Why We Must Flee the Planet: The Geometry of Earth is All Wrong

By Seth Shostak
SETI Institute
posted: 29 June 2006
12:07 am ET

quote:

---

For example, let's ignore for a moment the environmental problems, the nukes and the pandemics, and consider population growth alone. The current doubling time for the number of humanoids is 50 years (that's a growth rate of 1.4 percent per year). In other words, even if we began colonizing the Red Planet this week, we'd have it littered with critters by mid-century. This is only marginally helpful. Taking Malthus to the max, if we naively assume that the present doubling rate will continue well into the future, the mass of ever-reproducing humans will reach the moon in the year 4810 a.d. That's not individual astronauts—it's the expanding glob of protoplasm. (As a stupefying aside, this ball of beings would reach the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, relatively shortly thereafter: by 8825 a.d.)

Such fanciful extrapolations are unrealistic, but so is the opposite extreme: to assume that, after 300 thousand years of increase, the number of humans will stabilize and stagnate, not just for a while, but forever. More room is surely needed, unless you can picture our progeny endlessly stuck on a single planet, fighting for space and hustling for the dwindling natural resources. That scenario seems so fanciful, so airy-fairy, we have no choice but to heed the siren call of other solar system habitats. However, even the best of these (Mars) will be difficult to terraform, and offers only a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

---

ETA: Even if humans could somehow migrate to another solar system (the closest star is about 23 trillion miles away and the closets habitable planet might be 1,000 trillion or 1 million trillion miles away), are we going to try and bring our entire ecosystem (elephants, millions of species of bacterium, millions of plant species, etc., etc., etc.) with us to that planet, like a futuristic Noah's Ark? I doubt it.

[ 03 July 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
If your conception of ethics is what the universe notices, then why bother debating ethics and policy at all?

---

Grandiose projects filled with ambition, ingenuity and brilliance are good for the soul, not just when they are completed but due to the process. When the first colonists arrived in the 16th century, people didn't ask the european monarchs why they were financing something which wouldn't pay off until 1776. And if they had, they would have been fools as it paid off much earlier.

The long-term goal mentioned in the above link may be one which our generation would certainly never benefit from, but it is one from whose process we would likely benefit from. Our standard of lving, rights and freedoms can in many cases be specifically linked to technological advances: the railroad, mass transportation, contraceptives; and some of these are specifically due to the space program: telecommunication networks, food preservatives, aluminum alloys. When you inspire the world's greatest minds to work on something inspiring, you get more benefit than if you focus on giving everybody a soma pill.

But I would agree that from the universe perspective, there is no value at all in seeking the long-term survival and enrichment of the human race. One should note that from that ethical perspective there is also no value in environmentalism. What is purpose of looking out for the interests of humans that might be born "five hundred" years from now?

[ 03 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Fortunately, there's yet another approach for securing easy elbowroom: building artificial habitats in space. The idea of constructing mammoth, rotating aluminum cylinders in orbit (either around Earth, around the moon, or simply around the Sun) dates back to the 1970s, when Gerald O'Neill and Tom Heppenheimer wrote speculative books on how it might be done. It was their optimistic view that by the start of the 21st century, tens of millions of us would be spinning in space. That hasn't happened yet, but the concept still makes sense. O'Neill and Heppenheimer even worked out in some detail how the raw materials for construction could be catapulted off the moon and smelted and assembled in orbit.

---

This is so cool because it demonstrates two very excellent observations. Excellent being a subjective term.

The first represents a problem of scientists examining a problem from a very narrow perspective. The solution to the complex problem of overpopuation and all the inherent related problems, is "The idea of constructing mammoth, rotating aluminum cylinders in orbit" and, supposedly, building machines that will do all those things earth currently does for us. And from where all the respurces and materials required to maintain, grow, feed, and water all these orbiting humans come from? Earth? But it can't support us on earth?

The second observation is the role of this sort of entertainment in the manufacture of consent. I listened to a radio program where the guest and the interviewer discussed mapping ocean temperatures and his findings mirrored exactly what climate change forecasters say we are witnessing. But it can't be evidence of climate change. No, it is proof of the "end days" which will be precipitated by earth quakes all over the planet simutaneously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The first represents a problem of scientists examining a problem from a very narrow perspective. The solution to the complex problem of overpopuation and all the inherent related problems, is "The idea of constructing mammoth, rotating aluminum cylinders in orbit" and, supposedly, building machines that will do all those things earth currently does for us. And from where all the respurces and materials required to maintain, grow, feed, and water all these orbiting humans come from? Earth? But it can't support us on earth?

