Space Colonies

[bilby]

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.

You still don't seem to grasp what I am saying; biotechnology is a method that can lead to one of only two relevant outcomes - if it leads to a stable (or declining) population, there is no problem for which space colonisation could be a solution; and if it leads to a growing population, space isn't big enough to be a solution.

There is no way in which any biotechnology would cause a problem that could be solved by establishing space colonies, but which could not be solved without them. None. The two things are not related in any way.

If people live longer, but population remains stable - no problem.

If people live longer, and as a result, population continues to grow - no solution.

And in a world with effective contraceptive options, lifespan and population are not even closely related to each other.

If your interest is in biotechnology, then space colonisation is a subject that is completely and utterly unrelated to your interest.

 

[dystopian]

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?

We´re talking about an indefinite extension of lifespan, not a rather marginal extension of a mere 30 or so years as you´re talking about. And yes, this includes an indefinite extension of breeding age as well. If we can shut off the aging process entirely, and there´s good reason that we´ll be able to figure that out sooner rather than later, we´re much closer than you might think, then you could have people who are 800 years old still popping out babies. This, of course, makes the current argument that population growth is not a problem because the population is stabilizing, completely obsolete. While I believe it would eventually stabilize again, I also believe that point would be well beyond what our Earth could realistically sustain. So unless we want to let the population stabilize through the less than humane means of mass starvation and war, we´d have to go into space to expand and support that growing population.

Of course, even without that, we´d need to go into space to improve our quality of life, or rather, maintain it. We are fast running out of certain resources, and I´m not even talking about fossil fuels. These resources are in ample supply beyond our Earth. We simply don´t have enough of certain stuff to last us another century at our current rate of consumption.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

We´re talking about an indefinite extension of lifespan, not a rather marginal extension of a mere 30 or so years as you´re talking about. And yes, this includes an indefinite extension of breeding age as well. If we can shut off the aging process entirely, and there´s good reason that we´ll be able to figure that out sooner rather than later, we´re much closer than you might think, then you could have people who are 800 years old still popping out babies. This, of course, makes the current argument that population growth is not a problem because the population is stabilizing, completely obsolete. While I believe it would eventually stabilize again, I also believe that point would be well beyond what our Earth could realistically sustain. So unless we want to let the population stabilize through the less than humane means of mass starvation and war, we´d have to go into space to expand and support that growing population.

Of course, even without that, we´d need to go into space to improve our quality of life, or rather, maintain it. We are fast running out of certain resources, and I´m not even talking about fossil fuels. These resources are in ample supply beyond our Earth. We simply don´t have enough of certain stuff to last us another century at our current rate of consumption.

Alright, stop it. You're making my side hurt.

 

[dystopian]

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.

Of course it wouldn´t, where did I ever claim anything like that? It´s a non-argument however.

It would require more resources build the colony and to send people there than they could possibly ever need here on Earth.

This is a non-argument, not to mention deceptive. First of all, setting up a space colony may require a lot of resources, but by expanding into space you´re also getting access to an incredibly large pool of resources. Secondly, once the infrastructure is set up, the colony will be able to produce a profit in terms of resource output versus input. Like I said, the startup costs are high, but once you´re past that hurdle it becomes significantly cheaper. Once you have a mining colony on the moon for instance, you could send a steady stream of resources back to earth at minimal cost.

Also we could never send enough people to an off-world colony to even be noticed given the size of the Earth’s population.

It is absurd to say we could ´never´ do so. We can´t do so with our current lift-off technologies, but it is irresponsible to say that because x isn´t currently possible, that therefore x will never be possible. We could certainly envision a future in which we send thousands of people to space colonies, and then tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands, and then millions, and so on. It becomes progressively easier with strict rules in place regarding the intersection of procreation, life extension, and colony life.

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.

Don´t get me wrong, those are my primary reasons for it, however I DO see the basic population argument in the event we achieve indefinite lifespans, and like I said, there´s good reasons to think we´ll manage that sooner rather than later. If nothing else, it behooves to consider the possibility and plan accordingly. I certainly wouldn´t want to be told that I have to die of old age when the technology exists to prevent that just because people didn´t think it possible and didn´t plan for it.

