General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPopulation control will NOT save our environment; and why Stephen Hawking was right.
Overpopulation is not a new refrain; it was a subject of complaint even as far back as the Roman Empire. The problem is, you can have a small population of humans and still over-consume your way into a crisis or even ecological ruin and a catastrophic population crash. Malthusian theories can argue all day long about how much physical room the Earth has for human beings, but history shows one certainty: even 100 million is enough to ruin the ecosystem.
Take the deforestation that occurred on Rapa Nui aka Easter Island, for instance. Or better yet, look at deforestation patterns in Midieval Europe, from the 13th to 16th centuries, where the populace in the area never exceeded 150 million. There weren't a lot of humans there, at least compared to now, but they wrought much devastation on their ecosystem, with catastrophic consequences, such as famines and plagues that were fueled by the resulting waves of mass starvation and malnutrition.
Ironically, the mass deforestation was slowed down by the growing use of coal. Compared to Medieval times, coal was the first form of alternative energy, and petroleum was the alternative energy to whale oil. Alternative energy slowed the destruction of forests and saved the whales.
Of course, deforestation is still happening at a breathtaking pace, and the practice of using fossil fuels in place of trees is itself catching up with us in the form of pollution and global warming. At the same time the Malthusian crowd is again blowing the overpopulation trumpet.
Populations have swelled and declined, but regardless of the size of the world's population, or that of any one region, two things have always been constant: overconsumption and wastefulness.
No matter what size a given population is, overconsumption and wastefulness still make for an unsustainable society and will lead to the Malthusian sky falling on our heads.
The key to protecting our environment and global habitat is sustainability. We need a system of recycling that is as close to perfect as possible, and one in which we cut pollution to a bare minimum. We need to build consumer goods in a way that they can be recycled in an environmentally-friendly way, and build them to last. We need a society where few things go into the trash and almost nothing goes into landfills. We need a global agreement of hard and inflexible pollution REDUCTIONS, not just "cap and move pollution around to whatever nation can pay the pollution fee." We need to make use of solar energy, which can now be generated at night as well as during the day; the sun bathes the Earth in more energy PER DAY than modern society will use in centuries, and we need to harness a respectable portion of that. We must all become like Germany, who now uses more solar energy than the whole world combined. Composting must also become a religion, while research in nano-pesticides must begin so that we can ditch the use of chemicals. I could list the specifics all day long, but I think Democrats can get the picture. Waste not, want not, is an old but wise and very relevant saying.
Which brings me to Stephen Hawking, who once famously said that for our survival, we need to colonize other worlds. He's correct. This be a huge creator of jobs worldwide, and would result in access to more resources beyond Earth. Outer space is, potentially, the world's biggest jobs program, ever; it is likely to create an employee's market for anything from manual labor (think: asteroid miners in space suits, or people piloting mining drones) to jobs in the hard sciences and engineering. The prospect of putting factories on the moon, by itself, offers huge ecological benefits for the world. In the long term it will also solve the Malthusian problem of physical space.
However, there is an even bigger benefit to listening to Hawking's advice. The biggest benefit of all is that when it comes to long-term existence in outer space, you are forced to research and implement a system of total sustainability. Short term trips into orbit don't necessarily require sustainability, but people working in offworld factories and those taking trips to places like Mars will. Recycling of all resources is a must, as is the use of alternative and renewable energy. The sustainability issues that must be solved to achieve long-term space travel and colonization of inhospitable worlds will be of enormous benefit for us back on Earth.
There's another reason to shoot for sustainability over population control: whenever you hear about population control, it's YOU AND YOUR FAMILY who will be controlled. The Plutocracy will have no skin in the game at all; they won't use less resources or make any sacrifices, but YOU WILL. Malthusians are quick to say that it's the poor who overpopulate the most - problem is, they're talking about YOU, as in the person who is reading this and saying to themselves, "No, that can't be right". Yeah, it is right. It's all about controlling YOU so that the Plutocrats can have mansions the size of Los Angeles and flying yachts that rival the size of islands, along with all the resources such luxuries use.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)We need to invest in space exploration and we need to stop breeding like rabbits.