---

The doubling rate of humans on Earth is only so because of devloping nations. Most so called 'First world' nations have the reverse trend where we are reducing in population. Had the devloping nations caught up with the developed nations, could one assume that the birthrates would change as well? If development and birthrates are linked, is there a point in development where birthrates become 0? This article makes the assumption we will keep average birthrates in other colonies... Will these colonies (presumably developed) have our birthrates (declining numbers) or third world birthrates?

I've got more disputes with this... But tis hard to put into words without alot of background knowledge. Hawkings makes the fundamental assumption that intelligent life will ultimately expand... Which goes directly against the trend towrads fewer birthrates at more developed and educated levels.

[ 04 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

Frustrated Mess, did you read the article, quote:

quote:

---

Such fanciful extrapolations are unrealistic, but so is the opposite extreme: to assume that, after 300 thousand years of increase, the number of humans will stabilize and stagnate, not just for a while, but FOREVER

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
From the linked article:
And from where all the respurces and materials required to maintain, grow, feed, and water all these orbiting humans come from? Earth? But it can't support us on earth?

---

Well, there all all those millions of asteroids floating around, brimming with every kind of mineral we could ever want, not to mention billions of tons of water.. Far more than little old earth could provide, and much easier to access, if we already have the capacity to fly around the solar system. No gravity well to escape either. Don't be earth-centric in your assumptions about what to do when humans are not on earth.

The second observation is the role of this sort of entertainment in the manufacture of consent. I listened to a radio program where the guest and the interviewer discussed mapping ocean temperatures and his findings mirrored exactly what climate change forecasters say we are witnessing. But it can't be evidence of climate change. No, it is proof of the "end days" which will be precipitated by earth quakes all over the planet simutaneously.

Right. All discussion should be properly focused on 'FM approved' topics. Other ideas are likely more propaganda.

[/qb]The problem here is that we keep ourselves busy with the fantastc and the trivial while the real issue, the true danger -- the one we could actualy manage trough modifying our own behaviour, we bithely ignore.[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Do you really think it is not naive to think we can reduce our population forever?

---

No. Population can and must be controlled. The article takes a very short view of history. Human population has not increased to close to 6 billion after 300,000 years. It increased from about 2 billion to 6 billion in the last 50 years.

Fossil fuels and cheap energy has allowed us to increase the carrying capacity of the planet. I suggest the depletion of fossil fuels and the the impacts of climate change will reduce the carrying capacity of the planet.

quote:

---

No. Population can and must be controlled.

---

When I hear that I visualize forced abortions when a woman has had two kids already, no thank you.

Your arguments on carrying capacity reduce human beings to insects. Do you know a lot of people who didn't want to have kids? They're more and more common, and from my understanding they choose to not be bothered, and it rarely has anything to do with money.

[ 04 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Your arguments on carrying capacity reduce human beings to insects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
FM is making sense.

---

I agree. Let's focus on the real world and solvable problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
Any efforts at population control and environmental protection are probably too little, too late.

---

quote:

---

followed a gradual path before launching like a missile around 1950s.

---

Think it's coincidence that the globe exploded in population after the vast majority of Earth inhabitants started becoming anti-war? War = population control whether we like it or not.

I think it's quite funny that your graph includes times prior to 4000bc

Reducing human populations and thinking the earth as populated by ants is sadly what you do in any of these conversations Apples... It's hard to refer to 6 billion people and keep them in mind as individuals, when its barely within our capacity to understand how big 1 million is.

quote:

---

Do you know a lot of people who didn't want to have kids? They're more and more common, and from my understanding they choose to not be bothered, and it rarely has anything to do with money.

---

Now you are catching on to my post a bit Hawking is working on the key assumption that we care to expand... When the trends quite obviously point to the more developed populations don't have kids.

