|
|
#1 |
|
auauauau
|
Every once in a while one of my friends would say, "Where do we go when we overpopulate Earth?" and all my other friends say, "SPACE! THE FINAL FRONTIER!" and I think they say this because theyre all fans of space sci-fi. And I've explained to them again and again, and they still won't believe me, that if mankind knows what's good for them, we must go underwater.
Let's look at the list 'o facts: The seas have a crap-load more space than land does on Earth. There's a crap-load of useable resources at sea bottoms, and more than likely there's more efficient stuff down there than oil to live off. There's a crap-load of fish, and a crap-load of fish = a crap-load of food, for a crap-load of people. Now space... Lots more space. There's a reason it's called "space." Resources? I really dont think we have hardly any idea of what's out there, I dont see the Mars Rover with anything other than orange dirt, so I think it would be a ballsy move going out there and hoping to find something local. I doubt imported goodies from Earth would last for long. Same thing for food as resources. I think moving underwater would be a much better choice than space. What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Well where else would you move when you overpopulate? If our technology is not advanced enough to move to other planets by the time we overpopulate, our only option IS the sea. Well also the sky. Where do you build when there isn't enough room on the ground? You build up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
auauauau
|
What's in the sky that will help us? Methinks if we move to the sky, we'll get turned into fried beans by the sun and weakened ozone layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 511
|
if we overpopulate on land, we dont have to live underwater, we could live on man made islands, or huge boats that are like cities, etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
auauauau
|
Ah, good point. In fact, that's an excellent point.
..... ......YYYYYeah, I don't have a comeback to that. Damn, that's a good point. I do believe I've just been owned. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Wouldn't overpopulating "Earth" include the water and the sky? The Earth is not just land but everything that is currently on this planet INCLUDING the water and sky.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
You thought I was a GUY?!
|
Have you ever seen the game Aqua Nox? It kinda goes with the idea that people on land nuked each other out of existane, but there were colonies in the seas and so things kept going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
auauauau
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
FFR Player
|
Equinox, Cenright? Wow, that was one big fuck up.
Man-made islands? Can't wait... |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
|
Aqua Nox. Its a GAME.
__________________
![]() Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
|
Maybe one day we can populate the air if we run out of sea. Kind of like the tower in DBZ...I'm not sure if it would work, but why not try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 106
|
Dude, I had this idea like a bajillion years ago. If the funding that went into NASA and all that instead went into figuring out a way to build underwater cities, we'd probably already be there. The only problem is that water polution is harder to control. Oil spill on the ground = whoops, let's wipe that up. Oil spill in the ocean = oh shit we sured fucked up! I think right now anybody that is seriously considering overpopulation as a problem sees the oceans as a backup in case we can't go to space. And seriously, people want to go to space cuz zomg it's outer space it's so cool! Everybody moving into the ocean is boring and is harder to get funding for.
But honestly, I figure we'll have a life-ending war before we completely overpopulate this place. Either that or a new plague will come kill most of us. It's like lemmings. They overpopulate everything and then go jump off of a cliff to reduce population. We make tons of babies then have a big war where most of us die and we restart from there. Our only limiting factor is ourselves, really. We'll fix overpopulation with nukes long before we fix it with space or the ocean.
__________________
Avenge me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Away from Computer
|
basically
eb's solution: Lets have WW3
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
regardless of where we move to on THIS planet, we're still screwed. The sad fact is that anyone over 40 doesn't give two shits about this planet's enviroment; most likely because they think they'll be dead before anything bad happens anyways.
The only thing that's really logical is to populate other planets. It's logical, yes, it is. Possible? definitely not yet.
__________________
Come Play The Werewolf Game! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
FFR Player
|
If we overpopulate, I say we'll live in little floating platforms in the ocean anchored to the sea floor. It would be like Venice, Italy, cept with waves and salt.
A mile under the water, there isn't much to eat for us. Tuna, dolphins, you name it, they're not that far down in the ocean. And unless ocean fish are domesticated, it's going to be hard to not run out of fish. It would also be harder to transport things there. Not harder, I guess, just less efficient. Oh, and don't forget about The World™. I think those same people are building an underwater hotel or something like that.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
|
One time in geography two grades ago, we were talking about overpopulation. My eyes wandered to the world map. There sure was a lot of blue on that map. Much more blue than brown. Then it occurred to me... couldn't we float homes? Or have a tunnel city underwater? It would be so awesome and space-conservey.
Underwater colonization is definitely awesome.
__________________
Last edited by Tokzic: Today at 11:59 PM. Reason: wait what |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Banned
|
Populating the oceans would give us more time to plan for outer space. We still have a while to go until all the land is full, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
is against custom titles
|
Tokzic, they already do in Europe. The Netherlands, I think maybe, where it's overpopulated they build on the riverbanks.
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Assuming there were more first world nations, we wouldn't even have to worry about overpopulation. The rate of natural increase here by births is tiny. Hell, places in europe have a rate of decrease XD ...All the people are coming from southern Asia lol (Africa contributes but only about 1/3 as much). Asia will house more than 60% of the world in 2050. If they were under control, the population wouldn't double for a very long time (over 1000 years), as developed nations populations stay relatively static outside of immigration.
Even at our current rate, it'll take atleast 100 years for our population to double. Populations will likely start to crest by 2100 anyway and increase will be slowed dramatically. Overpopulation isn't a real problem right now; destroying our planet is - which will happen first if we're not careful. But yea, I've thought of underwater cities, or cities built on the water that also decend under the water many times before. Seems like a good way to exploit resources and also get a lot more area to keep people. Not that we shouldn't stick with space. We estimate living on the moon by 2018 and landing on mars by 2030...the solar system alone could probably support 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 people easily with it's resources.
__________________
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|