Quote: Griff @ August 3 2008, 3:00 PM BSTIs this curiosity a result of Finck announcing recently that she'd "do anyone" on this board ?
Even if I had read where she said that, the answer would still be "no".
Quote: billwill @ August 3 2008, 3:01 PM BSTWho Me?
No, Finck.
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 2:49 PM BSTNightmares about uber-super-efficiency and the struggles of making things that small?
P.S. Almost at 400!
Not a problem, when the humans themselves are small. It would be just like ordinary work.
Each generation would have to make smaller machines for its children to use.
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 3:02 PM BSTEven if I had read where she said that, the answer would still be "no".
You missed some posts then. Gonna have to go back and start again!
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 2:45 PM BSTI think you're a mental.
Nope... A lateral Thinker.
Quote: billwill @ August 3 2008, 3:03 PM BSTNot a problem, when the humans themselves are small. It would be just like ordinary work.
Each generation would have to make smaller machines for its children to use.
But that'd be nano technology by that stage.
It'd be hundreds if not thousands of years in the future anyhoo.
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 2:59 PM BSTMy curious nature gets the better of me. What do you look likeeeeeeeeeeee?
I misunderstood you there. I didn't mean a physical balance.
Quote: Finck @ August 3 2008, 3:04 PM BSTI misunderstood you there. I didn't mean a physical balance.
No, neither did I. I just went off on a tangent. 
Quote: ian_w @ August 3 2008, 3:04 PM BST
*shrug* I skim-read half of it, because you were all talking crap.
Favourite superhero indeed! 
Quote: Griff @ August 3 2008, 3:00 PM BSTIs this curiosity a result of Finck announcing recently that she'd "do anyone" on this board ?
I didn't say "anyone of you", I said "all of you". IIRC.
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 3:06 PM BSTFavourite superhero indeed!
Sootyj, whose threads always seem to start with 'I'm bored', as if by way of apology.
Quote: billwill @ August 3 2008, 3:04 PM BSTNope... A lateral Thinker.
Not at all. The notion that size equates so directly to food consumption like that is bollocks. It'd be a good few hundred years before any real change in individual diet could be noticeable. And the planet's population would almost certainly rise even further than it would otherwise, keeping that gross global consumption just as high if not higher.
Quote: Finck @ August 3 2008, 3:06 PM BSTI didn't say "anyone of you", I said "all of you". IIRC.
Which must have been in reference to the persons in that discussion anyhoo, and since I wasn't around, I wasn't included. Go me! \o/
Quote: ian_w @ August 3 2008, 3:08 PM BST
Sootyj, whose threads always seem to start with 'I'm bored', as if by way of apology.
It's the last thing I always say to my victims.
I am the Dexter of dull posters.
Mu ha ha!
And among my many faults are not hairy forearms.
Mine are strangely feminine.
Quote: sootyj @ August 3 2008, 3:16 PM BSTAnd among my many faults are not hairy forearms.
*raises arm*
(*but makes sure it is fully covered first*)
Quote: Aaron @ August 3 2008, 3:10 PM BSTIt'd be a good few hundred years before any real change in individual diet could be noticeable. And the planet's population would almost certainly rise even further than it would otherwise, keeping that gross global consumption just as high if not higher.
>keeping that gross global consumption just as high
Exactly.. Thats the whole point.. its a looooong term thing. Anyway its a better hypothetical solution than hypothetically killing or exporting around 186 million people per year.
The real hard realities of population expansion is that in future (perhaps your good few hundred years), unless something is done about the birth rate, far more than 93 million people will starve or die from epidemics every year.
Present starvation situations will be trivial compared to what is coming, but most people just stick their head in the sand and ignore it.
I don't think it matters how many people will starve to death Bill.
I think more importantly, this large population we've got is buggering up the environment, there's a huge crowd outside my kebab shop now Bill, and that's what we need to stop.
Quote: billwill @ August 3 2008, 3:20 PM BST>keeping that gross global consumption just as high
Exactly.. Thats the whole point.. its a looooong term thing. Anyway its a better hypothetical solution than hypothetically killing or exporting around 186 million people per year.
The real hard realities of population expansion is that in future (perhaps your good few hundred years), unless something is done about the birth rate, far more than 93 million people will starve or die from epidemics every year.
Present starvation situations will be trivial compared to what is coming, but most people just stick their head in the sand and ignore it.
That's how the world always has and always will work.
FWIW though, I suggest we start by culling the French.