 

[dystopian]

Alright, stop it. You're making my side hurt.

And exactly what part of what I said is making you laugh? If it´s the life extension part, then your laughter simply reveals ignorance as to the state of the actual science and research. All the evidence so far points to it simply being an engineering problem. We´ve managed to actually reverse aging in mice, and there´s no reason to think this sort of thing is somehow impossible in humans. It´s not a matter of IF we can achieve indefinite lifespans, but WHEN. It only ever seems to be people past a certain age who have trouble accepting or believing where we´re headed in terms of science and technology. People who were born before the microchip often have trouble enough understanding our current computers, so when you tell them about things like quantum computers and real-time brain simulation projects then of course their eyes are going to glaze over and they´ll refuse to believe it. They´re often likely to dismiss even things we already have as science fiction or fantasy.

So what about my post makes you laugh? Is it the part where I mention running out of resources? Sure, we may find things like helium and and rare earth minerals deep within the crust and other hard to reach places, but there will come a point where it is more economical to extract these materials from other worlds or asteroids, so I don´t really see how that makes anything I said funny.

So please, rather than acting like a dick by telling someone who´se earnestly being part of the debate that they´re making you laugh, why don´t you point out the parts you disagree with and why? Or you know, we can go back to you dismissing me based on whatever reason you´re dismissing me and me dismissing you based on something like you just being too old to get it. I´d prefer debate.

 

[Bronzeage]

Alright, stop it. You're making my side hurt.

And exactly what part of what I said is making you laugh? If it´s the life extension part, then your laughter simply reveals ignorance as to the state of the actual science and research. All the evidence so far points to it simply being an engineering problem. We´ve managed to actually reverse aging in mice, and there´s no reason to think this sort of thing is somehow impossible in humans. It´s not a matter of IF we can achieve indefinite lifespans, but WHEN. It only ever seems to be people past a certain age who have trouble accepting or believing where we´re headed in terms of science and technology. People who were born before the microchip often have trouble enough understanding our current computers, so when you tell them about things like quantum computers and real-time brain simulation projects then of course their eyes are going to glaze over and they´ll refuse to believe it. They´re often likely to dismiss even things we already have as science fiction or fantasy.

So what about my post makes you laugh? Is it the part where I mention running out of resources? Sure, we may find things like helium and and rare earth minerals deep within the crust and other hard to reach places, but there will come a point where it is more economical to extract these materials from other worlds or asteroids, so I don´t really see how that makes anything I said funny.

So please, rather than acting like a dick by telling someone who´se earnestly being part of the debate that they´re making you laugh, why don´t you point out the parts you disagree with and why? Or you know, we can go back to you dismissing me based on whatever reason you´re dismissing me and me dismissing you based on something like you just being too old to get it. I´d prefer debate.

I have been doing that from the beginning of this thread and all I have gotten in return is more 20th century vintage science fiction scenarios.

The people born before the microchip are the people who put a man on the moon and brought him back. I'm sure it was mentioned in school. They have no trouble understanding our current computers and have a better understanding or what is required to extend technology. They also understand the cost and that every commitment means another opportunity is lost. It's easy to gloss over things like cost and commitment and create disaster scenarios where we are running out of vital materials, based on current projections.

We once faced a whale oil crisis and survived that, even if a lot of whales did not. Of course, the solution to the whale oil shortage led to the commercial use of kerosene in lamps. This left us with an abundance of a nuisance byproduct named gasoline. It was too volatile to be used in lamps, but became the critical fuel for internal gasoline engines. The use of gasoline solved another projected problem, which was the imminent burial of the planet's cities in horse manure. Growing concentrations of people needed a constant flow of food and goods into the city, and the only practical way to haul this was horse drawn carts. This required more horses to pull wagons to haul away a couple tons of horseshit a day.

