Dark One

World War Z to open at the end of December, 2012. Read one thing saying it was opening on the 21st. Could be worse things to be doing that watching WWZ when the world goes kaflooey, I guess...

You can bet Sanctuary and Haven are up on the chopping block as well. Since Eureka and W13 are set in the same universe, it's pretty likely that W13 will go as well.

After all, gotta make room for more reality shows about "psychics", wrestling, and the vehicles for d-list, washed up actors.

My guess is on a well-endowed female cosplaying as a more attractive Emma Frost than what was seen in First Class. Castle will invariably be dating her.

Homina homina homina how wah! To the Ariel in Album 3 and the Dark Pheonix & blonde in the thighhighs/skirt/halter-type top in Album 4.

Alphas was pretty good. I think Gary is probably the most interesting one of the bunch. It appears as if Alphas is also taking place in the same universe as Eureka and W13, given Lindsay Wagner's appearance next week, though it remains to be seen if it's the same character.

Carter's reaction to being on the floating medicine ball was hilarious. But dang if SciFi isn't a bit too loose with the spoilers. They basically showed that the gang knows something's up with Ally. Also, "Someone put her in front of a cartoon!".

W13 was a bit contrived. Leaving an artifact just sitting out like that without a bag? Seems to be not the smartest thing to do.

Sure it makes us more destructive. Killing far more than what you need for survival is part and parcel of being overly destructive.

You're using an argument from a navel gazing book to reinforce your point? Come on man. There is a reason to hunt down and eliminate other tribes, namely the fact that in the future, your own progeny would then have less competition for the resources available. You must be unaware that animals like chimps do wage war on neighboring groups for resources. It's not something that is limited to humans. And said warfare is also practiced by the hunter/gatherer tribes that you seem to hold in high regard. This pretty much directly contradicts your second paragraph.

Except for the fact that people were destructive long before we got agriculture. Are you familiar with the method of hunting known sometimes as pit hunting or possibly cliff hunting? It was a method where herds of animals were forced off cliffs to fall to their deaths or herded into a pit to be speared/bludgeoned/etc. Far more meat than the hunters could eat. When the food in an area ran out, they'd move on to the next. Hopefully, the land would have enough left to recover and regenerate when the human migration came back to that area.

Humans have not abided by the laws of nature forever. We've always sought ways around it. Since the first monkey took up a rock and bashed in the head of either his neighbor or an animal, we've been altering the status quo. If we were abiding by nature, we wouldn't have worn the first pelts around our bodies to keep warm in places we wouldn't normally occupy at specific time frames. We wouldn't fill gourds with water so that we could travel farther. Hell, even setting the first broken leg was working against nature.

Space is our future. If only to prevent catastrophic events wiping out the species as a whole. All your eggs in one basket is not just for chickens.

Edit - We're only here now having this discussion because our ancestors were the survivors. Surviving means that sometimes you have to do things that were destructive and downright ugly.

When you say that increased food production means increased population, are you not taking into account the possibility of the other way around? Once they learned agriculture, it became necessary to produce more people to do the work required to produce enough yields that a family could make a legitimate living farming (as well as having the capability to house them). Once we got the industrial revolution, it was not necessary for a family to have 12 children to work the fields. Humans, as well as most animals, will breed regardless of whether or not there is the food to support them. If you overpopulate, there'll be a die off either due to food shortage or increased disease factor.

It's a chicken and egg scenario. And you are basically absolving those populations of the results of their actions and heaping guilt for it all on the industrialized nations.

Look at the birth rates. Also, you might want to take a look at things like the Graying of Europe and Japan.

Pretty much every industrialized nation is on the low end of the totem pole. Meanwhile, the nations that have a less than industrialized nature have absurdly high BRs. And why is that? Because we've accepted that there are reasonable methods to allow us the enjoyment of the act, but without superstitious nonsense.

Well...not all of us, there's still a good number that prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

As to killing off species...while the loss of biodiversity is a bad thing, there is something people need to realize. It's believe that around 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. We have the capability to affect extinction, both positively and negatively. But let's be honest here, extinction is not a new thing and while one species dies off, another (or several) can rise up in time to take its place. Look up something called the Permian Extinction. It'll be an eye opener.

It's not the food causing more people to appear. It's humans natural desire to reproduce (and the nature of sex) coupled with an unwillingness, either through ignorance, religious indoctrination, or poverty, to afford legitimate and effective means of birth control that would allow one to engage in the act but without the consequences. Include the factor that larger families mean that one can work more land, presumably, in less than technologically advanced societies, and thus in theory earn more money.

Look at America in the early years in the places that relied on manual labor to produce stuff. Lots of big families. Sure, not every person in that family survived, but more mouths meant more hands in the field. Now, however, we have sufficient technological advancements in the developed parts of the world that we don't need those large families to produce adequate sustenance.

It's not excessive food production causing population growth, it's population growth on the presumption that they'll be able to grow enough food to survive. If it was excessive food, you'd see the developed countries with far more children per couple than the undeveloped nations. But that's not what we see.

Space colonization can bring in new resources that we don't have now or new sources of stuff we do have but are running low on/easily accessible stocks of. Be it new plants with medical potential (if we find an M-class planet), new ores and minerals, or simply more places to grow food/textiles/wood/etc.