Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

Posted May 2, '13 at 2:41pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,091 posts

A 2001 estimate made by the Department of Economic an Social Affairs had a maximum estimate at 16 billion.as the carrying capacity for the planet.

yea i know 25 and 100 were actually to much.
i didn't dig into actual numbers this time. =)

While an initial set up would require bringing the resources from earth up there, there is the possibility to develop self sustaining space colonies.

but not solving the overpopulation on this planet any time soon.
we will hit our cap before these things can be realized.

 

Posted May 2, '13 at 3:17pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

but not solving the overpopulation on this planet any time soon.
we will hit our cap before these things can be realized.

How long do you think we have to go before we develop such means to achieve such a goals?

It's estimated we will reach around 10 billion by 2050. So we may have until last 20xx before we hit the estimated carrying capacity. While NASA has been defunded and the US is sitting here with their thumbs up their butts waiting to play catch up. Other 2nd and 3rd world countries and the private sector have been in a space race that could drive such technology to a basic level where we can in that time.

 

Posted May 2, '13 at 3:35pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,091 posts

It's estimated we will reach around 10 billion by 2050. So we may have until last 20xx before we hit the estimated carrying capacity. While NASA has been defunded and the US is sitting here with their thumbs up their butts waiting to play catch up. Other 2nd and 3rd world countries and the private sector have been in a space race that could drive such technology to a basic level where we can in that time.

that we have the technology doesn't mean that it is there yet. or that it is growing in a few year.
neither mars or venus fall in the habitable zone of our sun so we have to builld greenhouses. the materials to build greenhouses have to come from earth. by the time we have enough materials send over to start building a place where people can live. i guess we will be about a 100 year in the future.

the plans of the 14 biggest space agency's is that we start colonizing mars whit robots by 2033. befor that colonization is done and ready for humans to take a look. we certainly are atleast past 2060.

not to mention that the resources needed to build these colonies will increase that what we ask from our planet.

also funny you call it a space race. since it is no race anymore ;)

 

Posted May 2, '13 at 9:40pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

that we have the technology doesn't mean that it is there yet.

Though we do tend to hurry along the use of technology when we absolutely need to.

neither mars or venus fall in the habitable zone of our sun so we have to builld greenhouses.

They don't need to be, We would be far better of setting up a colony on space stations.

the materials to build greenhouses have to come from earth. by the time we have enough materials send over to start building a place where people can live. i guess we will be about a 100 year in the future.

Yes initially we would have to rely on bringing resources from Earth. Though we can find plenty of materials out in space. This is one point that could push such an idea further into the future.

the plans of the 14 biggest space agency's is that we start colonizing mars whit robots by 2033. befor that colonization is done and ready for humans to take a look. we certainly are atleast past 2060.

There are commercial space programs planning on colonization by around that time.
"Still, the first step is getting man to the Red Planet, a mission he expects to be completed in the next 15 to 20 years."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … icket.html

I think these plans will likely get pushed back but it does show initiative in that direction.

also funny you call it a space race. since it is no race anymore ;)

Yes there is, it's among the 2nd and 3rd world countries and the private sector. Right now for real advancement overall I think the private sectors are our best bet.

 

Posted May 3, '13 at 6:25am

partydevil

partydevil

5,091 posts

Though we do tend to hurry along the use of technology when we absolutely need to.

where are the materials coming from when we are in a hurry?
not from earth. we would already have not enough resources when we absolutely need to.

They don't need to be, We would be far better of setting up a colony on space stations.

space stations whit billions of people?
any idea how much resources that needs? where are these coming from? earth? i dont think so.

Yes initially we would have to rely on bringing resources from Earth. Though we can find plenty of materials out in space.

we can look in the futures future, yes.
but we are not in the future yet. we have to be realistic whit what we have and can do befor that.

There are commercial space programs planning on colonization by around that time.

these programs seem unrealistic to me.
i hope they proof me wrong one day. but for now, i dont believe in their goals.