Maybe science fiction is to blame. There aren't many realistic science fiction stories where populations are taxed to finance planetary escape plans which can only carry a small percentage of the planet's inhabitants.

What's funny? It's a toss up between it being cheaper to mine asteroids than deep earth deposits, because for some reason our space technology will overtake our hole digging technology, and 800 year old women popping out babies. Maybe we'll get one of the surviving 20th century guys to figure out a substitute for whatever might be in the asteroid, but who the hell thinks 800 year old mothers are a good idea, anyway? Are we moving into a historic era where we do things because we can, even if it's a really stupid thing to do?

We went to the moon, but we haven't gone back. Why is this? We don't need to go back. One reason is we have since found ways to explore far away planets without the extra cost and sending food and water for the human cargo. Another reason is so far, there's nothing on the Moon we can't buy cheaper on Earth. There is no disaster scenario which will make Moon rocks a viable commodity.

If you want the human race to go into space, you'll need to work on your sales pitch.

 

[ryan]

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.

You still don't seem to grasp what I am saying; biotechnology is a method that can lead to one of only two relevant outcomes - if it leads to a stable (or declining) population, there is no problem for which space colonisation could be a solution; and if it leads to a growing population, space isn't big enough to be a solution.

There is no way in which any biotechnology would cause a problem that could be solved by establishing space colonies, but which could not be solved without them. None. The two things are not related in any way.

If people live longer, but population remains stable - no problem.

If people live longer, and as a result, population continues to grow - no solution.

And in a world with effective contraceptive options, lifespan and population are not even closely related to each other.

If your interest is in biotechnology, then space colonisation is a subject that is completely and utterly unrelated to your interest.

Please read what I put in bold in my last post.

It is a solution even though it is only a temporary solution. At least for the next hundred or so years, an increasing population (by advancing biotechnology) and sustenance (by colonizing space) can coexist.

We still try to cure diseases even though Earth is reaching its limit in terms of population and reusable resources. So then why do we have take this idea into infinity? Oil is only a temporary solution to power machinery, but we do it because it works for the time being. I would argue that any idea taken to infinity is probably going to run into problems sooner or later.

 

[bilby]

You still don't seem to grasp what I am saying; biotechnology is a method that can lead to one of only two relevant outcomes - if it leads to a stable (or declining) population, there is no problem for which space colonisation could be a solution; and if it leads to a growing population, space isn't big enough to be a solution.

There is no way in which any biotechnology would cause a problem that could be solved by establishing space colonies, but which could not be solved without them. None. The two things are not related in any way.

If people live longer, but population remains stable - no problem.

If people live longer, and as a result, population continues to grow - no solution.

And in a world with effective contraceptive options, lifespan and population are not even closely related to each other.

If your interest is in biotechnology, then space colonisation is a subject that is completely and utterly unrelated to your interest.

Please read what I put in bold in my last post.

It is a solution even though it is only a temporary solution. For the next hundred or so years, an increasing population (by advancing biotechnology) and sustenance (by colonizing space) can coexist.

We still try to cure diseases even though Earth is reaching its limit in terms of population and reusable resources. So then why do we have take this idea into infinity? Oil is only a temporary solution to power machinery, but we do it because it works for the time being. I would argue that any idea taken to infinity is probably going to run into problems sooner or later.

I read that bit; and it is that bit that is fundamentally flawed.

When population grows, it grows exponentially. Temporary solutions are useless - only by stopping the growth can you hope to avoid disaster. Fortunately, that is what we have done.

For a simplified example, lets say, for the sake of argument, that Earth can support a maximum of 16 billion people (it doesn't really matter what number you pick). If population doubles every 30 years, then in 1935 there are 2 billion people. In 1965, there are 4 billion (note that these figures are pretty close to the real population numbers up to this point*); in 1995 we would have 8 billion; and in 2025, we hit the limit of 16 billion people. Now, by 2055 we will have 32 billion people; so to avoid disaster, we have to move 16 billion people off-planet in 30 years. We have 30 years, from the time we hit the limit, to build an entire new planet. Not just a space station or two; an entire planet.