For less developed nations, War is and always will be the population control. Global interventions since 1950 have prohibited the number 1 population control device from occouring in these lands and theres a large part of the boom (heh, hows that for reducing a huge population of people down to little fighting insects?).

quote:

---

Think it's coincidence that the globe exploded in population after the vast majority of Earth inhabitants started becoming anti-war? War = population control whether we like it or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
arborman, who bit you on the ass? You can waste brain cells on whatever nonsense you find interesting. I don't really care. It is fantastical and trivial and it is a distraction from the real world. But if it turns you on, go for it. The world is pooched regardless of your involvement or lack thereof.

---

I agree with you that we have problems. I disagree with your assertion that they are insurmountable.

My reaction was based upon your assertion that all of 'this kind' of discussion - about possible colonization of space etc. - is a waste of time. You seem to think that all discussion not 100% focused on climate change and global injustice is somehow inappropriate.

I spend 40 hours a week working for social justice, and another dozen or so volunteering for environmental change. I donate a significant portion of my meager earnings to the same. Sometimes, outside that time, I put aside my pessimism and frustration and like to discuss ideas like space travel and the possibilities of human colonization of space. Other times I even watch a movie or read a book that doesn't involve social or environmental issues, as wasteful as that may seem to you.

However, every time that discussion comes up on rabble, it gets overwhelmed by people who repeat, endlessly, that any such discussion is WRONGWRONG WRONG and must be stopped, the better to focus our energies on appropriate topics. Humans doing anything like space travel is inherently WRONGWRONGWRONG, so everyone just shut up and move on back to the enviro or labour forums where we belong.

quote:

---

Are you serious? Have you read a newspaper?

---

Yes... Compare past and present. Simply because we are more aware and more information is available regarding the ones happening now doesn't mean there are more happening now.

quote:

---

Anyways, this forum is clearly not the place to discuss optimistic topics like space exploration.

---

Bleh, feel free to discuss it arbourman, a few of us still like it

Hehe, heres a thought... Do we really need to harvest water? Through our cycles in one way or another, we don't waste water. We intake it, we output it... But we never really permanently use it. One would think a fully self-sustaining water cycle could be made (as opposed to the need to harvest it) which involves plants and food as well.

That aside, water is really 2 hydrogen and an oxygen molecule. Hydrogen is simply a proton floating around and could theorectically be made from by seperating other atoms or collecting floating protons through space. Combine with oxygen (hydrolisis is seperating into the 2 gasses... I forget what merging the 2 gasses would be called) and you have your water. Not exactly technology that exists today mindyou, but hey... this is space colonization right?

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

Marzo, thank you for clarigying my point on mathematical tricks.

quote:

---

I can remember learning as a kid in 1970 that the human population of the Earth was 3 billion. It has doubled since then and growth continues to increase.

---

quote:

---

So, back to your regularly scheduled hostility to all discussion of 'brain candy' ideas that don't deal with immediate crises.

---

You know, I did not direct any hostility at you. But suit yourself.

quote:

---

Yes... Compare past and present. Simply because we are more aware and more information is available regarding the ones happening now doesn't mean there are more happening now.

---

I have seen wide ranging numbers, but the number seems to be around 200 million since the beginning of the last century. And that is war. Another 17 million people die every year from crime, poverty, hunger, preventable disease, etc ... That is as many as died during WWI every single year.

quote:

---

Has there ever been a period when population growth was truly stagnant? The evidence says no.

---

quote:

---

Why don't we compare then? The last century, which witnessed the greatest amount of human population growth, was probably the bloodiest century in human history.

---

In absolute numbers yes. But in relative numbers, it was in fact one of the most benign. There were few serious wars after 1945 and less murder within societies.

quote:

---

And that is war. Another 17 million people die every year from crime, poverty, hunger, preventable disease, etc ... That is as many as died during WWI every single year.

---

That's a miniscule number by historical standards, relatively speaking. Better social justice, life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates are possibly the biggest reason for the population boom of this century.

quote:

---

If you read Collapse by Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, and Steel), you will find there are societies that do manage their populations. We might find their methods cruel, but the alternative is the death of the society (all of them).

---

You can try to enforce a vision of human behavior which runs contrary to human nature by using guns and forced abortions. Great successes of forced social engineering include Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il and Stalin. Failure of forced social engineering is universal and dismal. Alternatively, you could use softer methods and seek to manage. With naturally declining birth rates there may be no need for stripping the most fundamental natural right from everybody (the right to reproduce), and doubling rates may decline to periods of every few hundred years.