I think these plans will likely get pushed back but it does show initiative in that direction.

why send humans? sending robots that we can control from earth to build a safe environment for when eventually humans are being send there seems much more likely and humane. (ofcourse there will be send some people that willingly lose their life to get their name in the history books. but that doesn't mean that what they do will have any benefit for human kind.(maybe a little))

it's among the 2nd and 3rd world countries and the private sector.

plz. call out some names.

Right now for real advancement overall I think the private sectors are our best bet.

i'm not whit you on this one.
just because nasa is out of the pics for now doesn't mean that other government subsided agency's that already have much experience in space exploration are off the table aswell.
the private sector can come up whit good ideas. but most of them lack the money and go whit their plans to already existing space agency's anyway. (to work for them or whit them. that depends per case)

 

Posted May 3, '13 at 9:37pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Going to need to condense some of this or just not reply today.

space stations whit billions of people?

Starting off it would likely be more like a few hundred to a few thousand people.

The initial resources would have to come from Earth. From there you can expand on food stock provided by growing the food themselves. Other materials for things like water and housing can eventually be obtained off world for future expansion.

we can look in the futures future, yes.
but we are not in the future yet. we have to be realistic whit what we have and can do befor that.

Of course we do have to do other things besides just shoot for the stars, but this is something we do have to work towards to survive as a species.

these programs seem unrealistic to me.

realistically just getting commercial flights into space were considered unrealistic only a decade ago as well.

why send humans?

To show that it can be done for one.

(ofcourse there will be send some people that willingly lose their life to get their name in the history books. but that doesn't mean that what they do will have any benefit for human kind.(maybe a little))

So establishing a means to live off world wouldn't be a benefit to human kind?

plz. call out some names.

Asia has a space race going for one example. Also as noted it's also in the private sectors.

"The new trend of private companies entering into space exploration activities is a method of reinstalling the cloud of excitement that embodied the original space race.

"The central force behind the scientifically advantageous transition from governmentally run to privately run space exploration is competition in the corporate world. Competition in the commercial sense is the battle between businesses to gain the loyalty and trust of a customer. Furthermore, competition is the driving force of free enterprise, which ensures that corporations make decisions concerning the making and pricing of their products. Having more than one business producing technologies is advantageous for space exploration because it will cause the products to be of better qualities and at lower prices. This is an obvious benefit of the transformation of space exploration from government control to private company control. Because private companies are rooted in the free enterprise system, which revolves around consumers, everyday citizens have a greater effect on this scientific endeavor. In essence this once governmentally-owned pursuit for space exploration is becoming more central to the lives of average citizens, initiating a new space race.

            This current space race is not a race rooted in a war between two nations, but rather an exhilarating competitive race between corporations to ensure the best products. This space effort is not a product of rivalry between two nations, but is being transformed into a collaboration of companies from around the world. Instead of a competition rooted in fear, it is a healthy competition that improves the quality of technologies from competing companies. The new space race is becoming a product of a genuine endeavor to achieve the highest levels of technologies that can aid in the discovery of the unknown world. A space race principled in an authentic pursuit to change the face of science is a development worth pursuing."
http://ismscience.org/index.php?option= … Itemid=300

There's Still A Space Race - Howard Bloom

 

Posted May 4, '13 at 7:09am

partydevil

partydevil

5,091 posts

i woke up 2 sec ago, so i can make some mistakes. it's the only time i have today to reply so, i'm gonna do my best.

Starting off it would likely be more like a few hundred to a few thousand people

the current space station can house max 10 or 15 people. it has costs years to make it and loads of money. i dont see how we can just build a space station for hundreds of people in a few year.

and the resources you want to take from off world. dont we need a colonization on the off worlds to get those resources? or do we beam them up like in mass effect 2. xD

Of course we do have to do other things besides just shoot for the stars, but this is something we do have to work towards to survive as a species.

building towards is not that we can do it already.
sure we can make plans to go to keplar-22b but that doesn't mean we are able to go there any time soon.

commercial flights into space were considered unrealistic only a decade ago

no it wasn't. maybe for the masses. but the masses dont know **** about realistic possibilities.
half a century ago it was tho.