Despite taking 6,000 years to get the first 16 billion humans, it takes only 30 years to get the next 16 billion. Your temporary solution is so temporary as to be meaningless; even if we poured our entire planetary output into off-world colonies, it solves the problem for weeks, rather than years - once you hit the 16 billion limit, you have to ship people off-planet at a rate of about half a million EVERY SINGLE DAY to keep up.

A temporary solution that solves the problem for a week is not really any kind of solution at all.

*Then in the mid 1960s, just as the impending disaster was about to come to the world's attention, we solved the problem, by inventing the contraceptive pill. Population failed to hit 8 billion in 1995 - indeed, it hasn't got there yet, even in 2014. The contraceptive pill is quite possibly the single most important invention in human history.

 

[ryan]

Please read what I put in bold in my last post.

It is a solution even though it is only a temporary solution. For the next hundred or so years, an increasing population (by advancing biotechnology) and sustenance (by colonizing space) can coexist.

We still try to cure diseases even though Earth is reaching its limit in terms of population and reusable resources. So then why do we have take this idea into infinity? Oil is only a temporary solution to power machinery, but we do it because it works for the time being. I would argue that any idea taken to infinity is probably going to run into problems sooner or later.

I read that bit; and it is that bit that is fundamentally flawed.

When population grows, it grows exponentially. Temporary solutions are useless - only by stopping the growth can you hope to avoid disaster. Fortunately, that is what we have done.

For a simplified example, lets say, for the sake of argument, that Earth can support a maximum of 16 billion people (it doesn't really matter what number you pick). If population doubles every 30 years, then in 1935 there are 2 billion people. In 1965, there are 4 billion (note that these figures are pretty close to the real population numbers up to this point*); in 1995 we would have 8 billion; and in 2025, we hit the limit of 16 billion people. Now, by 2055 we will have 32 billion people; so to avoid disaster, we have to move 16 billion people off-planet in 30 years. We have 30 years, from the time we hit the limit, to build an entire new planet. Not just a space station or two; an entire planet.

Despite taking 6,000 years to get the first 16 billion humans, it takes only 30 years to get the next 16 billion. Your temporary solution is so temporary as to be meaningless; even if we poured our entire planetary output into off-world colonies, it solves the problem for weeks, rather than years - once you hit the 16 billion limit, you have to ship people off-planet at a rate of about half a million EVERY SINGLE DAY to keep up.

A temporary solution that solves the problem for a week is not really any kind of solution at all.

*Then in the mid 1960s, just as the impending disaster was about to come to the world's attention, we solved the problem, by inventing the contraceptive pill. Population failed to hit 8 billion in 1995 - indeed, it hasn't got there yet, even in 2014. The contraceptive pill is quite possibly the single most important invention in human history.

Why would the Earth even reach 32 billion people if people are leaving Earth in the meantime? They would leave to their colonies, and these colonies will probably not be happy with people spitting out babies every year like they might on Earth.

I have run out of time, so I might not reply to future posts.

 

[bilby]

I read that bit; and it is that bit that is fundamentally flawed.

When population grows, it grows exponentially. Temporary solutions are useless - only by stopping the growth can you hope to avoid disaster. Fortunately, that is what we have done.

For a simplified example, lets say, for the sake of argument, that Earth can support a maximum of 16 billion people (it doesn't really matter what number you pick). If population doubles every 30 years, then in 1935 there are 2 billion people. In 1965, there are 4 billion (note that these figures are pretty close to the real population numbers up to this point*); in 1995 we would have 8 billion; and in 2025, we hit the limit of 16 billion people. Now, by 2055 we will have 32 billion people; so to avoid disaster, we have to move 16 billion people off-planet in 30 years. We have 30 years, from the time we hit the limit, to build an entire new planet. Not just a space station or two; an entire planet.