Realistically, it will be decades if not centuries before we're in a position to colonise space, assuming that it is ever economically feasible to do so and we don't run out of the resources to make it happen first. It's fine to fantacize about moon mines but what exactly are we going to mine there and how is it going to be more cost-effective than mining it on earth or creating a synthetic alternative?
We're facing the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming (from carbon emissions, from overpopulation) in the next 10-15 years.
Switching to renewable energy might mitigate some of those consequences (downgrading them from mass extinction to widespread extinction) but we have to meet technology halfway by reducing our demands on it.
Renewable energy will barely be able to match current levels of fossil fuel consumption and will not be able to keep up with indefinite population growth. If we have to keep funnelling all out resources into earth-based infrastructure to support a constantly growing population, we will never have the resources for serious space exploration.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Wealthy people have lower population growth. However, resource usage can get to be catastrophically high among wealthy populations. Which is why we need both prosperity and sustainability.
As for mining the moon, it has helium-3 (which we're running out of), hydrogen and most likely water in the form of ice. It also has a number of useful metals, as well as silicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)The questions is how much does it cost to go and get them and do we have the resources to do so. If we need more silicon, water, etc. to build the infrastructure to mine the moon and get the resources back to earth (or wherever they are needed) than we get at the end of the day from the mines, then it is never going to actually happen. And if all of those resources are tied up in infrastructure on earth to support a population that continues to grow and grow, then it is even less likely that we will be able to expand (and I agree that it is imperative that we do so as soon as possible for all kinds of reasons).
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)You know how many planets and moons there are?
I'm sure the universe will be fine LOL
golfguru
(4,987 posts)This source has no carbon emissions, no smoke, no chimneys, it is abundant,
it is safer than coal mining, oil refining, & wind power. It is always available unlike
solar power & wind power. Did you know more workers have died from working on
wind turbine towers in USA than nuclear accidents in western countries, China & India combined?
It is not 100% safe. Nothing is. Yes Virginia, I am talking about nuclear power.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You really have faith in nukes, eh? An almost religious devotion, maybe?
Why else would you say something so dumb?
&&&&&&&&&&&&
The gist of the OP is that there are not too many people, it is that too few do not live like the poorest people in China or India or Africa, or even here in the US. Why we could fill the world with people as long as they didn't eat good.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)in terms of the kind of energy we can generate from non-carbon emitting sources. We already have several billion more people than we can adequately feed, clothe, house, educate, etc. Any growth represents a continuing threat to the climate, ecosystems and social stability.
And the fact is there are still many places in the world (including in the US) where it is completely socially acceptable to have 18 kids. That is insane. I don't support a mandatory one child policy but I do think tax incentives for large families need to go. People should pay the real cost of having massive numbers of kids, not be subsidised for it. And birth control education and condoms need to be *everywhere* as they are in China where every convenience store has a rack next to the register.
The one child policy may represent an unacceptable restriction of personal freedom but at least in China you don't see kids on the street eating garbage as you do in India. Nothing has done more to lift the standard of living for the average Chinese person and to create a thriving middle class than the one child policy has. Use whatever metaphor you like for irresponsible procreation... I think rabbits are a pretty kind comparison for people who have many more kids than they can reasonably provide for and then sit around waiting for God/the government/the older siblings to raise them.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)poor people -- and you are taking a page from them in your "people who have many more kids than they can reasonably provide for."
according to -- people like yourself, of course.
spare me the ethics of the liberal upper middle class, the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)I've spent years living in third world countries working with people struggling to escape gut-wrenching multi-generational poverty. Take your "2.47 on average isn't so bad" to Mumbai or Kinsasha and then get back to me.
