sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) (02/26/91)
Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what the hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) Toodle pip. Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.
ethan@ut-emx.uucp (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (02/26/91)
In article <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>, sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: > Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people > to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population > problem, excellent plan guys. A little thought will convince you that this is not just tangential, but irrelevant. No physically conceivable amount of terraforming will allow for continued exponential population growth, even if interplanetary travel were to become essentially free (which also involves imaginary physics). -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
JEWELLLW@PURCCVM.BITNET (02/27/91)
Right! Let's stop everything else and think about procreation! (*I* think that 's so important that everything else can be suspended. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) Seriously, if we have all our eggs in one basket (literally) someone should be thinking about getting another basket! L.W.Jewell <Flames by e-mail, I need the fuel!> JEWELLLW@PURCCVM
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/27/91)
In article <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: >Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people >to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population >problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all >green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, >our propensity to overpopulate.... You seem to think that terraforming has someting to do with overpopulation. This is a curious assumption. We will never be able to export population in sufficient numbers to avoid having to deal with overpopulation here, regardless of whether there are attractive places to go. Too few people are willing to go and it is too expensive to transport the ones who are. The point of terraforming is diversity, and lifeboats, not replacement. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) (02/28/91)
In article <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: >Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people >to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population >problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all >green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, >our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what the >hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) I suppose that besides the sense of exploration (at least before it's settled!) and challange of engineering is the question of what we are doing as a species. Do we want to survive in the long run? If so we should seed some other planets or space itself by colonies so that major events on earth like ice ages and asteroid impacts don't destroy us completely. This raises some other long-range questions we have not really addressed. How long do we want our species to survive? Forever you say? Well, then we'd best be moving very quickly to get off planet! The dinosaurs were around several hundred million years (someone can correct me on that number if needed!); do we want to last that long? Do we want to be sufficiently advanced so that we can create slow moving star ships to get to the nearer stars so that when our sun blows we won't fry? >Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain. Tom Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Mathematical Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms@ncifcrf.gov
knox@taiga.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert Knox) (02/28/91)
In article <2078@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>, toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes: |> I suppose that besides the sense of exploration (at least before it's settled!) |> and challange of engineering is the question of what we are doing as a |> species. Do we want to survive in the long run? If so we should seed some |> other planets or space itself by colonies so that major events on earth like |> ice ages and asteroid impacts don't destroy us completely. |> |> This raises some other long-range questions we have not really addressed. How |> long do we want our species to survive? Forever you say? Well, then we'd best |> be moving very quickly to get off planet! The dinosaurs were around several |> hundred million years (someone can correct me on that number if needed!); do we |> want to last that long? |> |> Do we want to be sufficiently advanced so that we can create slow moving star ships |> to get to the nearer stars so that when our sun blows we won't fry? |> These days I find this perspective increasingly weird. Mammal species typically "only" last a few million years before being succeeded by more or less distantly related species. If we are capable of comprehending the notion that the sun might blow in several billion years and worrying about it, why can't literate human beings develop a broader notion of the "we" that ought to be saved? One should be concerned not only about direct descendant species, but at least those that will be derived from relatives which could exceed our intellectual and technological abilities some time in them future. Instead, human beings are rapidly killing off our relatives among the primates--insuring that any successor will be more distantly related than that should we happen to destroy our own lineage. Doesn't it now seem more plausible that we'd be surpassed by machine intelligences than descendants of sister primates? What kinship do you feel for an entity that shares only your intellectual/cultural heritage and none of your metabolism? More fundamently, doesn't the biosphere that produced us deserve to keep a range of chances around rather than starting with the assortment of prokaryotes, rodents, weedy plants, fungi, and invertebrates that will undoubtedly survive our worst efforts? The dream of off-planet survival of the species ought to be extended to engineering and seeding other suitable planets with our mother biosphere --not so much for human habitation or to solve the problems we can see today but to keep alive and spread the marvelous evolutionary accident that produced us. --Bob ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - Robert G. Knox, Research Scientist - Biospheric Sciences Branch, Mail Code 923.0 - NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 - knox@taiga.gsfc.nasa.gov | BITNET: knox@ricevm1