Despite taking 6,000 years to get the first 16 billion humans, it takes only 30 years to get the next 16 billion. Your temporary solution is so temporary as to be meaningless; even if we poured our entire planetary output into off-world colonies, it solves the problem for weeks, rather than years - once you hit the 16 billion limit, you have to ship people off-planet at a rate of about half a million EVERY SINGLE DAY to keep up.

A temporary solution that solves the problem for a week is not really any kind of solution at all.

*Then in the mid 1960s, just as the impending disaster was about to come to the world's attention, we solved the problem, by inventing the contraceptive pill. Population failed to hit 8 billion in 1995 - indeed, it hasn't got there yet, even in 2014. The contraceptive pill is quite possibly the single most important invention in human history.

Why would the Earth even reach 32 billion people if people are leaving Earth in the meantime? They would leave to their colonies, and these colonies will probably not be happy with people spitting out babies every year like they might on Earth.

I have run out of time, so I might not reply to future posts.

I am talking about total population numbers overall, not just on Earth; but it is irrelevant - there is no way you can keep up with the half million a day who need to emigrate to space if Earth has a 16 billion population - unless you cut down the birth-rate through contraception. And once you do that, as we can observe (having done exactly that since the invention of the contraceptive pill), the problem vanishes without any need to think about space colonies at all.

If there is a problem, space colonies won't solve it; they won't even mitigate it for a few days, much less months or years.

If there isn't a problem, space colonies aren't needed to solve it.

Really, it is that simple.

 

[ryan]

Why would the Earth even reach 32 billion people if people are leaving Earth in the meantime? They would leave to their colonies, and these colonies will probably not be happy with people spitting out babies every year like they might on Earth.

I have run out of time, so I might not reply to future posts.

I am talking about total population numbers overall, not just on Earth; but it is irrelevant - there is no way you can keep up with the half million a day who need to emigrate to space if Earth has a 16 billion population - unless you cut down the birth-rate through contraception. And once you do that, as we can observe (having done exactly that since the invention of the contraceptive pill), the problem vanishes without any need to think about space colonies at all.

Space colonies could support excess people, if need be. So if someone is worried about the Earth having 1 billion too many, even with your contraception, then a solution might be space colonies.

 

[bilby]

I am talking about total population numbers overall, not just on Earth; but it is irrelevant - there is no way you can keep up with the half million a day who need to emigrate to space if Earth has a 16 billion population - unless you cut down the birth-rate through contraception. And once you do that, as we can observe (having done exactly that since the invention of the contraceptive pill), the problem vanishes without any need to think about space colonies at all.

Space colonies could support excess people, if need be. So if someone is worried about the Earth having 1 billion too many, even with your contraception, then a solution might be space colonies.

If someone is worried about the Earth having one billion too many, then he is an irrational fool, and can safely be ignored.

When your problems are irrational, your solutions have no chance of making sense.

 

[ryan]

Space colonies could support excess people, if need be. So if someone is worried about the Earth having 1 billion too many, even with your contraception, then a solution might be space colonies.

If someone is worried about the Earth having one billion too many, then he is an irrational fool, and can safely be ignored.

When your problems are irrational, your solutions have no chance of making sense.

Okay, then change it to some number of inhabitants that is in addition to an estimated maximum number of inhabitants that the Earth can support, preferably a number that you think is of rational concern.

 

[dystopian]

I have been doing that from the beginning of this thread and all I have gotten in return is more 20th century vintage science fiction scenarios.

From Ryan, sure.

The people born before the microchip are the people who put a man on the moon and brought him back. I'm sure it was mentioned in school. They have no trouble understanding our current computers and have a better understanding or what is required to extend technology.

The handful of people involved in the project, yes. They´re exception though, not the norm for that generation.

They also understand the cost and that every commitment means another opportunity is lost.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean? You either make a commitment and lose some other opportunity, or you don´t commit to anything and lose all opportunities.

It's easy to gloss over things like cost and commitment and create disaster scenarios where we are running out of vital materials, based on current projections.