It's not about race, it's about finite resources. I can understand the desire to have numerous children in strained circumstances to compensate for the fact that many of them will not survive to adulthood but the fact is that having so many children is a big part of the reason so few of them do survive.
We can't be afraid to advocate education and birth control because the race card gets trotted out with depressing predicability. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long term to tip toe around the fact that having massive numbers of kids contributes to cycles of poverty and ignorance and that doing it, in particular to create "soldiers for Christ", is a really sucky thing to do to your kids, your community and your planet.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the resources they'll consume during their privileged little lives will dwarf those used by any family of ten in kinshasha -- or in my own neighborhood, for that matter.
you don't care about resources, you care about poor people having too many children -- by your lights.
other rich people with too many children:
Warren buffett (3); george soros (5); sheldon adelson (5); jim walton (4); steve ballmer (3); forrest mars, jr (7); jacqueline mars (3); phil knight (3); anne cox chambers (3); ron perelman (8); james simons (3); george kaiser (3); steve cohen (7); rupert murdoch (6); phil anschutz (3); steve jobs (4)...
I haven't even gotten to the 40th richest person in america yet, and some on the list were either young or had no personal information.
and lest we forget, Mr Ecology, Al gore (4)...
but it's only poor people's children who are so nasty.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)who isn't prepared to be intellectually honest.
I said quite clearly in post 34 that I think it's socially irresponsible for anyone to have more than one or two kids. I don't think it should be legislated, but I don't think it should be encouraged by the government either. What part of that says "peachy keen to have a hundred kids if you're rich enough"?
If you'd rather just throw out ad hominems than have an actual discussion, then this is clearly a pointless debate.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:22 AM - Edit history (3)
other rich people with too many children:
Warren buffett (3); george soros (5); sheldon adelson (5); jim walton (4); steve ballmer (3); forrest mars, jr (7); jacqueline mars (3); phil knight (3); anne cox chambers (3); ron perelman (8); james simons (3); george kaiser (3); steve cohen (7); rupert murdoch (6); phil anschutz (3); steve jobs (4)...
I haven't even gotten to the 40th richest person in america yet, and some on the list were either young or had no personal information. i'd say the fertility rate of super-rich americans is higher than the general us fertility rate. and they use way more resources in their multiple huge houses, their private planes, their multiple cars and other toys...
and lest we forget, Mr Ecology, Al gore (4)...
but it's only poor people's children who are so nasty. it's only poor people -- in mumbai, and kinshasha, & my low-income neighborhood -- who "breed like rabbits".
well, we have to you know -- rich people need more slaves to serve their children. and that they needed to have fewer "for their own good".
why don't you go talk to rupert murdoch?
talk about dishonest -- oh, no, you weren't talking about poor people who "don't have the means to support their children," no you were just talking about people having too many kids generally....yeah, that's the ticket.
Wickerwoman: "I've spent years living in third world countries working with people struggling to escape gut-wrenching multi-generational poverty. Take your '2.47 on average isn't so bad' to Mumbai or Kinsasha and then get back to me."
you had plenty of time to argue that poor africans and indians had too many children. and that they should have fewer "for their own good."
why don't you go talk to rupert murdoch and ron perelman?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm surprised she didn't get piled on with that hilarious "there are no kids on the street eating garbage in China" howler of a gaffe.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Now they have tons of elderly people who won't be supported at all.
As for China, you are laughably wrong. You are far from qualified to accuse anyone of being intellectually dishonest when you say there are no kids on the street eating garbage. There are kids on the street eating garbage in just about EVERY country. Even China, and America.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The usual suspects who think humanity is a cancer and is evil, NASA is a waste of money, and so colonizing space is like a metastasizing cancer.
We must colonize space if we are to survive, since Earth does not have infinite resources, and extracting those resources damages the planet. It is much better to mine asteroids.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)My take on it is that we already know we can live on this planet. We already know what it would take to keep our habitat in good shape. We already know what we need to do to lessen our harm to it.