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (02/28/91)
In article <91057.110759JEWELLLW@PURCCVM.BITNET> JEWELLLW@PURCCVM.BITNET writes: >Right! Let's stop everything else and think about procreation! (*I* think that >'s so important that everything else can be suspended. Nudge, nudge, wink, >wink.) Before winking too much, think about the fact that since the advent of birth control, sex != procreation. In long-term thinking such as we're discussing here, this has serious consequences. For example: * Barring large, regular, and indefinitely lasting immigration from Earth, a terraformed Venus would never be populated to the limit of the created ecological niche. * Space settlements in general will die out without such waves of immigration indefinitely into the future. * Eventually, human population growth on earth could slow, reverse, and approach extinction. This is based on extrapolation of growth rates among those populations with full access to birth control (generally the more wealthy and well-educated). They have followed the pattern of decellerating, and recently have crossed into the negative range. This can be seen by charting the birth rates in certain population subsets with greater access to birth control (such as college-educated women) or developed countries as a whole (most of which now have below-replacement birth rates). Despite the low birth rate, nearly 50% of all births in developed countries are still unplanned. It seems, then, that the equilibrium birth rate given reliable birth control could be less than 1 child per couple, or a population drop of over 50% per generation. As birth control becomes more reliable and widely available, this trend will spread until it becomes the dominant influence on the general population, and human population growth reaches the equilibrium level. It seems that there is little biological "parenting instinct" to motivate conception independent of sexual desire and keep this trend from reaching its ultimate conclusion. Of course, new cultural forms could evolve that successfully motivate population growth despite the existence of reliable birth control, but such a cultural form has yet to be demonstrated. France in particular has tried to encourage more births for "cultural survival" with little success. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH
toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb27.182703@taiga.gsfc.nasa.gov> knox@taiga.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert Knox) writes:
(long discussion about preserving the life of the planet)
Sure! Your expansion of what we should preserve is better than what I presented.
Tom Schneider
National Cancer Institute
Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
toms@ncifcrf.govszabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/01/91)
In article <7107@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >This assumes that reproductive policies will be the same in space >settlements as on our overcrowded planet. I can see no reason why >this should be so. I demonstrated that negative population growth is the natural equilibrium state of humans with reliable birth control. This is borne out by statistics from groups with the greatest access to reliable birth control -- developed countries in general and college-educated women in particular -- regarding the frequency of births, planned and unplanned. Members of these groups are operating under personal/social choice, not any "policy" or law. They do not suffer from any lack of resources; in fact they represent the wealthier members of the wealthiest societies in history. I see no reason why the natural equilibrium would be different on a space colony. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/02/91)
In article <21260@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
-Before winking too much, think about the fact that since the advent of
-birth control, sex != procreation. In long-term thinking such as we're
-discussing here, this has serious consequences. For example:
-
-* Barring large, regular, and indefinitely lasting immigration
- from Earth, a terraformed Venus would never be populated to the limit
- of the created ecological niche.
-
-* Space settlements in general will die out without such waves
- of immigration indefinitely into the future.
-
-* Eventually, human population growth on earth could slow, reverse,
- and approach extinction.
...
-It seems that there is little biological "parenting instinct" to
-motivate conception independent of sexual desire and keep this trend
-from reaching its ultimate conclusion.
Still, there are people who, while intelligent and educated, choose to
have large families. To the extent that this personality is inherited,
one might expect the population drop to slow, and then pick up again,
as those who don't want children get better at not having them, and
remove themselves from the gene pool. (Think of it as evolution in
action...)
The question, of course, is whether there is anything inheritable about
the desire to procreate, as distinct from sexual desire.
--
Mike Van Pelt When guns are outlawed,
Headland Technology/Video 7 only Carl Rowan will have guns.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvpbmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (03/04/91)
sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: > Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people > to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the populatio > problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all > green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issu > our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what t > hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo humanity for all purposes. and that is just to convert the atmosphere! There will still be an immense effor in setting up a self sustaing ecology. for such a cost we could create billions of O'Neill colonies a lot faster.
sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) (03/04/91)
In article <2078@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes: > >I suppose that besides the sense of exploration (at least before it's settled!) >and challange of engineering is the question of what we are doing as a >species. Do we want to survive in the long run? If so we should seed some >other planets or space itself by colonies so that major events on earth like >ice ages and asteroid impacts don't destroy us completely. We made it this far without terraforming Venus. Ice ages would not affect us too much as a species, may reduce the numbers with any luck, asteroid impacts are pretty uncommon, nope, poor argument. > >This raises some other long-range questions we have not really addressed. How >long do we want our species to survive? Forever you say? Well, then we'd best >be moving very quickly to get off planet! The dinosaurs were around several >hundred million years (someone can correct me on that number if needed!); do we >want to last that long? The dinosaurs were a group of species, individual species lasted much less time on the whole. Homo sapiens have been around about 2 million years, a mear fraction of time. Nope, I'm not worried. Besides, I would like to see a bit more evolution from our present state. > >Do we want to be sufficiently advanced so that we can create slow moving star ships >to get to the nearer stars so that when our sun blows we won't fry? Maybe I am wrong but I was under the impression that the sun was good for another 5000 million years yet, still not worried. > Tom Schneider > National Cancer Institute > Laboratory of Mathematical Biology > Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 > toms@ncifcrf.gov The point of my earlier post is to say that OK it may be possible to terraform another planet, but do we really want to. Why stick to one solar system, lets get out there and have a look. Anyway, we may end up having to terraform the Earth at this rate!!! Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.
rjg2@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Gibson) (03/04/91)
I would like to put my 2 pence worth. I totally agree with the
"why bother?" statment. It would seem to me that an increase in
education and general availability of contraception would be a much
better way to spend the money you are advocating, rather than
improving the reliability as was previosly suggested by somebody on
the net. Ok 50% pregnances are unplanned but I think you will find
most are also unprevented. So having good contraception is no use
unless people use it!!!. If you decide to try to "terraform" a planet
why stay in this solar sytem, why not send out people to others
as has been sugested? Ok you say how? Not FTL anyway, say self sufficient
and a journey many generations long?
Still I say that making the most of this planet would be a
good idea. A concerted effort to lower the birth rate including
getting certain religous organisations to admit that contraception is
not a sin and that our purpose in life is not to "go forth and
multiply". Of course we could try to genetically engeneer people to live
methane atmospheres if we want to waste money and resources. Just stop
them breeding like flies I say.
Roderick
Dept Biology
university of Kent
Canterbury
England
rjg2@ukc.ac.uksarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/05/91)
In article <PH49X2w163w@bluemoon.uucp> bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) writes: >Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for >humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the >most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, >or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo >humanity for all purposes. ... Ah, but the *easy* planet to terraform is *Venus*. It's atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, which makes it both very hot, and very dense. Now, plants convert carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight into complex hydrocarbons and oxygen. The hydrocarbons, being solid, are removed from the atmosphere. This results in a cooler, less dense atmosphere. Also, the hydrocarbons could act as a humic base for real soil!. Thus to terraform Venus just add a few tons of aerosol phytoplankton and wait a good while. It will become inhabitable with no furhter help. [Note the phytoplankton must be cabable of living floating in air, and with little wate, but that is easily accomplished] -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) (03/06/91)
In article <PH49X2w163w@bluemoon.uucp> bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) writes: > >Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for >humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the >most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts, >or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo >humanity for all purposes. and that is just to convert the atmosphere! > Well, nice big numbers, but meaningless. Watts are units of power, not of energy. For instance, the Sun puts out a continous power of 4.24x10^26 Watts. >There will still be an immense effor in setting up a self sustaing >ecology. for such a cost we could create billions of O'Neill colonies a >lot faster. > Well, I believe that terraforming would be performed with life forms doing much of the work. Earth was terraformed from a methane/ammonia mess without the use of huge artificial power systems, it just took a little while. Humans don't have the capacity now to generate even one tenth of one percent of the power which the Sun pours down onto us, so comparing energy costs with human power consumption or generating ability is pretty pointless. At the moment, humans are a small perturbation (in terms of energy) on the machinery of the Earth. According to some articles I was reading a few months ago, if the surface of Venus were scarred, and liquid water made to collect on the surface (two very big 'if's, but indulge me), a significant fraction of the atmosphere would be absorbed into the exposed rocks. The water catalyzes the reaction so that it occurs on the scale of centuries instead of eons. As has already been pointed out, terraforming will not be used to alleviate overpopulation problems on Earth. That doesn't mean it's pointless, though I don't imagine that people will really want to make a liveable gravity well out of it. Why go all the way out of this gravity well just to leap down the next one? Mars might stand a better chance than Venus of being terraformed, as it's a much more likely place for colonization, and once there, some people might want to give their surroundings some variety. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Note: new host. neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | helios will still cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | forward my mail to "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | me on aurora.
