Space Colonies

[PyramidHead]

I'm against it. If we're talking hypotheticals, then a better future is one where we solve our problems using terrestrial means (limit population growth, conserve the energy we already have, distribute resources more efficiently and equitably). These are not simple proposals, but they are no more complicated than living in space. Our approach should not be to capitulate to the inevitability of humans perpetually spreading across the solar system; that, to me, is a worst-case scenario.

 

[bilby]

Population growth isn't a problem any more. But if it were, colonising space wouldn't solve it.

Before population growth was brought under control by the availability of safe and reliable contraception, population doubled every thirty years or so. If that had continued, then we would need a space colony with a carrying capacity of, say, five billion in 2045; 15 billion in 2075; 35 billion in 2105; 75 billion in 2135 and so on. Within a few centuries, we would cover the entire surface of a Dyson sphere with people; and thirty years later, we would need two of them.

The only solution to population growth is to stop it. Moving people elsewhere won't work, because even thigh space is huge, exponential growth will overwhelm it in short order.

Fortunately, the problem has now been solved. Bit if it hadn't, moving people to off-planet colonies would be a very short term fix at best.

 

[bilby]

Resources don't need to be brought to Earth to replace the ones we have used; we haven't used up anything - just changed its pattern of distribution. All the iron in all the iron ore ever mined is still here - it is likely cheaper to collect it back up and recycle it than it is to go to the asteroid belt for more.

The resources in space need to stay in space. Asteroid iron is already outside the Earth's gravity well, so we don't have to spend huge amounts of cash to get it there. Bringing it down here reduces its value dramatically.



Space colonies might be good insurance against planet wide disaster; but ultimately the best reason for them is that they can provide goods or services not found on Earth - whether that is microgravity and large volumes of hard vacuum for super precise manufacturing or refining processes; or whether it is tourism; or escape-proof prisons; or something else, the market will decide for itself. But first you have to make a toe-hold out there.

Build it, and they will come.

 

[dystopian]

And he's saying that going out to space MUST be the way to solve problems down here.

I don't actually disagree with him there. I don't see how we can fix our long-term problems without going into space, not if we expect to maintain or expand our current lifestyle.

As for hand-waiving; I'm of two minds on that. When it comes to what we as a society do and say in terms of grand strategy and direction as it were, I think a certain amount of hand-waiving of problems is actually required. We kind of have to do that, or else we'll never even expend the effort of just figuring out whether we *can* do something, because we've already convinced ourselves that we can't and why waste the time and resources trying to pretend like we can? When it comes to a vision for the future, we have to tell ourselves that it'll work if we ever want to do anything. I also think that some people have an unfortunate tendency to underestimate the future; those who make policy in particular. We've seen our species overcome problems and do what was previously thought impossible more times than we've seen failure; I don't think it's irrational or wrong to place a certain degree of trust in the notion that we can keep doing it.

Of course, once we attach ourselves to our chosen vision of the future, then we have to start developing an actual plan and pursue it using reason and science instead of daydreaming.

 

[bilby]

And he's saying that going out to space MUST be the way to solve problems down here.

I don't actually disagree with him there. I don't see how we can fix our long-term problems without going into space, not if we expect to maintain or expand our current lifestyle.

As for hand-waiving; I'm of two minds on that. When it comes to what we as a society do and say in terms of grand strategy and direction as it were, I think a certain amount of hand-waiving of problems is actually required. We kind of have to do that, or else we'll never even expend the effort of just figuring out whether we *can* do something, because we've already convinced ourselves that we can't and why waste the time and resources trying to pretend like we can? When it comes to a vision for the future, we have to tell ourselves that it'll work if we ever want to do anything. I also think that some people have an unfortunate tendency to underestimate the future; those who make policy in particular. We've seen our species overcome problems and do what was previously thought impossible more times than we've seen failure; I don't think it's irrational or wrong to place a certain degree of trust in the notion that we can keep doing it.

Of course, once we attach ourselves to our chosen vision of the future, then we have to start developing an actual plan and pursue it using reason and science instead of daydreaming.

I think the important thing is to understand roughly how far ahead of current technology a given idea is, and to adjust our level of certainty (about the likelihood of the idea coming to pass; and about the consequences if it does) accordingly.

If someone says "Imagine if we could build a space elevator - then we could potentially have X, Y and Z at much reduced cost", that's perfectly reasonable. If they want to say "We WILL have X, Y and Z in the future for less than $1 a tonne", then they had better have a lot more detail of how their space elevator will work, how it will be built, and what materials it will be made from - and how those will be produced.

