|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:21 am
Septomor rugged Septomor rugged Septomor But if everyone lived so long till about 100 then there will be approximently 1000 people in every square mile (USA) in 2050 You what? Rofl, let's try it out, shall we? The USA has about 300,000,000 People currently, and a Surface Area of about 5,700,000 square Miles, there are about 53 people per square Mile currently. You'd need 5.7 Billion to get 1000 people per Square Mile. Assuming we keep with the 0.91% growth rate and NOBODY dies, it would take 325 Years to get to that population. That's why immortality would be a bad idea, but simply making the quality of life better for those people isn't neccesarily bad. Septomor and then the rainforest will be destroyed by then It's... already being destroyed, reguardless of Medical Technology. See, this is what an Army is for - we should have a Resolution that allows a force to go into Brazil and round up every tree-harming scumbag that can be found there. Septomor so almost everyone will have an unhealthy enviroment. sad WAKE UP!!! Almost everyone in America ALREADY HAS AN UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLE!! XD ok that didn't answer much for me Sorry but 1st off, we get so many immagrents that the population would be enourmus No, you're just so Xenophobic that you think they're everywhere. 3.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.), compared to 14.14 births/1,000 population (2006 est.), makes Imigration comparatively unimportant in this case. Besides, you think that would stay as the Population sours? Septomor 2nd I'm talking about the mainland of US, that means no Alaska or Hawaii which would eliminated about...674,000 sq mi 664,707 sq km, actually, and that's already taken into account; [url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/gaia/redirect.php?r=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html]The CIA[/url] Area: total: 9,826,630 sq km land: 9,161,923 sq km water: 664,707 sq km note: includes only the 50 states and District of ColumbiaIf you don't trust your own CIA, then it's pointless posting here. Septomor 3rd I think you miss read a bit on my second quote up there, I know that medical research isn't doing any harm, I didn't say that, I'm saying the exact same thing your saying Quote: Well there probably wouldn't be anything wrong with stem-cells, besides what yall said and the fact that I think it would make people live longer which is bad I'll simplify Live longer = bad That's what you said. Let me simplify it further so everyone else gets the picture; "Medical Research that saves people = bad" Septomor 4th I meant everyone wouldn't be able to live becuase of the living conditions and the crowdedness Most of America is an empty Desert - you'd just need to build more Cities in those areas. Besides, my example only works if people live forever. Longer Lifespans means people still die at about the same rate, tehy just get to live longer and healthier as well. That includes all 50 states from your replie to my second quote but I'm only including 48 states (And DC) Ahh, s**t!!! XD Damned CIA... (Though I can't understand why the hell you wouldn't include them as well? sweatdrop ) Septomor and also why did you put them in kilometers when we were speaking in miles? Because I couldn't be arsed to put it back into Miles - though I used Miles in the Calculation first of all. Let's do this again, with the correction about ALaska and Hawaii included; The USA has about 300,000,000 People currently. A Mile is about 1609 Meters, Alaska (water not included, remember?) is ~ 570,374 square Miles and Hawaii is ~ 10,931 sqaure Miles, so the total (in km) given by The CIA converted to Miles and take away these ~ 3,000,000 square Miles. to get 1000 people per square Mile only counting Mainland and no bodies of water, you'd need a Population of 3,000,000,000 (half the World's current Population sweatdrop ). If everybody in America suddenly became immortal and the birth rate was constant at 0.91%, then it would take x years for the population to get to 3,000,000,000; Current Population * rate of growth^ x = 3,000,000,000 300,000,000*1.0091^ x = 3,000,000,000 rearranging gives; 1.0091^ x = 3,000,000,000/300,000,000 Taking Logs of both sides gives; ln1.0091^ x = ln10 Using Log Rules; xln1.0091 = ln 10 x*9.059*10^-3 = 2.303 x = 2.303/(9.059*10^-3) = 254 Years. Septomor Also to the 3rd quote I can't quite understand if your agreeing or not So... you... honestly think Medicines that save people are bad? Unfortunate that America has all the money then XD Septomor 4th 4th Most of America isn't Rural area No, but one assumes the richest Nation on Earth would build more Cities in such an eventuality. Also, it's not EXACTLY 1000 PEOPLE PER MILE, it's an average - some places will have more, some less.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:38 am