rjg2@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Gibson) (03/07/91)
test
jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) (03/07/91)
I can think of some valid reasons to terraform a currently lifeless planet like Mars or Venus. They pretty much presuppose a wealthy society with resources and time to burn. 'Theological': There are a lot of folks who feel life has intrinsic value. If Venus or Mars (Or whatever world you care to insert) have no life, then perhaps they would feel an obligation to introduce lifeforms that could survive there. Societies have invested large amounts of labour into projects which to outsiders seem non-productive; Egyptian pyramids and European cathedrals, for example. I don't think it is out of the question that someone in a few centuries might decide to devote several trillion dollars worth of effort to spreading life throughout the accessable universe, particularly if life seems to be very rare at that time. Judging by the fuss environmentalists make over changing esisting ecosystems, I would guess that one successful attempt to introduce life would poison the well for later ones. 'Condos': Hey, habitats wear out in a few centuries. Earth has persisted for *5 billion years*. Talk about consistant resale value. No, this doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither do condos, and they sell well. Wealthy societies can afford silly luxuries. 'Art': Think of terraforming as a very large example of performance art. James Nicoll
sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (S. J. Okay) (03/09/91)
In article <6956@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) writes: >Nice idea this terraforming, why can't we make lots of new worlds for people >to live on, then we don't have to worry about contraception, or the population >problem, excellent plan guys. We make a mega mess of this world, get all >green and caring but still we don't consider the one all important green issue, >our propensity to overpopulate. OK, so it's a tangential argument but what the >hell, I'm a tangential sort of chap :-) As I've pointed out to several others on this newsgroup, the one thing most people fail to consider is time. We will either have solved or hopelessly failed to solve our problems in this area by the time we have gotten deep enough into space to actually have to worry about this. If we can keep the planet livable to all life that currently inhabits it, then we will obviously have found the solution, and will know well enough to carry our wisdom with us as we expand in a controlled fashion through space. If not, then it will most likely be due to the fact that we have screwed our current world up so much, that we can only concern ourselves with eeking out what meager existance we can scrape from the remains of our planet. In this case, we won't even have to worry about whether or not we deserve to expand, we'll be too busy choking to death in our own decay. One way or another, we'll have the answer by the time we actually have to worry about it. ---Steve >Toodle pip. > >Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar8.185043.21138@linus.mitre.org>, sokay@cyclone.mitre.org (S. J. Okay) writes: ...................... > As I've pointed out to several others on this newsgroup, the one thing most > people fail to consider is time. We will either have solved or hopelessly > failed to solve our problems in this area by the time we have gotten deep > enough into space to actually have to worry about this. If we can keep > the planet livable to all life that currently inhabits it, then we will > obviously have found the solution, and will know well enough to carry our > wisdom with us as we expand in a controlled fashion through space. > > If not, then it will most likely be due to the fact that we have screwed our > current world up so much, that we can only concern ourselves with eeking out > what meager existance we can scrape from the remains of our planet. In this > case, we won't even have to worry about whether or not we deserve to expand, > we'll be too busy choking to death in our own decay. > > One way or another, we'll have the answer by the time we actually have to > worry about it. But there are other alternatives. We can expand before we have the supposed utopian solution, and not require humanity to achieve what I frankly hope is never done. If the resources are there, and we will never know except by finding out out there, I see no reason why most of humanity could not live elsewhere in the solar system in the reasonably near future. We need to get into space now, before we either decay to badly or become too totalitarian to allow the nonconformists to dare. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/11/91)
In article <7573@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >But there are other alternatives. We can expand before we have the supposed >utopian solution, and not require humanity to achieve what I frankly hope is >never done. As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of money and women's health. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH
arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arandia) (03/12/91)
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because >the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control >is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except >that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of >money and women's health. Why? In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only 2 or less children? Why not expand? It's obvious that the earth's resources are limited. We can't keep 5 billion here forever. I hope between now and forever, we'll have migrated into space. What's this with conservation? Expand! Explore! Exploit! Come on! The only way to go now is to go up! The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? Joel D. Arandia arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/12/91)