The closer to certainty one's predictions are, the more detail is expected of one's proposal. Where detailed and/or confidently asserted outcomes are discussed without concrete means for getting to those outcomes, the proposal crosses the line from visionary to delusional.

 

[dystopian]

I'm against it. If we're talking hypotheticals, then a better future is one where we solve our problems using terrestrial means (limit population growth, conserve the energy we already have, distribute resources more efficiently and equitably).

It's already been pointed out that that future is a dead end. It'd be like a family living all by themselves in an abandoned metropolis where every house is run by batteries that power machines capable of sustaining the family; and them then choosing not to move out of their original house and into the next one over when their battery starts to run low because moving is really hard; let's just figure out some way of of using less of the battery power.

These are not simple proposals, but they are no more complicated than living in space.

Actually, what you're proposing is a great deal more complicated. We'd have to figure out a way to achieve a completely neutral balance while stuck on a vulnerable tiny rock with diminishing resources; we don't currently know how to even *try* to accomplish this. The means you propose to do this don't cut it. Limit population growth? Even if you could convince everybody, this doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that we're restricting ourselves to a single vulnerable rock of dwindling resources. Just because you've magically reduced the population so that everyone can live in a cabin separated from their neighbors by a hundred miles doesn't change that. Conserve the energy we already have? That just postpones the inevitable. Distribute resources more efficiently and equitably? This would require some radical solutions, and while I support doing so, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental issues.

Moving into and developing space by contrast is something we already know how to do; and therefore easier. Doing so not only provides us with the resources we need long-term and the means to expand, but it also helps safeguard our species from extinction. The further into space we spread, the less chance there is of a single catastrophic event wiping us all out. Finally, colonizing space in no way means that we can't at the same time seek to develop the means to utilize our resources more efficiently. In fact, it's quite the opposite I would think: a succesful space colony must be far more efficient than any terrestrial settlement. It can't just waste its food, water, and oxygen the way we do here on earth. Developing these colonies means that our ways of improving the efficiency of our resource usage and technology is going to be further developed as well as a logical necessity of the former. This benefits us here on earth as well. So long as we stay just on Earth, it's going to be a lot less natural for us to focus on improving efficiency.

 

[dystopian]

The closer to certainty one's predictions are, the more detail is expected of one's proposal. Where detailed and/or confidently asserted outcomes are discussed without concrete means for getting to those outcomes, the proposal crosses the line from visionary to delusional.

I agree, however; keep in mind that just because a prediction/proposal is presented by someone without the knowledge to fill in the blanks, doesn't mean that the prediction/proposal itself (or a variation thereof) is either delusional or too far into the future to be detailed properly: it just means the person presenting the prediction/proposal doesn't have the means of properly explaining it or working it out further; someone else might have those qualifications however. If I come to you asking for money so that I can build a fusion power plant, the fact that I obviously don't know the first thing about nuclear physics should be enough to deny my request; but that shouldn't mean you then reject out of hand a very similar but actually detailed proposal coming from a nuclear physicist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. In the old days a killer disease would burn itself out pretty quickly. Everyone dies or is immune, end of disease. As people moved around more the ability of killer diseases to survive went way up--it took a worldwide effort to nail smallpox. Now look at what happened with SARS--it wasn't contagious enough to be catastrophic but even then once it found it's way to a modern city it scattered around the world in days. Picture a more contagious version of SARS--society probably would have collapsed and we wouldn't be here.

Sadly, it is probably going to take a cataclysmic disaster unlike anything ever known for us to really take action on leaving the planet; if we come out of it, then the motivation will certainly be there.

I find myself unable to fully accept the arguments of Rare Earths. That means we were either incredibly lucky at one of the two biological checkpoints or that at least part of the Great Filter lies ahead. Given how close we are I think the filter must be self-inflicted--and we see all too many ways it could happen.

 

[ryan]

Population growth isn't a problem any more. But if it were, colonising space wouldn't solve it.

Before population growth was brought under control by the availability of safe and reliable contraception, population doubled every thirty years or so. If that had continued, then we would need a space colony with a carrying capacity of, say, five billion in 2045; 15 billion in 2075; 35 billion in 2105; 75 billion in 2135 and so on. Within a few centuries, we would cover the entire surface of a Dyson sphere with people; and thirty years later, we would need two of them.

The only solution to population growth is to stop it. Moving people elsewhere won't work, because even thigh space is huge, exponential growth will overwhelm it in short order.

Fortunately, the problem has now been solved. Bit if it hadn't, moving people to off-planet colonies would be a very short term fix at best.

