quote:Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
I don't know how valid this study is but, if it's true than it's very scary.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Too many people "needing" too many things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is that number dependent on a steady increase in the rate of stripping/overuse etc? Or does it asssume a steady number based on what we have today?
Problem with this is, India and China are going to explode in their rate of resource using. I actually expect that by 2050, the US will be using up resources at a fraction of the rate we are now, and I hope that we can sell/subsidize that technology for the rest of the world.
I was told in biology class that once the population of some species fall to too low a number, the species is doomed to die out, regardless of repopulating efforts. Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death. They'll interbreed themselves to death. We can't let those numbers fall to unsustainable rates, or we might as well just give up once they are, all we're doing is stemming the tide for a moment in time.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
No, what the article says is humanity has been living unsustainably for about 10 or so years (as in we were using over 100% of the planet's capability to replenish itself).
That the article is saying is that by 2050, we'll be using two earth's worth of resources (200% over what can be renewed).
We're already so far past being sustainabile it isn't even funny.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death
I don't know if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is far more genetic variation in all those animals than there is in humans.
Humans are incredibly homogeneous. A average tribe of 25 chimpanzees in the wild has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Where did I put that lethal injection? *reaches into back pocket*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Look at cheetahs, rhions, and tigers. There aren't enough left for enough genetic variation to protect them from mutations that will cause problems leading to death
I don't know if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is far more genetic variation in all those animals than there is in humans.
Humans are incredibly homogeneous. A average tribe of 25 chimpanzees in the wild has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
That's what my AP Bio teacher (who had four degrees, only two of which were in biology) told me in high school.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Which? What you said or what I said?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
*pricks finger on needle in pocket* There it is!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Meh. I don't trust reports put out by wrestlers. I mean, their "sport" is fake--why should their "science" be any different?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Because they'll put you in a choke hold?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, what I said.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While I'd hate to see tigers and rhinos go, if it really comes to a crunch, they are expendable. Mineral resources and food species are a lot more critical.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Sweet. We can add eaters-of-worlds to our resume.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
[ October 25, 2006, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Meh. I don't trust reports put out by wrestlers. I mean, their "sport" is fake--why should their "science" be any different?
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.
-pH
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I'm fairly sure that genetic diversity has been a problem with cheetahs essentially forever.
(wikipedia backs this up, but I'm certain I've seen this somewhere more reliable too.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah, which only backs up the point that it happened to cheetahs, and will happen to other animals in confined areas with small numbers. Just because it happened 20,000 years ago doesn't mean it isn't a problem today, or will be in the future.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
This was a Yahoo news "most popular" story today. It's things like this that make it hard for me to plan for the future.
Well, if I live to 2050, I'll have passed "threescore years and ten" (Psalms 90:10), which, to paraphrase the apocryphal Bill Gates line, ought to be enough for anybody.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Which is fine if you don't mind your grandchildren/grandnephews/grandnieces/etc starving to death along with you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bah, we are all going to eat it in the earth's magnetic pollar shift of 2011 anyway.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The sky is falling Hogwash is all I can say. We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The sky is falling Hogwash is all I can say. We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
I'm so far from a conservationalist it's almost funny, but the fact that this is still the prevailing attitude turns my stomach.
The reason we've been capable of still living and still consuming is because the earth had one hell of head start on us. The truth is that we're in a car that just ran out of gas on the interstate, and everything looks great to the masses because we're still moving.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'm curious about how they came about their numbers. The fact that they are defining units of measure and using them in their own calculations is really...odd. The article doesn't get very specific about things, so it just seems like they are throwing numbers around.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:While I'd hate to see tigers and rhinos go, if it really comes to a crunch, they are expendable. Mineral resources and food species are a lot more critical.
Except that the more species you lose, the more unstable their ecosystems become. Take the wolves out of the northeast of the US, for instance, and you have severe overpopulations of deer to jump out into highways. Encroach on the feeding territory of bears, and they'll just eat your garbage and break into your houses for food. Kill off the coyotes and you'll get praire dogs burrowing throughout all your farmland.
Balance is key, as in everything.
quote:We are still here 20 years later and still eating and consuming.
So, I'm guessing you don't consider us any more rational than, say, locusts.
Animal populations expand until their environment can't sustain them, and then they fall back. It's cyclical and natural.
