Old 05-18-19, 07:22 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8069 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
No I came here to learn how people deal with being car free only to find most are car free like people that give up smoking only to bum cigarettes from others.
This is your main tactic for discouraging LCF, i.e. convince people that 'car-free' is a status and that they can only achieve it if they remain completely pure. It's like a guy who tries to talk a woman out of staying faithful to her husband by convincing her that everybody cheats, at least in their thoughts.

I say again, what happens when you add 25 percent more people to a space station already supporting 100 people? They are no longer sustainable. You have to increase supply to feed and water that many people. Maybe if you would have experienced being on a long cruise on a ship with enough water and food for the journey a
only to pick up extra people in the doldrums. I know you donít know but take a guess.
Yes, and what happens when you take a functioning planet covered in whatever living organisms grow naturally and start systematically clearing away forested land and other natural ecology to pave sprawling networks of corridors and buildings that dry up the air and land, decimate animal populations, and convert all the sedimented carbon into atmospheric CO2?

You don't think that impairs the ability of the system to sustain life permanently? You don't think it reduces the number of humans and other organisms that can live sustainably?

Think of it in terms of two space-stations. In one station, tons of machines and robots are employed and take up much of the space and use much of the energy and other resources. In the other, there are less machines and robots because humans use their own manual labor more diligently to manage their resources and avoid wasting space. Which space station is more human-friendly?
tandempower is offline