The point was that space colonies would be a solution to increasing lifespans which may result in an overpopulated planet. Space colonies is a way to accommodate everyone as biotechnology advances.

If there is ever going to be a solution to overpopulation, why limit it to Earth?

 

[ryan]

I think the important thing is to understand roughly how far ahead of current technology a given idea is, and to adjust our level of certainty (about the likelihood of the idea coming to pass; and about the consequences if it does) accordingly.

My greatest motivation for starting this thread is because of something my friend, who is currently doing research at the university, told me. He told me that his current research is interesting, but he also said that he wants to try something else. I asked him if he would be interested in cancer research since it is something that may even help him one day. He said "no" because overpopulation worries him.

 

[bilby]

Population growth isn't a problem any more. But if it were, colonising space wouldn't solve it.

Before population growth was brought under control by the availability of safe and reliable contraception, population doubled every thirty years or so. If that had continued, then we would need a space colony with a carrying capacity of, say, five billion in 2045; 15 billion in 2075; 35 billion in 2105; 75 billion in 2135 and so on. Within a few centuries, we would cover the entire surface of a Dyson sphere with people; and thirty years later, we would need two of them.

The only solution to population growth is to stop it. Moving people elsewhere won't work, because even thigh space is huge, exponential growth will overwhelm it in short order.

Fortunately, the problem has now been solved. Bit if it hadn't, moving people to off-planet colonies would be a very short term fix at best.

The point was that space colonies would be a solution to increasing lifespans which may result in an overpopulated planet. Space colonies is a way to accommodate everyone as biotechnology advances.

If there is ever going to be a solution to overpopulation, why limit it to Earth?

If it can't be limited to Earth, it isn't a solution.

'Overpopulation' is a hard thing to pin down; what size of population can be supported depends on too many factors for us to set a figure for the maximum possible human population. A more obvious issue is population growth - no matter what the limit of population size might be, continuous growth will eventually push us past this limit.

If population growth comes to an end (and, allowing for demographic lag, it has), then you can take 'relief of population pressure' off the list of reasons to go to space. There are plenty of good reasons left on the list - but population is not one of them in this scenario.

On the other hand, if population growth does NOT come to an end, then space isn't big enough to do anything more than delay the inevitable. No matter how much technology you imagine, there will came a point where the population hits a hard physical constraint - in the extreme analysis, you could fill the Solar System with concentric shells of Dyson Spheres, generating more and more room for humans to inhabit, but eventually the material required to keep building them would need to be brought to the solar system from so far away that it can't arrive fast enough even with speed-of-light transportation. If human population doubles every 30 years indefinitely, then a scant sixty years after we run out of space on Earth, you need three Earth-sized space habitats; sixty years after that, you need 16; and sixty years after that, 64.

It takes only a few centuries to reach the point where you need every scrap of material in the Solar System just for making human beings - and that leaves them nowhere to live, and nothing to eat; and then you need two Solar Systems thirty years after that; and four thirty years later again.

If population growth is a problem, going to space doesn't help. If population growth is not a problem, then it isn't necessary to solve it by going to space.

Space colonisation and population growth are unrelated issues - one is not a fix for the other.

Overpopulation worries a lot of people. That is because there is a sizable industry of population scaremongers who make a tidy living from it; the actual problem was solved in the 1960s, and the solution implemented over the last four or five decades.

It will take about another thirty years to complete the implementation of the solution, because of Demographic Lag; but the problem IS solved, and the data supporting this fact IS publicly available. Anyone who is currently worried by overpopulation is presumably enjoying being worried - because if they didn't, then they would look into the issue, and find out that their worries are three decades out of date.

 

[Bronzeage]

Population growth isn't a problem any more. But if it were, colonising space wouldn't solve it.

Before population growth was brought under control by the availability of safe and reliable contraception, population doubled every thirty years or so. If that had continued, then we would need a space colony with a carrying capacity of, say, five billion in 2045; 15 billion in 2075; 35 billion in 2105; 75 billion in 2135 and so on. Within a few centuries, we would cover the entire surface of a Dyson sphere with people; and thirty years later, we would need two of them.

The only solution to population growth is to stop it. Moving people elsewhere won't work, because even thigh space is huge, exponential growth will overwhelm it in short order.

Fortunately, the problem has now been solved. Bit if it hadn't, moving people to off-planet colonies would be a very short term fix at best.

The point was that space colonies would be a solution to increasing lifespans which may result in an overpopulated planet. Space colonies is a way to accommodate everyone as biotechnology advances.

If there is ever going to be a solution to overpopulation, why limit it to Earth?