Human populations will reach the point where the environment will not be able to sustain them, as well. At that point, the population will fall off - either through war, famine, or disease... you know, those Horseman people mention from time to time. The other options are to either a) reduce consumption/increase efficiency (which, really, would only cause more population growth and delay the inevitable) or b) move offplanet.
We can't keep growing in population and expect this planet to sustain us. 3 billion people in 1960, 6.5 billion now, projections of 9 billion in 2050, and then what... 12 billion in 2100? 15 billion in 2150?
At some point, if we don't slow down our population expansion (actually, if we don't stop it), we will grow too big for this planet to sustain us.
In ancient times, when a population grew too large because of its prosperity, it expanded its territory. This might have caused wars with neighbors, but there was always a frontier to push into and tame.
There will come a point where the only territory to expand into is offplanet. Whether we somehow terraform mars or the moon or whatever, we're going to run out of space on Earth.
Unless, of course, a big enough war/plague/famine doesn't severely curtail the population before we get to that point.
The sky is falling? Hardly. Whether 2050 is the date we grow too big or not is up for debate... but it will happen eventually.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:So, I'm guessing you don't consider us any more rational than, say, locusts.
To be honest? No. If we were rational than we would find a way to survive with only those animals we find sufficiant for our means. I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
I look forward to being dead before this future.
EDIT: Note, I don't disagree with the assessment at all. I think it's the more likely candidate at this point (than war, or plague, or famine eliminating 50%-75% of humanity).
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Icarus: you were kidding about the "wrestlers" thing, right? (my sarcasm-meter is acting up today)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
While I'm glad it was the entertainment industry that changed their name, I kind of wish it had been the wildlife foundation so they could avoid this stigmata for the next 20 years until no one remembers the WWE used to be the WWF.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If we were rational than we would find a way to survive with only those animals we find sufficiant for our means. I envision a future, if the argued senerio is true, where domesticated life is the only life.
Even if all the life on the planet is domesticated, and all wild places are replaced with hyper-efficient farmland populated only by food animals, if we don't stop our population growth we'll still outgrow our environment.
When locusts run out of food, they move on to the next field, and then the next, until there is no more food left... then they die in massive numbers.
Even with a "humans = intelligent locusts" model, where we make maximum food production efficiency of the surface area of the planet, we'll still keep eating and breeding until there is no possible way our planet can sustain us.
At some point we'll have to a) stop our population growth, or b) find another planet to expand onto.
The amount of time involved before we are forced to do one or the other to survive is debatable, but the ultimate result is not. So, is 2050 the zero hour? Who knows.
But the day is coming.
As an addendum: The time approaches more rapidly due to our inefficient use of natural resources and unchecked population growth. If we increase efficiency, we extend our time. If we slow population growth, we extend our time. If we disregard all warnings and continue our wanton consumption and rampant population growth, we are just hastening the process.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well said FlyingCow...we need to get off world ASAP or suffer misserably. How soon? Soon.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Either that or learn to control our population and cut back on our consumption habits.
If what the article says is true, we've already gone past the breaking point for the earth to sustain us indefinitely. We're using resources faster than the planet can replinish them, and creating waste faster than the planet can turn that waste back into resources.
Even if we totally stop consumption growth right now, our species is in a decaying orbit. Eventually, our consumption will consume all resources on the planet - though, if we halt increased consumption today, that may take hundreds or thousands of years.
Thing is, we're not halting consumption - we're accelerating it. More people = more consumption. More industrialization = more consumption. More consumption = greater imbalance between consumption and replenishment.
We also need to halt population growth. As harsh as it may sound, every family with more than two children is increasing the global population. Ender's Game's child restriction laws are not too far from a necessary reality - and, as in the books, the only release on those restrictions came with the ability to colonize other worlds.
So, the way I see it, we have three options:
1. Cut back on consumption, increase consumption efficiency, stop population growth, and actually even cut back on the world's population, or
2. Find somewhere else we can start expanding into and develop the technology to expand there, or
3. Do nothing. Let the population increase to the point that famine/war/disease cuts it back naturally.
The argument can be made that we could optimize the oceans of the world for food output and settlement, but this would also just be delaying the inevitable. Eventually, our population will grow past the ability for the planet - land and ocean - to support it.