Septomor rugged Septomor Well the density of Rhode Island is 1003.2 people per sq mile...and look how clean it is surprised The Density of my Student Accomodation is much higher than that, and it's pretty clean really ^_^ (Let's work it out, shall we? The Building is about 50*150 = 7,500 Meters Square, and we have 300 People here. That's about 90,000 People per Square Mile. Though, admittedly, the average size of British People is alittle different to average American.... sweatdrop ) I don't understand your math translation. I'll try to figure it out. 7,500 meters....Squared? So 7500^2 which would be 56250000 meters if not then its 7500 meters so I'll split them up 1. 7500/300= 25 which means everyone own 25 meters...not sq meters but meters 2 56250000/300=187500 which mean for every person they own 187500 sq meters or 1875 sq kilometers Basically...I have no clue what your saying sweatdrop See, this is why anybody in charge of anything should know entirely what they're doing beforehand, else you get people like me with absolutely no power, but who can actually DO things if the Situation requires it, and the people who actually have all the power are too ******** lazy to understand what they're doing. Bush is the example I'm talking about, but there are whole swaths of others. When I say 7,500 Meters Square I am refering to the fact that it is an AREA, no longer a Length. Whenever you multiply two Areas their unit changes to Meters Squared. BASIC. MATHS. Also, you have no concept of Averages - there is a big Courtyard and the surrounding Space, so whilst our Flats are nowhere near 25 Meters SQUARE in Area, there are still 300 people in this place, and it is still about 7,500 Meters SQUARE in Area. Since a Mile is made up of ~ 1,610 Meters, a Square Mile would be equivalent to about 2,600,000 Meters Square(it should be mentioned that you can add a "d" on the end if you are easy to confuse - they probably only used "squared" in the lower end of School when you're parroted this sorta stuff). So, if there are 2,600,000 Meters Squared in a Square Mile, and my Accomodation is 7,500 Meters Squared, then we get teh following expression; (2,600,000/7,500)*300 ~ 100,000 People per Square Mile. (Translatiion; (2,600,000 divided by 7,500) times the number of people in my Accomodation is equal to around about the Average Population Density of my Flat in Square Miles.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:45 pm
How is there 300 people and it totals out to 100,000 people/mile square
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:50 pm
Don't you have to subtract instead of divide confused rugged 2,600,000/7,500)*300 ~ 100,000 isn't it suppose to be 2,600,000/300~8600 confused Becuase if what your saying is true then our school has an even larger density of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:47 am
Septomor How is there 300 people and it totals out to 100,000 people/mile square I have a Glass of Water. I also have a pair of electric scales with a little plastic box ontop for putting Fluids in. I pour the water into the Box, and it fills it up exactly. It weighs 1 kilograms, and the Volume it takes up is 1,000 Centimeters Cubed. 1 Kilogram divided by 1,000 cm^3 = 0.001 Kilos = 1 Gram per Cubic Centimeter, the density of Water. Let me guess - you have no idea what that has to do with anything, right? Well, fair enough; let's do another Experiment. We get some even bigger scales now, with a Bath ontop to hold our water in. Our Bath has a much bigger volume than the glass - 220,000 cubic centimeters. Our scales say it weighs 220 Kilos. Guess what? The Density is still 1 Gram per Cubic Centimeter. Now, the Atlantic Ocean takes up a ******** of alot more Volume than 1,000 cm^3 - but let's say Bush pays for it and we can buy ourselves some Scales big enough to hold The Atlantic Ocean in. Wiki says it's about 323,600,000 cubic kilometers, which is 323,600,000,000,000,000 Cubic Centimeters. It weighs 323,600,000,000,000 Kilos. 323,600,000,000,000/323,600,000,000,000,000 = GUESS ******** WHAT?