Who wants a bunch of old farts floating around in space? There's an image for you. If you can present on solution to any of the Earth's current social problems which can be solved by going into space, for less money than it would take to solve it while staying on the ground, you might have something.

As it is, space travel and space colonization remains an experiment at its best and a fantasy at its least. It consumes more than it returns. Who is going to pay for it? I would rather spend my money to take care of the planet, so my grand children can live well, than spend precious resources on an adolescent fantasy. Predicting disaster scenarios is just part of the fantasy.

 

[ryan]

The point was that space colonies would be a solution to increasing lifespans which may result in an overpopulated planet. Space colonies is a way to accommodate everyone as biotechnology advances.

If there is ever going to be a solution to overpopulation, why limit it to Earth?

If it can't be limited to Earth, it isn't a solution.

'Overpopulation' is a hard thing to pin down; what size of population can be supported depends on too many factors for us to set a figure for the maximum possible human population. A more obvious issue is population growth - no matter what the limit of population size might be, continuous growth will eventually push us past this limit.

If population growth comes to an end (and, allowing for demographic lag, it has), then you can take 'relief of population pressure' off the list of reasons to go to space. There are plenty of good reasons left on the list - but population is not one of them in this scenario.

On the other hand, if population growth does NOT come to an end, then space isn't big enough to do anything more than delay the inevitable. No matter how much technology you imagine, there will came a point where the population hits a hard physical constraint - in the extreme analysis, you could fill the Solar System with concentric shells of Dyson Spheres, generating more and more room for humans to inhabit, but eventually the material required to keep building them would need to be brought to the solar system from so far away that it can't arrive fast enough even with speed-of-light transportation. If human population doubles every 30 years indefinitely, then a scant sixty years after we run out of space on Earth, you need three Earth-sized space habitats; sixty years after that, you need 16; and sixty years after that, 64.

It takes only a few centuries to reach the point where you need every scrap of material in the Solar System just for making human beings - and that leaves them nowhere to live, and nothing to eat; and then you need two Solar Systems thirty years after that; and four thirty years later again.

If population growth is a problem, going to space doesn't help. If population growth is not a problem, then it isn't necessary to solve it by going to space.

Space colonisation and population growth are unrelated issues - one is not a fix for the other.

Overpopulation worries a lot of people. That is because there is a sizable industry of population scaremongers who make a tidy living from it; the actual problem was solved in the 1960s, and the solution implemented over the last four or five decades.

It will take about another thirty years to complete the implementation of the solution, because of Demographic Lag; but the problem IS solved, and the data supporting this fact IS publicly available. Anyone who is currently worried by overpopulation is presumably enjoying being worried - because if they didn't, then they would look into the issue, and find out that their worries are three decades out of date.

I understand what you are saying, so I will be more specific then.

There are people legitimately concerned about the advances in biotechnology and what it means for the world population. Ideally speaking, space colonies are a solution to an overpopulated Earth even though, as you point out, it is only a temporary solution to overpopulation in general.

Biotechnology is vastly underrated. I am expecting that people will finally understand that their highest priority is their lives. If I am correct, Space colonies and biotechnology are going to become increasingly important from now on.

 

[ryan]

The point was that space colonies would be a solution to increasing lifespans which may result in an overpopulated planet. Space colonies is a way to accommodate everyone as biotechnology advances.

If there is ever going to be a solution to overpopulation, why limit it to Earth?

Who wants a bunch of old farts floating around in space? There's an image for you. If you can present on solution to any of the Earth's current social problems which can be solved by going into space, for less money than it would take to solve it while staying on the ground, you might have something.

Imagine colonies that have their own religions, laws, constitutions, currencies, cultures etc. There would be less clashes of cultures. There wouldn't be any disputes over land rights. It would just be a more fluent system.

As it is, space travel and space colonization remains an experiment at its best and a fantasy at its least. It consumes more than it returns. Who is going to pay for it? I would rather spend my money to take care of the planet, so my grand children can live well, than spend precious resources on an adolescent fantasy. Predicting disaster scenarios is just part of the fantasy.

I don't know whether or not it can happen or will happen; that's the next step. If people want this enough, we will find out soon enough if it will happen.

 

[Bronzeage]

Imagine colonies that have their own religions, laws, constitutions, currencies, cultures etc. There would be less clashes of cultures. There wouldn't be any disputes over land rights. It would just be a more fluent system.


I don't know whether or not it can happen or will happen; that's the next step. If people want this enough, we will find out soon enough if it will happen.

We have places like that here on Earth. They are known as cult compounds.