I´m not really doing that, though Ryan appears to. I´m merely saying that there´ll come a point where it becomes prohibitely expensive (not to mention damaging to the environment) to extract the resources that remain here on earth, when that point comes it´ll be a tremendous boon to us if we already have a basic space infrastructure up and running so we can more easily switch over.

We once faced a whale oil crisis and survived that, even if a lot of whales did not. Of course, the solution to the whale oil shortage led to the commercial use of kerosene in lamps. This left us with an abundance of a nuisance byproduct named gasoline. It was too volatile to be used in lamps, but became the critical fuel for internal gasoline engines. The use of gasoline solved another projected problem, which was the imminent burial of the planet's cities in horse manure. Growing concentrations of people needed a constant flow of food and goods into the city, and the only practical way to haul this was horse drawn carts. This required more horses to pull wagons to haul away a couple tons of horseshit a day.

It is a mistake to think that just because we found a replacement for stuff we ran out of in the past that we´ll be able to easily do it again (though yes, it is just as much a mistake to to think that we won´t, but better to prepare for the worst).

What's funny? It's a toss up between it being cheaper to mine asteroids than deep earth deposits, because for some reason our space technology will overtake our hole digging technology, and 800 year old women popping out babies.

You´re oversimplifying what is involved in mining deep earth deposits. It isn´t as simple as just drilling a hole. Take gas for instance, we´ve just about run out of the easy to get at supplies, and the methods we use to extract the harder to get stuff is starting to cause earthquakes. The more we extract, the greater the risk and associated cost.

but who the hell thinks 800 year old mothers are a good idea, anyway? Are we moving into a historic era where we do things because we can, even if it's a really stupid thing to do?

Who the hell thinks teen mothers are a good idea? Doesn´t change the reality that we have them. Life extension is a good idea in general, even on the basic premise that to exist is better than to not exist. If we have the means to live forever, then it would be immoral to deny people access to those means. And while you could theoretically force people past a certain age or number of kids to agree to sterilization, there are serious ethical concerns with that as well.

We went to the moon, but we haven't gone back. Why is this? We don't need to go back.

Wrong, that´s not why we´ve not gone back. There are plenty of very good reasons to go back to the moon (ask anyone in any space-related fields if you don´t believe me, the idea that we should set up a permanent base on the moon before we do anything else is a perpetually popular one in the industry). The moon has ample supplies of useful resources to set up a colony with and it makes an enormous amount of sense to use it as an stop-over between us and anywhere else in the solar system. The reason we haven´t gone back so far, is because we´re only now starting to take the very first steps of trying to develop space. Until now we´ve only been up there to do science, and short of setting up radiotelescopes on the far side of the moon, there isn´t a lot of truly interesting science we can do on the moon that isn´t overshadowed by more interesting stuff we can do elsewhere. That´s it, that is the sole reason we haven´t been back there in force.

Another reason is so far, there's nothing on the Moon we can't buy cheaper on Earth. There is no disaster scenario which will make Moon rocks a viable commodity.

Wrong. Helium-3 extraction would be much simpler on the moon than it is on Earth, where it is far more rare. While it would be a massive undertaking for sure, it would by comparison be impossible to extract enough here on Earth to use he-3 for power generation. Strategic reserves of he-3 are just under 30 kilograms now, which is less than 4 year´s worth at current consumption, it is mostly used in scanning devices as well as physics and medical research right now. These low reserves are NOT the result of low demand, seeing as it is one of the most valuable substances in the world, being as it´s worth more than 7000 dollars per gram. The low supply is the result of the great difficulty in producing it, right now the only reliable way we have of producing he3 at all is by dismantling nuclear warheads for tritium, which when it decays produces he-3. This can not however supply us with enough he-3 for even our current purposes.

Not surprisingly, many governments have begun seriously considering lunar development in recent years in response to the dwindling supplies of he-3. The Chinese are directly aiming to start up He-3 lunar mining, RKK Energiya, JAXA, and other agencies and governments has also stated similar goals, and prominent members of both NASA and ESA have repeatedly emphasized the importance of the moon in terms of mining He-3. In fact, a single space shuttle sized ship filled with lunar he-3 could conceivably provide the united states with enough power to last it an entire year, meaning he-3´s economic potential lies in the range of billions per tonne. And that´d be clean energy too.

