So the world's in a tough spot, but one of the most intriguing points of interest in the modern world is overpopulation. The Earth can only support so many of us, and until a truly ever-reliable renewable fuel is discovered, there's only so much petroleum under the crust.
So how do we solve this?
Another holocaust? No... the first one ended badly... Limit birth-rights? No... there will always be crazy partying teenagers...
The only slightly feasible solution to overpopulation, and the ticking timebomb that we orbit around, is to have Homo Sapiens Sapiens become an extra-terrestrial species; we must leave earth for new grounds in SPACE.
I know, it sounds too much like a science fiction movie, but think about how the world worked in 1900. Seeing images on a screen? Being able to communicate with someone halfway across the globe? Being able to clone? Being able to FLY? It was science fiction to them, but it eventually became reality.
Anyway, share your thoughts! Do you agree that we need to someday leave Earth to save our species from the sun/overpopulation/resource exhaustion? (btw, i remember reading somewhere that the sun just passed its half-way mark in life... i could be wrong, but its just something to keep in mind)
Or do you think I'm just a raving lunatic, that Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist has finally lost it?
Or just share your own opinions on how over-population/the sun/resource exhaustion can be solved.
Of course we should take advantages of the free space we will have once we will be able to settle down on the moon, and eventually on other planets.
We would likely have an easier time with a completely artificial habitat as a primary platform to live in such as a space station rather than trying to settle on a planet.
If we wouldn't have those morals, we would dispose of the old, the infirm etc, and we would be better off.
Even the old and infirm can contribute in a positive way. For example my girlfriends grandfather has helped numerous times with money situations. He is elderly and infirm, requiring our assistance.
as i said before, it would be nice to live in space but reproducing in space could creat some "defective" children. mice that are born in space have no sense of up or down since in space there is no gravity, as for other planets being colonized, i think of it very negativly. From the beginning of the time we tryed to reshape nature to our own comfort, that means destroying life that is occupying the area in question, and enslaving all form of intellegence to think like we do. in conclusion i must agree with HahiHa, before moving from our planet, we should fix our "mental" problems, and make sure we do not export our way of living elsewhere, if not what's the point of moving to a new location, it will get contaminated once again, and we will have to move again till there is no more space in the universe. why build on a corrupt foundation?
We would likely have an easier time with a completely artificial habitat as a primary platform to live in such as a space station rather than trying to settle on a planet.
Something like an orbital space station, or even floating freely in space? Why exactly do you think this would be easier? Granted, if we want to colonize far away planets, we would direly need such mobile space stations because we couldn't reach certain planets in only one human generation.
before moving from our planet, we should fix our "mental" problems, and make sure we do not export our way of living elsewhere, if not what's the point of moving to a new location, it will get contaminated once again, and we will have to move again till there is no more space in the universe.
I agree one-thousand percent! A species cannot evolve into different eras of technology, stone, bronze, iron, feudal, industrial, nuclear, pre-galactic, and galactic, without evolving the mindset of the time.
An excellent example is a what-if, What if we gave 1700 Europe our technology, all the nukes and space equipment included. What would happen? Their imperialistic behavior would bring about the destruction of their own species, just because, yes, they are stupid. Not stupid to be mean, but they haven't matured enough as a species to be able to understand the eventual consequences of their actions, or their morals would be skewed enough that they realize that the results are what they want, i.e. immense casualties and unprecedented destruction at the time. Not to mention, the killing power of the assault rifles added with the battlefield strategies and the consistent wars would just add to the body count, not to mention disease with all the corpses. You saw how Europe handed the black plague with all the corpses.
So yes, nowadays, we shouldn't be bee-lining towards mass space colonization, but it is something that we must eventually accept into our way of existence if we are to succeed as a species.
as i said before, it would be nice to live in space but reproducing in space could creat some "defective" children. mice that are born in space have no sense of up or down since in space there is no gravity, as for other planets being colonized, i think of it very negativly.
Easy enough fix, we use centrifugal force to generate artificial gravity. Not only is gravity useful in reproducing "non-defective" children, but it's needed for humans to produce children at all.
Something like an orbital space station, or even floating freely in space? Why exactly do you think this would be easier? Granted, if we want to colonize far away planets, we would direly need such mobile space stations because we couldn't reach certain planets in only one human generation.
Yes perhaps even something that can switch between orbital and free floating. I think it's easier because with or without a planet we will likely need to create an artificial environment for ourselves. On a space habitat we can have full control over that environment.
A planet we have to face issues such as whether the planet can support the atmosphere we need to exist in. For example, Mars needs extensive work with green house gasses to create a warm enough environment to support oxygen generating planets and a magnetosphere to hold those gasses in. Whether the atmospheric pressure would be suitable for our life, too little and we explode from the inside out, too much and we get crushed. Also on a planet we have to face a slew of environmental disasters and it still leaves us inevitably tied to the fate of the sun that planet orbits.