You can't just say "pffft, someone in the future will figure out how to live on the moon" and leave it at that. It's a question of priorities; We're never going to MAKE it to Mars, or whatever the idea is, if we stupid ourselves extinct.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)At this time, the only appropriate role for NASA is deep space probes and Earth observation satellites. I was the biggest fan of Gemini and Apollo 45 years ago, but I am soured on what NASA became. Its budget is gravy for the "aerospace" industry, you know, the corporations who lobby for taking trillions of dollars of public money to build airplanes that just sit on a runway.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)And is perfectly achievable with today's technology.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Yes, I suppose it is possible.
You want shorter trips, though.
hunter
(38,310 posts)And launching reactors that haven't ever been started isn't terribly dangerous.
Heck, in fiction we were well off to Jupiter by now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)But we will still be just talking about this in twenty years, and probably until I die.
Discovery One: The spacecraft is founded on solid, if as-yet unrealized, science.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)and nuclear engines don't help there. You need a craft you can transport down through a thin but not negligible atmosphere, land gently, leave in a thin atmosphere with dust storms, and then have work first time, with only the checks the crew can do, to get up out of a gravity well considerably deeper than the Moon's. And you don't get to test all this with unmanned flights any time you like, unlike Moon testing - you have to do it at the right points of relative orbit.
It's a major undertaking; nuclear-electric engines may help with the interplanetary transport, but launching reactors capable of doing that each way is quite a leap in capability. I think any '$30 billion' tag for the whole process is ridiculously low.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)
bananas
(27,509 posts)Red Dragon is a proposed concept for a low-cost Mars lander mission that would utilize a SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicle, and a modified Dragon capsule to enter the Martian atmosphere.[1] The concept will be proposed for funding in 2012/2013 as a U.S.A. NASA Discovery mission, for launch in 2018.[2][3]
Contents
1 Proposal
2 Goals
3 Landing system
4 See also
5 References
Proposal
NASA's Ames Research Center is working with a private spaceflight firm, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), to plan a mission that would search for evidence of life on Mars (biosignatures), past or present. Dragon offers a large interior volume (3.6m diameter) for up to 1 tonne (2,200 lb) of instruments. Red Dragon would drill about 1.0 metre (3.3 ft) underground in an effort to sample reservoirs of water ice known to exist in the shallow subsurface. The mission cost is projected to be less than USD$400 million, [2] plus $150 million to $190 million for a launch vehicle and lander.[1][3]
<snip>
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)As Wikipedia says, a pre-cursor to a manned mission.
bananas
(27,509 posts)That's what he designed it for, to land and take off from Mars, he's developing and implementing it in stages, but the raison d'etre for SpaceX is human travel to Mars. Sending cargo and crew to the ISS is just the means to that end.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Even the Federation of American Scientists is opposed to operating reactors and RTGs in earth orbit:
Fifty Years of Space Nuclear Power
June 28th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood
Fifty years ago this week, on June 29, 1961, an electrical generator driven by nuclear energy was launched into space for the first time.
<snip>
Unfortunately, the plutonium 238 power sources that are used to power these missions are not only expensive, they are dirty and dangerous to produce and to launch. The first launch accident (pdf) involving an RTG occurred as early as 1964 and distributed 17,000 curies of plutonium-238 around the globe, a 4% increase in the total environmental burden (measured in curies) from all plutonium isotopes (mostly fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing).
<snip>
A good deal of effort has been invested to make today’s RTGs more or less impervious to the most likely launch accident scenarios. But they will be never be perfectly safe. In order to minimize the health and safety risks involved in space nuclear power while still taking advantage of the benefits it can offer for space exploration, the Federation of American Scientists years ago proposed (pdf) that nuclear power — both plutonium-fueled RTGs and uranium-fueled reactors — be used only for deep space missions and not in Earth orbit.