 

[bilby]

If someone is worried about the Earth having one billion too many, then he is an irrational fool, and can safely be ignored.

When your problems are irrational, your solutions have no chance of making sense.

Okay, then change it to some number of inhabitants that is in addition to an estimated maximum number of inhabitants that the Earth can support, preferably a number that you think is of rational concern.

The number is smaller than the uncertainties in the carrying capacity and in the population total; while simultaneously massively outstripping the number that could reasonably be launched off-world by several orders of magnitude.

The whole idea is so impractical that to make it possible, it would be necessary to develop technologies that would render it obsolete as a solution.

Some ideas really are too dumb to be worthy of consideration.

 

[ryan]

Okay, then change it to some number of inhabitants that is in addition to an estimated maximum number of inhabitants that the Earth can support, preferably a number that you think is of rational concern.

The number is smaller than the uncertainties in the carrying capacity and in the population total; while simultaneously massively outstripping the number that could reasonably be launched off-world by several orders of magnitude.

The whole idea is so impractical that to make it possible, it would be necessary to develop technologies that would render it obsolete as a solution.

Some ideas really are too dumb to be worthy of consideration.

Let's back up. Can you tell me why number x (maximum sustainable population) + 1 billion is an illegitimate concern?

 

[bilby]

The number is smaller than the uncertainties in the carrying capacity and in the population total; while simultaneously massively outstripping the number that could reasonably be launched off-world by several orders of magnitude.

The whole idea is so impractical that to make it possible, it would be necessary to develop technologies that would render it obsolete as a solution.

Some ideas really are too dumb to be worthy of consideration.

Let's back up. Can you tell me why number x (maximum sustainable population) + 1 billion is an illegitimate concern?

The number - 1 billion - is smaller than the uncertainties in the carrying capacity and in the population total; while simultaneously massively outstripping the number that could reasonably be launched off-world by several orders of magnitude.

I am not sure how much clearer I can be.

 

[ryan]

Let's back up. Can you tell me why number x (maximum sustainable population) + 1 billion is an illegitimate concern?

The number - 1 billion - is smaller than the uncertainties in the carrying capacity and in the population total; while simultaneously massively outstripping the number that could reasonably be launched off-world by several orders of magnitude.

I am not sure how much clearer I can be.

Assuming you know, somehow, that the uncertainty is greater than 1 billion, how can you possibly know that colonies containing 1 billion people is unrealistic?

Since you get to take liberties, surely you shouldn't mind if I do, that is if you want to argue fairly.

If the costs can decelerate enough, it seems obvious to me that it will soon cost a few thousand dollars for a trip to space. Sell your home for a mass produced living quarters (This is something that Bigelow's company is working on, but with great initial costs http://www.space.com/19234-inflatable-space-stations-bigelow-aerospace-photos.html .). Then add a few more thousand dollars to haul your belongings and living quarters to space via cheaper cargo carriers. Then connect your "home" to the rest of the colony; work and pay taxes for the amenities and infrastructure in the colony.

Yes, the wealthy get to go first, but hopefully this will drive the price down enough for the poorer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We once faced a whale oil crisis and survived that, even if a lot of whales did not. Of course, the solution to the whale oil shortage led to the commercial use of kerosene in lamps. This left us with an abundance of a nuisance byproduct named gasoline. It was too volatile to be used in lamps, but became the critical fuel for internal gasoline engines. The use of gasoline solved another projected problem, which was the imminent burial of the planet's cities in horse manure. Growing concentrations of people needed a constant flow of food and goods into the city, and the only practical way to haul this was horse drawn carts. This required more horses to pull wagons to haul away a couple tons of horseshit a day.

Just because we have solved all previous crises doesn't mean we will solve the next one. There's an observer bias here--those that faced crises they didn't solve generally aren't around to tell us about it.