To show that it can be done for one.

thats what i mend whit people go there to get there name in the history books.
robots are much more convenient to send there. they need no food. they need no atmosphere. they dont have to sleep. can't make mistakes that end up in their deaths....
sending humans there is only good for a show.

So establishing a means to live off world wouldn't be a benefit to human kind?

robots are better in making this then humans. (as explained above)
humans can coordinate it from earth.

=============

the rest i gotta come back on latter. dont have time to read lots and check links atm. (will do that tomorrow.)

 

Posted May 5, '13 at 5:05am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,853 posts

Knight

I'm aware of that. Hence I said eventual more dire problem. The world can support seven billion people. It cannot support four times that. Currently, the doubling rate is somewhere around what, 45 years? In a century's time we'll have that magical, absurd number at the pace we're going.

Yes, but even nations with exponentially increasing populations are witnessing lowering birth rates due to greater affluence and an influx of contraceptions.

I'm aware of that. However, what we need is less, not more.

I disagree. Certain countries need less, but certain aging countries certainly need more, with the quantity needed being subjective, i.e at least a rate that can replace the dying; 2.1.

Yes, well, ignoring the problem because we don't like what has to be done to fix it is how things go to ruin. This is only going to get worse and require more drastic measures the longer it's put off.

True, but that does not mean there are not ways they can still contribute to the economy.

The problem is a slowing population, Pushing old folks to work more is only a short term solution as these people already have diminished labour value, and won't be a permanent solution to plug the hole.

So change them.

Those three words flip out of your keyboard so easily, yet hold as little value as an empty oyster shell. We cannot simply change our economic system in the blink of an eye, or even in the short run. We still need labour in all industries, we need brain power, we need a workforce. These cannot be replaced easily, even with technology today.

And then we eventually run out of room, because we have no more space to grow inside of. Which results in the mass die off of hundreds of millions due to lack of resources.

We don't! We are talking about specific nations, more importantly, the First World Nations, which are definitely not overpopulated but face aging populations.

The increasing proportion of elderly people will have a major impact on government spending. As recently as the early-1970s, social expenditures amounted to only about 6% of Japan's national income. In 1992 that portion of the national budget was 18%, and it was expected that by 2025, 27% of national income would be spent on social welfare.

We cannot grow forever, and the larger the population, the faster it grows. I've said this 3-4 times now. We're not overpopulated yet, but we're quickly approaching there and it's going to be a million times harder to deal with if we shove it off until the actual crisis comes, and a lot more painful.

We are overpopulated, but only in certain nations.

 

Posted May 6, '13 at 12:01am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

Since I have a moment of fight in me, thought I would just touch on a couple points.

the current space station can house max 10 or 15 people. it has costs years to make it and loads of money. i dont see how we can just build a space station for hundreds of people in a few year.

I already admitted that we aren't there yet. I'm also haven't been proposing this as something to occur in a few years, but as a long term solution. Anything we do to help fix the issue on world is going to be nothing but a patch on the problem.

robots are better in making this then humans. (as explained above)
humans can coordinate it from earth.

Since the goal is to get people to live off world we will eventually have to start getting pioneers to do just that. I think the sooner the better.

 

Posted May 6, '13 at 6:28am

partydevil

partydevil

5,091 posts

Since the goal is to get people to live off world we will eventually have to start getting pioneers to do just that. I think the sooner the better.

yes eventually humans will be send, but why is sooner better?

isn't it better to have already existing facilities for these humans where they let's say can take of their suite off for a change? or have already some food growing for when they arrive. have the place where they have to live already existing befor they come there.

if humans have to build it then it will take much more time and resources.
time because they are unable to work 24/7 (sleep, eat, relax)
resources because they have to eat, that doesn't grow there yet, so we have to send it over.
also the effect the suite is going to have over time. you wont be able to take it off for the 1st few year untill a biodome is made. thats going to drive some people crazy for sure.
a robot doesn't have/need this. and their work is much more precise.

 
Reply to What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

You must be logged in to post a reply!