If you really want to see this done, make some realistic proposals, based on what is technically possible. Robert Goddard worked out the calculations to determine a rocket's escape velocity in 1912. It took another 57 years before a rocket made it all the way to the moon. There was a lot of work done, in between. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying, "I don't know," find out what is really needed. There aren't any Star Trek style transporters or replicators on the horizon, so start with the easy stuff, such as how many people are going on the first trip, and how much food and water will be needed. Then, figure out how to carry it all. These are the questions which must be answered before anyone can speculate on the benefits of living in space or another planet. This kind of thing has plenty of cheerleaders. We don't need more.

 

[ryan]

Imagine colonies that have their own religions, laws, constitutions, currencies, cultures etc. There would be less clashes of cultures. There wouldn't be any disputes over land rights. It would just be a more fluent system.


I don't know whether or not it can happen or will happen; that's the next step. If people want this enough, we will find out soon enough if it will happen.

We have places like that here on Earth. They are known as cult compounds.

If you really want to see this done, make some realistic proposals, based on what is technically possible. Robert Goddard worked out the calculations to determine a rocket's escape velocity in 1912. It took another 57 years before a rocket made it all the way to the moon. There was a lot of work done, in between. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying, "I don't know," find out what is really needed. There aren't any Star Trek style transporters or replicators on the horizon, so start with the easy stuff, such as how many people are going on the first trip, and how much food and water will be needed. Then, figure out how to carry it all. These are the questions which must be answered before anyone can speculate on the benefits of living in space or another planet. This kind of thing has plenty of cheerleaders. We don't need more.

Well now we're talking about something else; we are now asking "how" instead of "should" and "why". That's interesting but probably out of the scope of a thread on FRDB and certainly out of the scope of anything that I know about. Personally, I am more interested in the biotechnological aspect that will raise the interest in space colonies.

 

[Bronzeage]

We have places like that here on Earth. They are known as cult compounds.

If you really want to see this done, make some realistic proposals, based on what is technically possible. Robert Goddard worked out the calculations to determine a rocket's escape velocity in 1912. It took another 57 years before a rocket made it all the way to the moon. There was a lot of work done, in between. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying, "I don't know," find out what is really needed. There aren't any Star Trek style transporters or replicators on the horizon, so start with the easy stuff, such as how many people are going on the first trip, and how much food and water will be needed. Then, figure out how to carry it all. These are the questions which must be answered before anyone can speculate on the benefits of living in space or another planet. This kind of thing has plenty of cheerleaders. We don't need more.

Well now we're talking about something else; we are now asking "how" instead of "should" and "why". That's interesting but probably out of the scope of a thread on FRDB and certainly out of the scope of anything that I know about. Personally, I am more interested in the biotechnological aspect that will raise the interest in space colonies.

The "should?" argument was swept away early in the discussion. The idea we need more resources or more room for an expanding population is farcical.

 

[dystopian]

The "should?" argument was swept away early in the discussion. The idea we need more resources or more room for an expanding population is farcical.

Not so farcical if we manage to achieve serious life-extension technology though (and it seems increasingly likely we will), which is what Ryan´s argument seems to be based on.

 

[Bronzeage]

The "should?" argument was swept away early in the discussion. The idea we need more resources or more room for an expanding population is farcical.

Not so farcical if we manage to achieve serious life-extension technology though (and it seems increasingly likely we will), which is what Ryan´s argument seems to be based on.

Okay, I'll bite. Let's suppose we live longer.

In the developed world, a person's working life ends sometime between 60 and 70 years of age. This is basically a 40 year work life. If we extend this to age 100, how does space colonization improve our quality of life? Are we figuring the extended lifespan comes with an extended breeding span as well, and couples in their 60's will be starting fresh families?

What is the leap from an 80 year working lifetime, instead of 40 years, which takes us to a place where sending people off the planet makes life better for those who stay and those who go?

 

[skepticalbip]

The "should?" argument was swept away early in the discussion. The idea we need more resources or more room for an expanding population is farcical.

Not so farcical if we manage to achieve serious life-extension technology though (and it seems increasingly likely we will), which is what Ryan´s argument seems to be based on.

I don’t understand what life-extension has to do with the matter. If you are thinking increasing population and sending people off planet would reduce the demand for increasing resources, it wouldn’t. It would require more resources build the colony and to send people there than they could possibly ever need here on Earth. Also we could never send enough people to an off-world colony to even be noticed given the size of the Earth’s population.

The only rational reasons I have ever heard for such colonies is:
1) As an insurance policy to preserve the human gene pool in case of a planet-wide catastrophe.
2) It would be really neat, we can do it, and we may learn something.