Option 2 is the best for humans to survive/thrive in the long term - meaning 500 or 1000 years or more into the future.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of colonisation, I would certainly like to see it done for its own sake. But as a means of reducing the Earth's population? Come, now. Right now it takes the work of several thousand people over some months to put a man in Low Earth Orbit. Even granting improvements in the technology, how are we going to be putting several hundred thousand people per month on another planet? That's what it would take just to remove the population growth. Short of magical teleporters that work over several light-years with almost zero energy cost, this just won't happen. Especially when you consider that the current means of removing several hundred thousand people from the population on a monthly basis are very cheap, and large industrial interests make money off 'em.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Wow, I agree with KoM on something.
We absolutely do need to set up a self-sustaining colony on another planet. But transporting people to accomplish that as living breathing human beings is going to be impractical for a long while, if not forever. Not to mention that any colony established more than likley will include many other living creatures than humans. The easier way the shipping all these items steerage would be to send a smaller group on a ship with embryos of whatever species they care to cultivate on the new world (this includes humans of course). This is also a way to assure a decent genetic sample for several generations into its life. (Titan AE actually had this idea down, aside from the instant terraforming tool).
Even if that happens, Earth is still on it's own to balance it's own population. And it will be nearly as impractical to import large supplies of food / materials from another world as it would be to export human beings. The energy and time delay costs would be parituclarly prohibitive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you are going for balance in any complex system I really think you will fall flat on your face. Assuming the INCREDIBLE task was suddenly accomplished, its nature's way to keep moving and your balance would be toppled by completely natural variables.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm not sure if you were directing that at me or at Architraz, BlackBlade, but it was a very interesting article.
He could have just as easily used australia or the everglades or any other ecosystem, and shown how efforts to help have only made things worse. I understand complex systems cannot be adjusted without causing unforeseen complications down the line.
However.
Human population has grown pretty significantly in a relatively short period of geographic time:
That's pretty impressive. And if you notice, we've been gaining about half a billion every decade, roughly, since 1950. We had a pretty steady rise in population going into about 1900, then a pretty steady (though markedly faster) rise in the last 50 years.
Unless that tapers off to a plateau at some point - which is highly unlikely, though I suppose possible - the numbers will keep on growing. They may grow more slowly, or more rapidly, but they'll keep growing.
That population is also growing more industrialized on the average, with each human consuming more and creating more waste. What happens when China and India become as industrialized as the US, with comparable consumption and waste production?
As for moving to another planet, you're right in that it's totally unfeasible, with science and economics the way we understand them, to significantly impact the current population of the earth.
Likely the population will be checked in some other way. My vote is for diseases/viruses being the likely culprits, though global war isn't out of the realm of possibility, or famine (being of Irish heritage, I know that can be pretty swift and brutal).
The complex system of human population will balance itself given time - but personally, I'm not a fan of the way nature normally culls its populations (disease/starvation/predators).
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
The answer can be found in high school biology. The population rises exponentially until it reaches a carrying capacity, then it just hovers around that amount for the rest of the species life span.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wrong. That may happen in idealised models, but even then, only if you set it up right. It is quite trivial - they teach you this in your first year of college - to set up much more realistic equations that have boom-bust cycles. Which is what we observe in nature.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: it happens in real life, too. There are lots of populations that follow convergence to carrying capacity expectations.
Of course, there are empirical reasons to believe the human species won't be one of them, but our uniquely large propensity to change our own environment (particularly including technological advancement) means there is no model from another species likely to fit.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
If you look at any historical models of a human population reaching carrying capacity... this is followed immediately by a disastrous collapse. Easter Island is the classic model, but most civilization collapses seem to happen as the result of a domino effect once carrying capacity has been slightly exceeded.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Exceeding carrying capacity.
That's how Atlantis sunk into the sea.
Look out America! You're the heaviest nation on the planet, and if you're not careful, the whole continent will give out right under your feet. California alone has been living with the threat of falling into the Pacific for decades. Why do you think they care about dieting so much? Take the hint!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You'd figure Samoa would be underwater for quite some time, now...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Careful, there could be some Palauans on this board that wouldn't take too kindly for that kind of talk.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Easter Island's problem was not reaching their carrying capacity, it was destroying the ecosystem of the island by, among other things, systematic deforestation, such that the carrying capacity of the island was markedly decreased.
It is not at all clear that humans will do this in the rest of the world. Many things humans do increase the carrying capacity of the earth, such as by increasing the productivity of agriculture. Perhaps we will do something equivalent, but merely approaching, reaching, or mildly surpassing whatever the current carrying capacity is is in no way equivalent to what happened on Easter Island.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Actually, fugu, strip-mining the environment is one of the dominoes; this is also known as "eating your seed corn", and other things in other parts of the world. Basically, you reach a break-over point where you start consuming your infrastructure rather than its products. Once you've reached that point you are well and truly doomed, as with each passing day your ability to meet your needs in the future decreases geometrically.