One long-term issue, since we're on the topic, is longevity. It's not inconceivable over the next few hundred years that the secret to greatly extended longevity will be found. I'm not sure if women's reproductive periods would extend past the late 30s though. But even if it doesn't, if everybody suddenly lives to 300 years and everybody can have one child (or would you deny most people the right to have a single child?) then you see explosive growth for a few hundred years.

quote:

---

In absolute numbers yes. But in relative numbers, it was in fact one of the most benign. There were few serious wars after 1945 and less murder within societies.

---

Your kidding me right? Or are you suggesting that so long as the wars weren't fought with our blood they were more benign?

quote:

---

That's a miniscule number by historical standards, relatively speaking. Better social justice, life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates are possibly the biggest reason for the population boom of this century.

---

So you are all concerned about abortion and Mao and Stalin (but not Iraq or Vietnam) but 17 million lives are miniscule to you? Do you think they are miniscule to those that lived them and those that loved them?

quote:

---

You can try to enforce a vision of human behavior which runs contrary to human nature by using guns and forced abortions.

---

quote:

---

It's not inconceivable over the next few hundred years that the secret to greatly extended longevity will be found.

---

quote:

---

Has there ever been a period when population growth was truly stagnant? The evidence says no.

---

Naw, the Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian, Sumerian, Greek (arguably), Incan, and Roman all had serious period of sustained population loss (and more.. Aztecs for instance, but it's hard to tell because most data on them was destroyed and pillaged)... The recorded evidence we have today may say no, but only because our recorded evidence is so little.

quote:

---

Why don't we compare then? The last century, which witnessed the greatest amount of human population growth, was probably the bloodiest century in human history.

---

In total numbers yes... In percentage, hardly (especially post 1950). Compare the death ratios (population to those that died in a particular war). In Mongolia, during the reign of Kublai Khan, they tried to invade Japan. The invasion of Japan consisted of more ships and more men then the allied force that invaded the beaches of Normandy this century (Sadly, the ships used were river boats and close to 200k Mongoli soldiers lost their lives in a few days at sea). Means alot more if you consider the mongoli's population was only in the few millions during that time frame and a similar loss in todays terms would be... All the people of toronto and montreal gone with the rest of Canada left wondering where everyone went?

Old age is a demise that rarely occoured in the medival ages and most met their end in a battle or slaughter.

quote:

---

Better social justice, life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates are possibly the biggest reason for the population boom of this century.

---

The infant mortality rates and the life expantancy increase are only predomininet in societies that have a much smaller birth rate... And I'm pretty sure the better social justice is only applicable to those same societies as well. These may be semi-factors, but by no means could be the full reason.

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Your kidding me right? Or are you suggesting that so long as the wars weren't fought with our blood they were more benign?

---

You were less likely to die from homocide in the twentieth century than in 99% of previous centuries, homicide includes war and all violent death. I'm not "kidding," I'm stating statistical fact.

quote:

---

So you are all concerned about abortion and Mao and Stalin (but not Iraq or Vietnam) but 17 million lives are miniscule to you? Do you think they are miniscule to those that lived them and those that loved them?

---

Being a big political junkie, one way I keep myself out of complete mental degradation and depression is to look at trends in injustice as well as the raw amount of injustice. And if you look at trends, those 17 million lives a year are extremely small by historical standards. In the year 1900 even in rich countries infant mortality was at around 20% and life expectancy around 50.

Why do you hate America so?

My point being - FM, if you think the discussion of the possibilities of space colonization etc. is pointless brain candy, why are you in here cluttering up the thread? Can't you just leave it be, or is such discussion so dangerous, so toxis to all that is good and holy that you are duty bound to shout it down?

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:

If safer,faster, and more efficient space travel were invented then space colonization would be a reasonable goal, not just science fiction

---

That's the key barrier. I have no idea how it might be accomplished, although there are certainly ideas out there. I suspect it will be an unexpected combination of scientific breakthroughs. We have them all the time. One decade, there are some military types in the Pentagon finding ways to share information, and some acid heads in California goofing around with circuit boards in their garages. Twenty years later, the internet has transformed life as we (in the developed world) know it.

quote:

---

My point being - FM, if you think the discussion of the possibilities of space colonization etc. is pointless brain candy, why are you in here cluttering up the thread? Can't you just leave it be, or is such discussion so dangerous, so toxis to all that is good and holy that you are duty bound to shout it down?

