) decided that "we" (as in, not the planet itself), had run out of "space" it probably has more to do with something lame like bureaucratic zoning restrictions or some other kind of red tape born of bad policy inhibiting our ability to reshuffle our currently utilized space in anticipation of new real estate demands. Hence an understandable amount of unrest if suddenly the "Earth (Sol colonies included)" is perceived as "overpopulated" for precisely those reasons.

Hence, for that above plethora of mega complicated reasons, I simply added little one word adjectives as "deemed" or "considered" in from of words like "overpopulated", and words like "comfortably" or "reasonably" in front of parts concerning the Earth being able to "sustain" humanity. Sheesh, Earth will sustain humanity for as long as market forces give us incentives not to abuse resources without considering our wallets. I'm appalled by how much the article seemingly underestimated our ability to adapt when I first found it.

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 Also, I have to say, I was really unimpressed by the population estimate.  In the form I found it in it demonstrated a gross lack of understanding concerning population growth and generational demographics within developing nations. First of all, the historically record high population counts has less to do with perceived increases in "birth rates" and WAY WAY WAY(!) more to do with *drastically* reduced death rates. You know, what with us not engaging in bloody combat cause my monarch has some kind of emo love affair with your monarch and all. You know, what with us no longer getting pwn'd by no0b diseases, etc, etc.  Additionally, many people, have unheard of the typical demographic shifting of generations as a nation goes from "2nd World" to "3rd World".  While a society is still developing, its common from them to exhibit an explosion (note that explosions are known for being brief) of birth rates for the first generation (a baby-boomer generation as its known), followed by hyper reduced birth rates for the next generation after its up to full speed; birth rates that are even lower than what was happening before the baby boom hit. In otherwords, birth rates are LOGARITHMIC across genarations, not linear, and again, not that it matters because the real reason more people are on Earth today is because NO ONE IS DYING THE WAY THEY USED TO, giving old people more time to plot neo-communist takeovers of the entire solar system. Ahem, had no choice but to make the population section reflect that.  Hope no one minds.
-One last thing: Space is not finite.  We can reorganize our architecture to make it do more with less if the time comes.  Market forces will, as always, dictate how we develop our land, but its like like "OMG EVERY SQUARE KILO OF THE EARTH PLUS ITS ATMOSPHERE IS OCCUPIED SO ITS NOT EVEN LIKE WE CAN EVEN JUST SIMPLY MAKE A SLIGHTLY TALLER APARTMENT BUILDING OH NOES!!!"  Nah, if we develop FTL, that's not how its going to be. The real reason we'll colonize isn't because we "need" to as though our very survival depends upon it, but simply because the real estate over there is cheaper and more convenient. And cheap convenient real estate that also happens to sit on a mountain of titanium (or what have you) = $$$ = migration efforts reminiscent of the Gold Rush.  Some vague prospect of "develop FTL to colonize or face extinction" would had nothing to do with it, more like humanity had to move lest it had to pay a higher stupid mortgages. Planets, by definition, are pretty whopping places that are hard to fill up, hence, if in the future suddenly "we" (as in, humans) decided that "we" (as in, not the planet itself), had run out of "space" it probably has more to do with something lame like bureaucratic zoning restrictions or something inhibiting our ability to reshuffle our currently utilized space in anticipation of new real estate demands.
+One last thing: Space is not finite.  We can reorganize our architecture to make it do more with less if the time comes.  Market forces will, as always, dictate how we develop our land, but its like like "OMG eVErY squar kILO Of daE EARTH pLuS ItS ATMOSPHERE iS occupIed sO itS NOT Even l1KE WE CAN EV3N jUS7 simply mAke a sLIGHTly talleR aPARTmENT buILding OH NOES!!!"  Nah, if we develop FTL, that's not how its going to be. The real reason we'll colonize isn't because we "need" to as though our very survival depends upon it, but simply because the real estate over there is cheaper and more convenient what with less bureaucrats getting in your way. And cheap convenient real estate that also happens to sit on a mountain of titanium (or what have you) = $$$ = migration efforts reminiscent of the Gold Rush.  Some vague prospect of "develop FTL and colonize or face extinction" would've had nothing to do with it; more like humanity had to move lest it had to pay a higher stupid mortgages. Planets, by definition, are pretty whopping places that are hard to fill up `''especially'' given creative enough architecture, hence, if in the future suddenly "we" (as in, humans) decided that "we" (as in, not the planet itself), had run out of "space" it probably has more to do with something lame like bureaucratic zoning restrictions or some other kind of red tape born of bad policy inhibiting our ability to reshuffle our currently utilized space in anticipation of new real estate demands. Hence an understandable amount of unrest if suddenly the "Earth (Sol colonies included)" is perceived as "overpopulated" for precisely those reasons.
 Hence, for that above plethora of mega complicated reasons, I simply added little one word adjectives as "deemed" or "considered" in from of words like "overpopulated", and words like "comfortably" or "reasonably" in front of parts concerning the Earth being able to "sustain" humanity.  Sheesh, Earth will sustain humanity for as long as market forces give us incentives not to abuse resources without considering our wallets. I'm appalled by how much the article seemingly underestimated our ability to adapt when I first found it.

Talk:Human: Difference between revisions