We haven't reached that point... yet...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The difficulty is that many people don't even foresee this is as a problem, or don't care, or feel it's not *their* problem because they'll be well and dead by then.
For every person who's preaching conservation and sensible use of resources, there is another saying all such talk is hogwash. It seems many times those preaching moderation and conservation are far outweighed by their opponents.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But strip-mining the environment is both not associated with merely reaching carrying capacity and not necessarily an outcome of the human race surpassing carrying capacity -- we've increased the carrying capacity of the world significantly so far, we may well do it in the future.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Recommended reading: Collapse, Jared Diamond. I thought the chapters on Montana and Oz were a little silly (Montana, on the verge of societal collapse? Really?), but liked the chapters on Easter Island, the Maya Empire, medeival Iceland (collapse averted) and Greenland.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Increasing carrying capacity without doing anything to stop population growth just delays the inevitable. It just means we'll take longer to exceed carrying capacity, not that we won't reach it.
Granted, the rate of population growth has slowed in recent years. It's down from more than an 85 million people per year increase in 1990 to about a 75 million people per year increase in 2005. (link with projections)
Still, though, that's 75 million people per year more than what we had before - if the trend continues to slow at the same rate, we'll be down to a 65 million a year increase by 2020 and a 55 million a year increase by 2035. That's another 2 billion people or so in 30 years.
While we may increase carrying capacity, we're also increasing the amount that needs to be carried. At some point there will be a limit reached.
Now, the UN has projections for world population in 2150 everywhere from a 28 billion to 4.3 billion. Personally, I'd assume somewhere between those two extremes is likely closest to the truth - and their median of 11.5 billion doesn't seem unrealistic.
So, can we almost double the carrying capacity of the planet in 150 years?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's assuming we've already reached carrying capacity, which is rather in question. On many measures, we're perfectly capable of supporting the population of the earth today -- we can produce enough food, we have enough water, there's plenty of oxygen, et cetera. Now, many of those necessities do not reach some people, but that's a problem with distribution, not quantity.
And we probably can double the carrying capacity of the earth in 150 years, at least by measures like those. The earth's carrying capacity along similar measures was, for a long time, not much more than 10 million (the number of people the earth held for a good length of time) -- perhaps even as much as 100 million, though then it would be hard to explain why we never came anywhere close to that number for a long while.
The carrying capacity nowadays is many times that, due to dint of human effort.
Yes, if the human population shoots significantly past carrying capacity, then a crash is inevitable. But increasing carrying capacity does not merely delay the inevitable. An increasing carrying capacity means the effective rate the population is approaching carrying capacity is decreased, improving the chances of leveling off. We're starting to see slowing birth rates even in some rapidly developing countries, so this might well be an accomplishable vision.
Of course, we might also end up crashing horribly, my point is that the outcome is far from foregone.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: We're using resources faster than the planet can replinish them, and creating waste faster than the planet can turn that waste back into resources.
This is why thermal depolymerization rules so very much. Oh, but it SMELLS BAD, so we just CAN'T have it! TDP could solve so many problems and extend our time here. Hopefully we'll see it become a major industrial process, and SOON, despite its stinkiness.
quote: We also need to halt population growth. As harsh as it may sound, every family with more than two children is increasing the global population. Ender's Game's child restriction laws are not too far from a necessary reality - and, as in the books, the only release on those restrictions came with the ability to colonize other worlds.
Hear, hear. I was thinking about this last night. We really need to stop breeding at such rampant levels, at least until we can get to other worlds.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Population growth is already dramatically slowing, and in particular has already slowed in just about every country where a law like that could be enforced by the international community. The best way to slow population growth isn't to try to pass a law, its to bring down trade barriers (there's a huge correlation between economic improvement and slower population growth).
edit: not to mention that population growth isn't just some variable that can be changed without significant consequence. Population in a developing country is an important resource, and artificially restricting it will likely lead to collapse. If that's what we're trying to avoid by imposing the restriction, it seems silly to induce it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Montana, on the verge of societal collapse? Really?