---

Space colonization is fanciful and that is all it ever will be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
That's a miniscule number by historical standards, relatively speaking. Better social justice, life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates are possibly the biggest reason for the population boom of this century

---

Here's what I think: I think that the poorest nations populations grow pyramidally - that is, the poorest people have the most children while the better off have small families. This is how it has been since time immemorial. Poor people in third world countries don't have social democracy ie. old age pensions or unemployment insurance or social welfare. So they have as many children as they can so there will be someone to look after them in their old age. But infant mortality is usually high enough to merit having as many children as possible to ensure that a certain number of them survive and into adulthood.

Large families have been a form of social security for millenia. The trends have shown that when a country gains access to electrical power and certain social measures adopted, population growth changes from pyramidal to columnar growth, like Canada and the U.S. and European nations.

quote:

---

You can try to enforce a vision of human behavior which runs contrary to human nature by using guns and forced abortions. Great successes of forced social engineering include Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il and Stalin.

---

Actually, people in China started living past the average age of 30 for the first time in centuries during Mao's rein. Infant mortality was worse than India's in 1949 but better than India's IM rate today by 1976, the year of Mao's death.

Even the U.S.-backed Pol Pot can be sympathized with somewhat after the doctor and the madman bombed Cambodia to smithereens during the CIA's dirty war in SE Asia. It's hard to till farmland after being tranformed into craters and poisoned with agent orange.

quote:

---

I see the issues involved as how we can reduce the ecological footprint of individual people and increase total capacity using soft methods and approaching the problem from several directions.

---

quote:

---

If safer,faster, and more efficient space travel were invented then space colonization would be a reasonable goal, not just science fiction

---

We're still looking at it wrong. Somehow in all of our stories or movies, now matter how far in the future it goes, we're still using thrust for propulsion. Expending a fuel to push you in one direction is hopeless in terms of space travel. As a species we're not very creative are we?

quote:

---

I have heard that one of the moons of Jupiter, Europa, show signs of frozen water on the surface

---

There have been a few water finds since then too... Europa itself is kinda like a giant slush ball and it's thought life could form on there. The gravitational pull is what keeps the slush world thermally active. A couple of Neptunes moons (or Uranus maybe?) is thought to be pretty much giant methane balls too. Io, a moon of jupiter, is still exceedingly volcanically active (Sulphur mostly, but sulphur dioxide would mean oxygen as well)... This could be caused by gravitational pull or since this moon has an iron core the energy source could be magnetic. In either event, it could be a source of renewable thermal energy hey? Interesting theory if you could harvest the gravitational or magnetic energy from the planets simply orbitting themselves no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven: I agree. Let's focus on the real world and solvable problems.

---

Speculation about the future is fun, besides none of these things are particularly likely to happen soon. Not to mention the fact that these discussions inevetibly bring up these real world problems, one of them being development. If the underdeveloped world's standard of living is improved, these population issues will go away.

Which is kind of related to the article. As others such as Noise have pointed out, the population figures being a driving reason for space colonization make absolutley no sense. Nonethless I believe that human beings are far too curious to stay on this planet forever. Betting against humans, or our next stage of evolution, getting off this planet is stupid. Countless human inventions that we take for granted today, would've been considered magical nonsense, and even if technically possible, or hugely impractical a thousand, even one hundred, years ago. Remember people used to think the Earth was flat?

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman: However, every time that discussion comes up on rabble, it gets overwhelmed by people who repeat, endlessly, that any such discussion is WRONGWRONG WRONG and must be stopped, the better to focus our energies on appropriate topics. Humans doing anything like space travel is inherently WRONGWRONGWRONG, so everyone just shut up and move on back to the enviro or labour forums where we belong.

---

Here, here!

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

If the underdeveloped world's standard of living is improved, these population issues will go away.

---

Again, we in the West, while representing 20% of the world's population, consume 80% of the world's resources. For the underdeveloped world to rise and meet our standard of living, where will the resources come from? Have you ever known an imperial society, or any society, to voluntarily give away its riches even when the riches are not really theirs?

Our entire standard of living s dependent on strife elsewhere. We employ violence and other forms of pressure to relieve developing nations of their resources. In Africa where people are starving, they export food to the West.

If the world was facing one or two ecological stresses, I might be more optimistic. But the planet is facing system wide stresses. It is literally teetering at the tipping point.