Although this proposal was never officially adopted, it represents the de facto policy of spacefaring nations today.
<snip>
[hr]
Jim Oberg Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
One of the other controversial space nuclear power accidents was the loss of the Russian ‘Mars-95? probe, as described in my 1999 article in ‘New Scientist’ linked here:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/plutonium.html
The saddest part was how the Russian government and the Clinton administration promoted the false notion — at first a mistake, and later a convenient camouflage — that the craft’s nuclear batteries had safely sunk in the deep Pacific Ocean. Much more likely was that they fell over the Atacama Desert near the Chile-Bolivia border, where local residents were never alerted to watch out for them. Political pretense may have taken a human toll, because nobody seems to have ever even looked for the hazardous objects.
Jim O
The usual proposal for nuclear-electric is to assemble it in LEO, turn it on, and let it spiral out.
But turning it on in LEO is a bad idea - if the engine or control systems fail,
you'd have an extremely radioactive reactor re-entering the atmosphere.
So how do you get it out of LEO if you can't turn it on?
The obvious method is to use solar electric to power the ion engines until its out of earth orbit.
But then why bother with nuclear at all?
It turns out that solar electric has a better power-to-mass ratio than nuclear does
(in the earth-mars region, not out to Jupiter, but we aren't talking about Jupiter here).
Japan and others are working on large solar arrays for space-based solar power,
so the technology for large solar arrays in space is already being developed independently.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)than any form of extraction on Earth, including complete protection of the environment here. To say "it is much better to mine asteroids" is ridiculous; no-one does, because we don't have the ability. Manufacturing and running the rockets and machinery necessary to get there (wherever 'there' is), extract the resources you think are worth bringing back (so far, the only one mentioned that isn't far more available on Earth is helium-3, which has only a theoretical use in one form of fusion), and land them safely on Earth would have far greater environmental impact than any form of Earth mining. It's far easier to concentrate on forms on mining here that do not destroy the environment.
And 'colonizing' space is a task that would, again, need an effort far greater than anything that humanity has ever done. It is completely irrelevant to any idea of population growth or environmental worries on Earth for the next millennium or two. If we could build habitats that humans could live in that easily, then we'd start with Earth, which is pretty much liveable already, with handy things like atmospheric oxygen. You are not going to be able to send billions of people off this planet (which is the scale that population growth has to think about) to live in a sterile, deadly place with no reason for being there.
Hawking's claim that it is needed is about having a second population centre in case of a worldwide catastrophe that would wipe out all of humanity. The nature of a catastrophe which would make life easier in space than here is highly debatable - things like the Mesozoic-ending asteroid were pretty survivable by a technological species. And, ironically, given the tenor of the OP, involve making sure a tiny fraction of humanity survives, rather than an effort to keep Earth habitable by everyone.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Think ambitiously. It's our only way out of this mess.
As for Hawking's claim, I didn't contradict his claim. I added to it, pointing out that the technology needed to fulfill his imperative will also make great strides in sustainability, which is a critical development for long term space travel.
Regarding Helium-3, it has far more uses than just nuclear fusion. We use it now for things like medical imaging applications.
And the environmental impact of bringing materials from space to here can be almost nullified with space elevators - something that the scientific community has already said we can do if we have the will. And the ambition.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)It's sent a few hundred people into space for a few months or so, and some highly specialised satellites and exploring spacecraft.
I agree we need to 'think ambitiously'; but direct the thought at the problem - the Earth's environment, and how to make our lifestyle here sustainable, and more equal. There's a lot of difference between producing artificial environments in space or on another planet and changing the impact of humanity on this planet. Our aim is to have us integrated with everything else on Earth, not to cut ourselves off in sealed bubbles, or to terraform the whole of Earth (ie to kill everything we don't design into a new system).