Dude, have you ever spent any time there? I went to college in Montana, and I spent the first year I was there wondering how the whole state wasn't bankrupt. Which, during my third year there was a concern brought up by the state legislature.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
edit: not to mention that population growth isn't just some variable that can be changed without significant consequence. Population in a developing country is an important resource, and artificially restricting it will likely lead to collapse. If that's what we're trying to avoid by imposing the restriction, it seems silly to induce it.
Right, but DEVELOPED countries don't need a population increase. We could have Third laws here and the world would probably look much rosier. Oh, but that's impinging on an individual's reproductive rights, or course. Obviously, the needs of the individual are greater than the needs of the species as a whole.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
As for carrying capacity, fugu, there are a lot of other factors - such as energy, waste, etc.
Thermal depolymerization does, indeed, rule. If we can start turning our waste into energy, a la Mr. Fusion, we'd be in a lot better shape.
As for the carrying capacity of the earth being 10 million, that's a bit far fetched. The population may have been 10 million, but the earth had resources for far more than that. There was steady population growth for thousands and thousands of years as we expanded into new areas and settled in new places.
I'm curious, though, what happened in the early part of the 1900s to prompt such a radical shift in world population change. Is there any explanation why we went from such a gradual increase to such a dramatic one in such a short period of time?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Third laws here would have essentially zero impact on world population growth. Population growth in excess of 2 children per couple is a rounding error in world population growth. Also, given the very high productivity of people in the US, it would make sense to encourage growth here if the goal is to increase world carrying capacity.
Yes, there are other issues with carrying capacity. Re: energy, we have the technology to provide enough energy for a far larger population. They're called nuclear power plants. Re: waste, we have the technology to send waste into space or use it for all sorts of other purposes. Right now that's not economically sensible, but if we start filling up, it might well be.
No, a world carrying capacity of 10 million is not far fetched. Using even slightly more modern technology the earth could sustain far more people, but for a long time we didn't have that technology. The population didn't steadily increase by most estimates, which would suggest we were at approximately capacity:
Its important to understand what it means to 'have resources for'. If we could do effortless transforms of matter between types, the capacity of the earth would be nigh limitless. If we had only the technology available twelve thousand years ago, our population would be severely constrained (quite possibly to around 10 million). The amount of 'resources' hasn't changed, but our ability to use them most definitely would have, and the ability to use them is all that matters for carrying capacity.
One of the biggest restrictions on carrying capacity at the time would be transport. A few areas of the earth can handily support large populations -- and did -- but much of the human population on earth depends on either effective storage or effective transport to get through harder periods of time. Absent those, the carrying capacity of the earth drops drastically.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Are you guys meaning 10 billion?
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
Question: In those liberal/progressive Scandinavian countries where there's no crime and free education and health care for all its citizens and everything seems so rosy, don't they have a low population growth rate? I know that their model won't work for most countries in the world right now, but isn't it possible that we're all going to naturally end up that way? Can't we have a laizzes faire attitude toward population growth?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, you're assuming we'll all naturally end up with no crime, free education, health care for all, and everything rosy?
Been watching a lot of Star Trek lately, haven't ya...
And El JT, it was 10 million not 10 billion. I understand now what he means, in that the earth could sustain a population of 10 million humans at the time, simply because the humans didn't have the technology to expand or increase further. When new technology was gained, humans used that technology to increase the carrying capacity of the world (storehouses, irrigation, transportation, medicine, etc). With more technology, more people were able to live in higher concentrations (skyscrapers, mass transit, food distribution systems, medicine, etc), allowing the capacity to increase further.
In the last 100 years, we've seen heretofore unheard of gains in both technology and population.
What triggered the growth from 1900-present? How did we manage to take between 10 and 15 thousand years to get to 1.6 billion, then only fifty years more to add another billion, and only 56 more years to add another 4 billion.
It's amazing to me how much we've grown, but hard for me to visualize a natural end to such rapid growth short of collapse.
Posted by Mneighthyn (Member # 9572) on :
This thread was thuroughly depressing.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Thanks to the great prophet we know what will happen: Earth will be abandoned in favor of dozens of planets and hundreds of moons in another solar system.
Oh yeah, somebody tell Mal to shoot the high command before they surrender at Serenity Valley, I don't want the alliance breathing down my neck.
Avatar300, who plans to stay young and live long enough to marry Kaylee and settle down somewhere far from the central planets.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
TDP could solve so many problems and extend our time here. Hopefully we'll see it become a major industrial process, and SOON, despite its stinkiness. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)