I could also be more optimistic and open to fanciful thinking if there was a recognition of both the problems being faced by the planet and our role in it. But in fact, neither is true.

There is also something to be said about looking out a window at blue skies, lush trees, and open fields, and contemplating living in a space colony devoid of all the above.

I have said it before -- I think a life in space without earth would be the definition of hell.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Remember people used to think the Earth was flat?

---

Heh, this example is a bit misused. In 500BC and prior, Humans knew very well that the Earth was round and about the existance of most of the planets. In 3500BC, there was more known about the solar system than in 1900AD. This is one of our best examples of 'de-evolution of knowledge' that you've used here. We've forgotten the world was round once before (heh, how many people beleive they have divine omniscience watching over their best interests even today?)... Who is saying we won't forget again?

I wonder if Hawkings point with this is that to colonize another planet would take some unity from the people of Earth to do so... And it's this degree of unity that will be in the best interest of the Survival of Species, the colonized space portion isjust the side effect?

Added:
Had a chance to read Sven's article... I think I've read similar to it. CNN, so it's very US specific (which means centered on the US and then dumbed down alot geographically. heh). Both the US and Canada are going to have tough times when baby boomers become retired boomers, and the key difference between NorthAmerica and Europe, is North America is 'importing' younger population to help support the son to be retired. This massive retiring spree will have an interesting effect on the workforce when the average age of workers drops from baby boomers to the baby boomer children instead... Hehe, which means your average worker goes from 30 years experience to about 2-3 years experience ^^

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I could also be more optimistic and open to fanciful thinking if there was a recognition of both the problems being faced by the planet and our role in it. But in fact, neither is true...

I have said it before -- I think a life in space without earth would be the definition of hell.

---

Sure, but you won't find many people in this forum who don't agree that we've got big troubles here on earth. But we've also made huge strides in a thousand fields. Two hundred years ago we wouldn't have noticed climate change at all, we just would have sprinted off the cliff obliviously. Now we've noticed it, and are starting to do something about it. Not enough, not yet, but something. That's unprecedented.

And what I would like (probably not life in space) is very different from what others might like. I sure wouldn't like to live in the Arctic, but people have done so for centuries, and continue to do so. I would personally see 5 months of darkness as hell, but others clearly do not.

So no doubt some people would adapt or even love life in space, or life on another planet. Fine for them.

Our big space related problem is how to cover the distances. I suspect that our understanding of the physics of space is very limited so far, though of course I have no idea what else there is to learn. We may well discover that space and/or time are more flexible than our terrestrial brains habitually understand them. My (laboured) reading of popularized astrophysics and quantum mechanics seems to suggest that much is possible, and much is still a complete mystery.

So of course we need to focus on fixing our home, but we can also think about future at the same time. There may be other benefits as well, not the least of which are the massive resource deposits in the many relatively near-earth asteroids floating around.

Many of our problems are the direct result of resource scarcity. If we can eliminate or reduce the scarcity in efficient, environmentally sound ways, we may also be able to deal with many of our current crises.

By environmentally sound, I mean that asteroid mining would have zero impact on our biosphere, but would produce enormous amounts of materials. I read the other day that a big one passed within 200,000 miles of earth last month - almost as close as the moon. Surely it's not beyond our technological capacity to grab onto one of those and mine it? If not now, ten years from now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Again, we in the West, while representing 20% of the world's population, consume 80% of the world's resources. For the underdeveloped world to rise and meet our standard of living, where will the resources come from? Have you ever known an imperial society, or any society, to voluntarily give away its riches even when the riches are not really theirs?

---

Gee, I didn't know that or think about it that way. That's why I've been posting here for the last two years.

Oh, yeah, that was clearly sarcasm.

But look, while I know full well that it's unrealistic to expect people in other parts of the world to be able to enjoy the same type of resource useage that we in the west enjoy. And I know full well that we in the west won't be able to either. This isn't really a question about living like a bunch of buddhist monks, or Paris Hilton. This is a question of sustainability. As a somewhat progressive person, I know about this already.

quote:

---

. In 500BC and prior, Humans knew very well that the Earth was round and about the existance of most of the planets.