I was unaware of the current uses for helium-3; but the amounts involved are small, and we have ways of manufacturing it. Unless new uses appear, it looks like the market won't grow above a few hundred million dollars per year, which looks unlikely to justify on its own an entire infrastructure to send back material from the Moon's surface.
You still need to manufacture the machinery to move between asteroids, or the Moon, and the Earth, to mine them and move the material back to Earth orbit. That manufacture has to happen on Earth, and has an effect. And a space elevator will take a huge effort on its own.
"If we have the will and the ambition" can be said about fixing our environmental problems directly. Sadly, the will isn't there yet - as Rio has just proved. You'd need either planet-wide environmental laws, rigorously enforced, to persuade capitalist societies to clean up their act - and then, I think industry would find it far easier to behave responsibly here rather than go into space; or a complete change to a global government on socialist and environmentalist lines. I think the former is more likely to happen, but we're a long way from it yet. Hoping that fun projects in space can have side-effects of transforming the way we interact with the ecology of the Earth is wishful thinking, to me.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=7697
See my reply #17 for why a space elevator does not mean asteroid mining becomes a doddle.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If we keep telling ourselves that, as a species, then we never will.
eShirl
(18,490 posts)I think people tend to self-limit their own reproduction when they have access to as much birth control as they want
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)and they are not bound to the "private" sphere. also when they can read.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)These ideas need to keep coming to the forefront. We can't eat, drink, or breathe money. The marketing campaign that's manipulating peoples minds to dedicate their lives to overconsumption need to be enlightened. And the stars hold the answers.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)metastasis to the Universe is the cure to human greed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Quotation is halfway down the panel, on the left
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The reason for doing this is the possibility that humans die off and go extinct on earth.
There is no possibility of moving any significant population off of earth. Do the math on how much energy is required to move a billion people in spacefaring vehicles out of the earth's gravity field.
Any population increase in the colonies would be descendents of the pioneers, similarly to the populating of the Pacific islands by the Polynesians arriving in small numbers by ocean going canoes.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)The secret to survival is to replace humans with robots. We have robots working all of our lunar farms.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"Stay at home and fuck up your own planet. Keep your hands off ours or you'll be sorry!"
stuntcat
(12,022 posts)It's true a pudgy pink US suburbanite uses the resources of hundreds of starving children (40,000 dying each day) But our species is not adjusting to the Earth fast enough, the rest of this century will be a shock of a mess, and by 2090 we'll finally be admitting that we made too many of ourselves too quickly at a time when we needed to just focus on how to make sure we had a livable habitat.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)be over 12 million today. But it's not.
stuntcat
(12,022 posts)still it is a blink for this fragile world we're raping right now. Our species exploding is causing a mass-extinction. We can't even predict all the ways that's going to effect us in the next few years. Instead we're blowing off mountaintops and fighting to see who can kill the oceans the fastest.
No matter what anyone says, I know that the decades we were busy sexing each other and squirting out miracles were the decades we needed to spend learning how to make sure the babies of now could be proud of their species in 2099.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)and "breeding like rabbits".
in my experience they're phrases used by high income white people who use a lot of resources but fancy themselves superior to others because their consumption choices are branded green.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but the nearest earth like candidate is about 20 LY away.
No, I am not saying that we cannot over come this little technological problem, if we as a species do not go extinct first, no the Holocene extinction is not a malthusian invention either.
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/holmass.html
But that solar system is not around the corner either.
Did I mention this is JUST A CANDIDATE, and the candidate around the start of Gliese 581 has not been confirmed as having an atmosphere yet, let alone one friendly to human life? We are pesky in the ratios we will tolerate, something 'bout evolution.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022489,00.html
On the bright side, we will know in the next ten years, with the deployment of Keppler.
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/
But then again, I will be called all kinds of names for actually pointing the actual state of the art science with this... nor is this a great conspiracy. I keep telling you, every time you post these things, we have had these population crashes historically, and all the money in the world will NOT protect the very rich... in fact, all the money in the world might protect them, in a worst case scenario, for an extra six months. I'm being charitable.