In article <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arand ia) writes: >szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because >>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control >>is c. -50% per generation. ... > > Why? In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only >2 or less children? I didn't say we _shouldn't_ expand off-planet, I said we _won't_. The -50% figure is based on current statistics of those populations with the most reliable birth control -- breakeven to slightly negative birth rate, and c. 50% of pregnancies unplanned. In general these populations are also the wealthiest, and have _less_ resource pressure and social pressure regarding overpopulation, than comparable populations with less reliable birth control. The equilibrium birthrate of -50%/generation is based on personal choice, where it can be made distinct of intercourse. It is not based on laws or overpopulation pressures. A space colony will almost surely be a technically skilled population with reliable birth control. It cannot survive without continual immigration, nor can humans survive on earth with the equilibrium growth rate over the long term. BTW, there have been posted or e-mailed to me several schemes for changing the birthrate. Most of them missed the point entirely, with the end effect being "discouraging birth among the poor" or something similarly irrelevant or contradictory to increasing the equilibrium growth rate. This reflects our current cultural attitudes regarding population growth. The most depressing thing was that they were all made up by men, and totally ignored the needs and desires of the people who actually give birth (and control much of the choice), women. If there exists a general solution to changing the equilibrium birthrate, it will address the needs and desires of women, not to mention probably being created and implemented by women. This isn't meant to be sexist, just recognition that culture and biology place much of the choice and burden of childbirth and rearing, and thus population growth, on women. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (03/13/91)
In article <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arandia) writes: > > Why? In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only >2 or less children? Why not expand? It's obvious that the earth's resources >are limited. We can't keep 5 billion here forever. I hope between now and >forever, we'll have migrated into space. What's this with conservation? >Expand! Explore! Exploit! Come on! The only way to go now is to go up! >The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? > The whole history of the human race has changed drastically since the advent of reliable and (reasonably safe) birth control. Where this is freely available, many populations are actually growing at LESS than the 2 child/couple rate. As lifespans increase, career opportunities expand, I can see nothing that would reverse this growing trend to fewer offspring. Some governments are already worried about birth rates less than replacement rates..and the spectre of shrinking population. Hopefully human expansion will begin soon enough that the growing "safety over everything" mentality will not have time to prohibit such "dangerous" activities.
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (03/13/91)
In article <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arandia) writes: > szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because >>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control >>is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except >>that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of >>money and women's health. > > Why? In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only > 2 or less children? Why not expand? It's obvious that the earth's resources > are limited. We can't keep 5 billion here forever. I hope between now and > forever, we'll have migrated into space. What's this with conservation? > Expand! Explore! Exploit! Come on! The only way to go now is to go up! > The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? > > Joel D. Arandia > arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu Because at the rate we are increasing we will reach 10 billion in the very near future. As it is, we are seriously straining the environment with FIVE billion. The rain forest (the lungs of the world) is rapidly disappearing, the pollution in our cities is reaching crisis level and people are starving in many of the third world countries... Migration to space is too far in the future and too limited to do any good.
jbj@frc.frc.maf.govt.nz (Brian Jones) (03/14/91)
In article <148007@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes: <stuff deleted> > The whole history of the human race has changed drastically > since the advent of reliable and (reasonably safe) birth > control. Where this is freely available, many populations > are actually growing at LESS than the 2 child/couple rate. > > As lifespans increase, career opportunities expand, I can see > nothing that would reverse this growing trend to fewer > offspring. <stuff deleted> The problem is that the rest of the world does not stop at the borders of the United States, and the availability of contraception does not limit the size of families. The seeds of a population explosion are with us now, in the children we already have. Something like 1/3 of the population of Africa is under the age of 15, the population of the middle east will double in about 50 years. (I don't have the exact figures with me). The second point - the size of the family is governed by economics, not medicine. If you cannot save $$ for your old age, and the govt. will not help, then you need lots of kids. Also, a TV or other recreation at night helps too..even Americans fall for that one. I'm all for exploration and terraforming. It makes a better goal than building a military machine and then repressing somebody - which seems to be the popular alternative. Brian Jones ************************************************ Bomb them, burn them, shoot them, let them starve, let them get sick but don't gas them - Americans don't like it.
blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (thaddeus k blayda) (03/14/91)
In article <21320@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <7573@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because >the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control The human race's population growth decrease amongst the wealthy is due directly to the fact that they realize the implications of limited resources...New planets, new resources, horny women and boom! :-) -- ************************************************************************ Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda.acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar13.091441.2840@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes: > In article <64568@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, arandia@acsu.buffalo.edu (joel d arandia) writes: > > szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > > > >>As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_ expand, because > >>the natural equilibrium population growth rate with reliable birth control > >>is c. -50% per generation. This is regardless of any technology except > >>that related to radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of > >>money and women's health. For one thing, we recently have acquired such technology, and are in the process of acquiring more. For another, we can adopt taxation policies to accomplish this; presumably a pioneering space colony would do so. > > Why? In the future, why would people only be allowed to have only > > 2 or less children? Why not expand? It's obvious that the earth's resources > > are limited. We can't keep 5 billion here forever. I hope between now and > > forever, we'll have migrated into space. What's this with conservation? > > Expand! Explore! Exploit! Come on! The only way to go now is to go up! > > The whole history of the human race is about expansion. Why stop now? Not only is this the history, this is essential humanity. > Because at the rate we are increasing we will reach 10 billion in the very near > future. As it is, we are seriously straining the environment with FIVE > billion. The rain forest (the lungs of the world) is rapidly disappearing, the > pollution in our cities is reaching crisis level and people are starving in > many of the third world countries... > Migration to space is too far in the future and too limited to do any good. About mass migration to space, I agree. The population problem on earth will not be even ameliorated by this. Unless there is something very drastic, at least as bad as a major plague or a nuclear war, I see little hope for mankind restricted to earth having any freedom whatever. Nor can I see it doing anything other than stagnating. I believe that mankind has a real future only if it is disunited, except possibly if it encounters a direct enemy. In unity there may be strength, but not always; the disunited Greeks defeated the united Persians, and quite possibly it was disunity and strife which brought them to that position. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (03/15/91)
In article <65085@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (thaddeus k blayda) writes: > The human race's population growth decrease amongst the wealthy is >due directly to the fact that they realize the implications of limited >resources... I think a greater factor is that poor people want lots of children to help take care of them in their old age. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA ) ( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arf@gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling) (03/15/91)
Article 4108 (12 more) in sci.bio: From: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (SAME) Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shie ARf says: You can write off technology but you can't ignore politics religion or human nature. A significant portion of the population of the planet finds "reliable birth control" to be immoral, illegal, un-macho, unavailable or unknown. Come down from your cloud. The earth is doomed as long as people ignore the obvious. arf
arf@gagme.chi.il.us (jack schmidling) (03/15/91)
Article 4108 (12 more) in sci.bio:
From: szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
(SAME) Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun
shield)
>As I pointed out previously, the human race will _not_
expand, because the natural equilibrium population growth
rate with reliable birth control is c. -50% per generation.
This is regardless of any technology except that related to
radically reducing the costs of having children in terms of
money and women's health.
ARf says:
You can write off technology but you can't ignore politics
religion or human nature.
A significant portion of the population of the planet finds
"reliable birth control" to be immoral, illegal, un-macho,
unavailable or unknown.
Come down from your cloud. The earth is doomed as long as
people ignore the obvious.
arf
rjg2@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Gibson) (03/18/91)
I think that this is correct, see keywords, that the population must be brought down by effort not by terreforming anything. however we could have a world wide referendum and sterilise the most unpopular nation (ie America then england then france). Keep this up until the population is the size required. just a thoght. Roderick
szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (03/19/91)
In article <65085@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (thaddeus k blayda) writes: > > The human race's population growth decrease amongst the wealthy is >due directly to the fact that they realize the implications of limited >resources.. Let me get this straight -- the _wealthy_ feel the lack of resources? BTW, what is the "lack" of which you speak? Food, for example, is plentiful: the food/population ratio on our planet is higher now than at any time in human history (by nearly a factor of two). Is it so hard to believe that birth control does, in fact, prevent births? >...New planets, new resources, horny women and boom! :-) Wrong. Totally, naively, wrong. Sadly, it looks like our technology is racing far ahead of our paradigms. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with.