Infinity

Especially the western great plains, northern rockies, northern Siberia, Australia, Canada, Africa, and Mars. The EU is planning to send giant solar-panel powered machines to explore the Galilean moons. Maybe humans can live there one day. Mercury has large quantities water ice in polar craters. Humans can also potentially live on Venusian balloons. Ceres can be colonized because it has a lot of water. Why aren't there more people who zealously advocate the colonization of the solar system? Is the shortage of people who share my conviction, the solution to the Fermi paradox? Humans can't go extinct if we colonize as many worlds as possible.

The western great plains and northern rockies are underpopulated. As are Africa, Australia, and Canada. Perhaps the most underpopulated is Mars. Both Mars and Australia have enormous quantities of water underground. Mars also has a lot of water in the polar regions. Why isn't there a religion centered around colonizing these places?

There's plenty of water on Mars, especially at the polar regions. Suppose the entire surface of Mars was covered with solar panels and biodomes. Is it physically possible for billions of people to inhabit Mars in such a scenario?

Would 5 billion people in Africa sound nice? How about 100 million in Australia and 200 million in Canada? Are there any places that ought experience a five-fold increase in population? Please answer these questions if you like humanity.

I would like the U.S. to have 400 million people and the world have 20 billion people. Do these numbers sound too high or too low? Africa, Australia and Canada are where I would like to see the most population growth.

Was the cold war a valid excuse to fight against weaklings, instead of China? How about after the Soviet Union collapsed? Was the war on terror a prudent use of resources?

Was it the fact that Osama Bin Laden was found one block away from ISI headquarters?

That's what the constitution tells Americans to do. There's no way someone who never gave a campaign speech during the pandemic could have so many millions of more votes than Obama. All of the confusion Biden experienced prior to the pandemic, must have had a negative impact on his election chances. I'm of course referring to Biden not knowing the location or year. Biden expressed this not-so-subtle confusion dozens of times. Trump was a free spirit, but never showed signs of confusion.

It's true Biden doesn't seem to be exhibiting signs of confusion since he became president. Presumably, he's not pushing himself too hard. Nevertheless, how could anyone have predicted that Joe Biden's confusion would go away? His present lucidity, should not create the false impression that Joe Biden always had a sound mind. However, the lack of public appearances by Joe Biden, after he was vaccinated, speaks volumes. Perhaps Biden is following the advice of Mark Twain: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Suppose there was a broad-field phaser weapon that could 1000 people with the click of a single button. Suppose this weapon can fit in the palm of a hand. Is there a practical limit to what a society can tolerate when it comes to mass shooters? At some point, would carnage caused by the right to bear arms prove an existential threat to humanity? Maybe not extinction, but suppose a single person could fire a laser at a building, and make it collapse. If riots in 2020 were bad, the entire city would be in ruins within hours if rioters were armed with laser weapons. People would flee to the woods and bomb shelters. Maybe people could live in underground cities. Australia already has underground cities. Something like Gila cliff dwellings in New Mexico might me an option. Hypothetically, the 2nd amendment could be upheld in such a scenario, but would it?

Modern guns are deadlier than 18th century artillery. Therefore, shouldn't modern guns be compared to 18th century artillery rather than 18th century firearms? Modern artillery of course is not covered by the second amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say private citizens have a right to use artillery. Given modern firearms are deadlier than 18th century artillery, how is the second amendment to be interpreted? Isn't it arbitrary whether the weapon can be held or not? Isn't the destructive power more relevant? Though since 18th century artillery could not be carried and fired at the same time, it was not a firearm. Should the word "firearm" be taken at face value, or should it be put into context? The context being the speed at which the weapon can kill.

The resistance might win the first battle. Then tanks and jets would quickly suppress the insurrection. As the saying goes, someone is more likely to die because they have a gun. Therefore, isn't the argument: "there are degrees of tyranny and firearms deter low-level tyranny" untenable?