And yes, humanity, like 99% of life on this planet, will sooner or later say good night gracie too, and go extinct...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The kind of crash that we're looking at will leave society looking a lot like what Mexico is today. And there, the rich have been doing fine for the last 100 years.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)
what we are talking about is 100,000 ago when humanity went through an evolutionary bottleneck.
You know, I don't know if this makes me glad or not... but you will even live to see it if the models are right... due to what we are doing to the atmosphere. In fact, Gliese 589 will NEVER ever see a human step on any of it's worlds... by 2100 the changes in the atmosphere will be such, that indeed we will be in an extinction spiral not seen since 65 million years ago.
This is simple biology from what we know... apex species, we are one, don't survice mass extinctions.
What I am glad off though is I don't have kids, but certainly feel sorry for my nieces and nephews.
As to Mexico... my dear, we are ALMOST there. And all that money actually DOES NOT protect the rich in Mexico, why many of the Rich are LEAVING for safer places... And by the way I was not only born and raised down there, I travel there regularly.
By the way READ your OP, because if you are talking of an ECONOMIC crash, that is a very different critter, and then 1928-33 models become active, and we may well very well be on our way to one. And your OP does not even suggest the economic aspect of it.
Uncle Joe
(58,349 posts)all need to be in balance to increase humanity's chances for long term survival.
Thanks for the thread, Zalatix.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)He knows damned well we can't go traveling around the galaxy looking for new planets to screw up.
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bartlett
Professor Bartlett often explains how sustainable growth is a contradiction. His view is based on the fact that a modest percentage growth can equate to huge escalations over relatively short periods of time.
Bartlett argues that, over time, compound growth can yield enormous increases. For example, an investor earning a constant annual 7% return on their investment would find their capital doubling within 10 years. But the same exponential power, so advantageous to patient investors, may be potentially calamitous when applied to human population. A population of 10,000 individuals, if it were to grow at a constant rate of 7% per annum, would reach a population size of 10 million after 100 years.[5]
Bartlett regards overpopulation as "The Greatest Challenge" facing humanity, and promotes sustainable living. He opposes the cornucopian school of thought (as advocated by people such as Julian Lincoln Simon), and refers to it as "The New Flat Earth Society"
J. B. Calvert (1999) has proposed that Bartlett's law will result in the exhaustion of petrochemical resources due to the exponential growth of the world population (in line with the Malthusian Growth Model).
Bartlett has made two notable statements relating to sustainability:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
and his Great Challenge:
"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
---
Note that because of exponential population growth, by the time we really realize that we must find a more places to live, the Hawking idea, it will be too late. We will have already outgrown the earth. Just think how global warming is still denied. Will the population bomb be the same?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it will be the socialism of slaves.
capitalist ideology = a scam to concentrate wealth.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)To advocate that we "shoot for sustainability over population control" seems to imply that we can have the former without the latter. We can't. You can go all-out with hyper-optimistic assumptions about space travel, and you still can't paint a picture of a sustainable future in which the Earth's human population continues to grow the way it has been. Exporting billions of people to other planets is not a credible solution.
Sending small colony groups to other planets, to provide a Plan B for the survival of the human race if we completely destroy ourselves on Earth, is a separate issue.
The number of people living on this planet, a number that has been growing exponentially, will stop growing, and will stop within the next several decades. The only question is how. The default is the mass die-off.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)As advanced as he certainly is in areas such as physics and mathematics, he relied on the usual comic book/Star Wars imaginings when it comes to extraterrestrial life.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/25/stephen-hawking-aliens_n_551035.html#s84595&title=Charlie_Rose_
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I said there is another reason why his statement was true: space travel imparts huge lessons to humanity in the area of sustainable living technology.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)It's the safest, most effective, and most ethical way to lessen our numbers.