1 GRAM PER CUBIC CENTIMETER.IT'S AN AVERAGE DENSITY. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S 300 PEOPLE PER 7500 M^2 OR 100,000 PER MILE SQUARED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:52 am
Septomor Don't you have to subtract instead of divide confused rugged 2,600,000/7,500)*300 ~ 100,000 isn't it suppose to be 2,600,000/300~8600 confused Becuase if what your saying is true then our school has an even larger density of people. Your School probably DOES have a higher Density of people per Mile SQUARE- if your School Building was that big and you filled it full of people, you would have a very big number of people there. When they were teaching you how not to have sex until you're married and that Evolution is wrong, did they happen to forget to slip basic Maths into the ******** hell.... 5 Posts to get one simple concept across!!! XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:18 pm
Badgerkin rugged Erm, no, I meant Cells extracted from a Living Human, but that aren't part of that Hhuman no longer (cos you took them out and put them on a Petri Dish). Ah yes I see what you mean xd - sorry that was just me being obtuse. np, I do that often ^_^ Badgerkin rugged Well, what do you suggest? I mean, now you've got some real Sources to describe the problem, what do we do about it? Okay, well I think we have to accept there is a certain degree of risk to patients from any new medication whatever testing has been carried out. But the benifit of having new treatments and cures for people outweighs the risks to people who are harmed by new drugs, right? But.... that's what we're doing, right? I mean, every time somebody takes a Drug, they're part of a Clinical Test - if they snuff it afterwards, we'll know about it. If Hundreds of Thousands of People every year die from Perscription Drugs, surely we'd see trends in what they are? I mean, how can they diagnose it if they didn't know that it was caused by the drug they were taking?!! XD Badgerkin So I think we need to test drugs using the most reliable and cutting-edge methods possible and then trial them on human volunteers "Reliable and cutting edge" - lol, what the hell is that suppost to mean? XD We don't know how NanoBiology works very well. The best we can ever do without knowing the full workings of Biochemistry is Test them on Living Tissue... If we know all the secrets of Biochemistry... little problems like this would be meaningless and we could ascend into a God-Like State of Immortality. Badgerkin (preferably people with the disease/condition the drug is intended to treat) Well... yeah, that's what happens - lol, peope get given Drugs that have only been tested on Animals before (which is apparently complately useless) and the effects they experience are taken down... Badgerkin and then release it to the general population if it is shown to be safe and without adverse side effects. The Testing you propose would be done on the general public anyway - people hired as Guiney Pigs. Even if we stick to those suffering from the Diseases we into to Treat, we'll still have a death toll in Hundreds of Thousands every year. Badgerkin There is always going to be a risk - we are the ultimate guinia pigs, all we can do is minimise the risk as much as possible. Not really; we'd be trading one set of Lives for another. See, instead of normal people needing Treatment dying from adverse side effects of Modern Medicine, we'll hire people to do it for us. The justification for this can only be, like Wind Turbines and Renewable Energy, that over a very long period of time we'll get much more out than we put in (more people get better Treatment, and so fewer people than predicted die). But that's wrong; Medical Science moves so fast that the Drugs we payed so dearly for would be replaced by better ones decades before we can make up for the people who died in their Testing. Badgerkin I very strongly believe that animal testing is both unneccessary and counter-productive in this process. So I suport humane research like that carried out by the Dr. Hadwen Trust: http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/and other organisations which work to raise awareness of the issues in the public and lobby politicians. Personally I'm still scheptical. Animal Testing does work to a degree, despite it's apparent Imperfections you cannot deny at least that. As far as I see it at the moment, it all comes down to how many Animals you're prepared to swap for a Human Life. It takes a strong person to answer that - stronger than me, but I can say at least that it's more than one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:21 pm
I get the idea...sorta smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