Easy enough fix, we use centrifugal force to generate artificial gravity. Not only is gravity useful in reproducing "non-defective" children, but it's needed for humans to produce children at all.
yep it's not a very difficult fix by it self, but if you read the op you can notice that ChillzMaster mention a resource shortage, to be precise fuel. To be able to creat a space station that can be home for, lets say 100 people, you need huge amounts of fuel just to get the construction parts to space and some for people that will be living there. to continue on the topic of how to get there we need to improve our space transport techs, for example to launch objects to space we could use rail guns technology (an awesome discovery,google it) it would not rely directly on petrolium or it's derivates. as for people being transported researches must be made. i will get a little of topic. our present ecomic schemes and politic ideas (capitalism and bureaucracy) will get in the way of making space "migration" almost impossible. in order to make it possible we need a society that ressembles communism, to be more precise almost ant's like society, in which individualism would not be welcomed. to be more clear i mean, a society in which the govr has the resources and is distributing them efficiantly amongst the needed service, without oppresing indivual rights to private possesions. not to mention that earth would have to be a single country to make this prosses more efficiant and quick.
So yes, nowadays, we shouldn't be bee-lining towards mass space colonization, but it is something that we must eventually accept into our way of existence if we are to succeed as a species.
Well, we could survive as a species even without leaving earth. Our population is growing fast, and at some point either it leads to our own extinction, or the population stabilizes in some way. Depends on how our society evolves (yes, the difference betwen 1700 and now is the society and culture, not the genes).
A planet we have to face issues such as whether the planet can support the atmosphere we need to exist in. For example, Mars needs extensive work with green house gasses to create a warm enough environment to support oxygen generating planets and a magnetosphere to hold those gasses in. Whether the atmospheric pressure would be suitable for our life, too little and we explode from the inside out, too much and we get crushed. Also on a planet we have to face a slew of environmental disasters and it still leaves us inevitably tied to the fate of the sun that planet orbits.
I rather thought of a stationary space base on the surface of the planet when thinking about colonizing planets; surely terra- and ecomorphing a whole planet is too hard compared to "simply" build a space station. But I see your point better now, also because even stationary bases are subject to the planets quirks.
do i wish that humanity could begin to colonize the stars? yes. but several obstacles must be overcome first. The biggest problem is finding planets. I say planets because it would most like be much easier to use multiple planets close to earth in size and conditions. Then, you have to put a crew there first to see if humans can survive there for extended periods. finally, it's a really good idea to make sure that there are no life-forms that have close to or do have human-level intelligence. if they do, then you have to probably get their permission
Before easy space travel is invented, we could go underground... Only the rich would get on the surface, so we could buy as much land as possible, then sell it for $1 million per acre
Space colonization is possible though would require a massive investment that I doubt many are willing to invest at this point in time. People just don't want to spend money on the future and due to that we have stagnated in space exploration. Kind of funny that companies don't want to get into space due to the massive amount of resources easily available and the extra living space but that's the way things are.
For colonization I prefer the O'Neil Cylinder, it rotates to create its own gravity eliminating several problems. We should look into technology such as space elevators and begin constructing spacecraft in space to reduce fuel costs. Mining operations begining on the Moon could provide the resources and from there the seeds of space colonization are planted. What we really need to do is develop a popular interest in space exploration and expansion into space. If we do the technology will arrive faster, if we don't maybe not at all. It all depends on what the people want and if the people don't want it we won't get it.
Maybe we could in the future. What I'd like to see before that is adequate resource mining and transport. II mean, it's not like we have the time/fuel to give Mars a new atmosphere by burning carbon in it. It would be cool to suck out all of the fresh water in those ice-caps, though. We'd have loads of iron and who knows what else? I mean, that just seems like a better idea for me. There's still a bit of land left, I'd say if everyone got their own house and resources were cheap life would be a bit better.
As for getting out of the Earth, I'm not sure if just one country would be able to dedicate the time and effort to make a floating space station that could actually help reduce the crowdedness on Earth or solve an overpopulation crisis.
What I think could happen -- Lots of us get resources that are cheap and all, and with things like cheap, available water, iron, etc etc. -- we could subsidize other resources, the world could modernize everywhere, and, as population trends tend to go, the world modernizes, most family sizes are 4 or smaller, and the world's population stabilizes. Yay.
I wouldn't mind us floating around on mars, I just feel it's highly unlikely to do so as a primary solution. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for it, but we shouldn't go for it to solve overpopulation issues.