---

This is true for much of the world, defenetly with civilizations in the Americas, and I'm pretty sure the Eygptians understood this. But in a European context it wasn't always so, within Greece yes, but other European cultures didn't really think this way. Maybe the celts? But I don't know about many other examples.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

So no doubt some people would adapt or even love life in space, or life on another planet. Fine for them.

---

If you consider how our populations have adapted from living in large country wide open spaces to small filing cabinet style apartments, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume humans can adapt to any environement really... Especially one in space where we can take our climate with us.

quote:

---

Surely it's not beyond our technological capacity to grab onto one of those and mine it?

---

Thats working on the assumption that asteroids are made of useful materials. Alot of these asteroids are simply floating porous rocks with very little resource potential... When our solar system formed, only the inner circle of planets formed with an Iron core. If this asteroid orginated from such... Yes we might see some worth while mining.

Planets outside of of that rarely do (has to do with fusion... Hydrogen + hydrogen is the first reaction which forms helium. Heliums can fuse... I beleive Carbon, Nitrogen, and oxygen are all involved with this process and the end result is iron. We know our sun is relatively young as it's still combining hydrogens while older stars start fusing other molecules for it's energies). If the asteroid originated from 'outter ring' planets, then the most we can hope for is really sources of carbon fuels such as methane.

The asteroid belt in our Solar system is thought to have a composition strikingly similar to Earth... If mining was to be a big thing, that would be the place to start.

Amittadely, this is looking from the angle that we need to bring resources to earth. It is just a feasible at this point in time to find a way to 'deepcore' mine Earth and extract minerals from the sweet liquid core of our planet.

added for Vansterdam's addit

quote:

---

But in a European context it wasn't always so, within Greece yes, but other European cultures didn't really think this way. Maybe the celts? But I don't know about many other examples.

---

Greeks technically no... They rediscovered what people from Asia minor knew years ago (Some Greek work does pay homage to this, and then later greek philosophers quote the Greek ones from Asia Minor). Europe was colonized by peoples from the cradle of humanity and they brought various beleives from there to their new homes in Europe. It was Roman (Holy Roman Emporer) that brought about the Earth-centric beleifs that we held for hundreds of years). Most European cultures derive their gods (like Dacia, or Sythian.. er.. thats spelt wrong.. Scthyian, mind you their more Asian) from various versions of Canaanite, Hittite, Babylonian, and ultimately Sumerian cultures. Celtic was alot more Sun oriented (mind you, any 'planetary worship' for the most case has it's origins in Sumerian culture.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Gee, I didn't know that or think about it that way. That's why I've been posting here for the last two years.

Oh, yeah, that was clearly sarcasm.

---

I don't think it was.

quote:

---

But look, while I know full well that it's unrealistic to expect people in other parts of the world to be able to enjoy the same type of resource useage that we in the west enjoy. And I know full well that we in the west won't be able to either. This isn't really a question about living like a bunch of buddhist monks, or Paris Hilton. This is a question of sustainability. As a somewhat progressive person, I know about this already.

---

quote:

---

Many of our problems are the direct result of resource scarcity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I'm not sure to what extent that is true. I would think most of our problems are unlimited and uncontrolled consumption. How many asteroids would we have to capture and mine to provide all the goods consumed by Western nations today?

---

If NASA and others are correct, maybe one or two.

Here.
"A typical LL Chondrite contains 10% water, 7% iron and 30% organic hydrocarbons, as
well as significant silicate minerals. Given a hypothetical LEO processing facility, a
percentage of the available minerals could be converted into useful products that could
underwrite an industrial economy in Earth orbit. Note that this example is but one very
small 20-meter asteroid of specific composition that could cost as little as $1 Billion to
retrieve and that could generate a maximum revenue of roughly $100 Billion, provided
the technology to make useful products in space existed."

And another link here:
How stuff works

quote:

---

How generous of you. So what people should suffer for the Western convenience and entertainment of daydreaming and how much suffering should they endure? That is what you are saying isn't it? Or am I being sarcastic? So hard to tell ...

---

Well, okay, for you I'll use more emoticons. But, I'm pretty sure your being sarcastic because, well, thinking = suffering.

That's / / .

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

I should have been focusing my daydreaming attention of FM approved topics. Because thinking about, or talking about this topic is entirely inappropriate. That's why FM keeps coming back in here to tell us to stop doing it. For some reason, not only does FM not want to talk about space colonization, but he doesn't want any of us to do so either, and by doing so we are somehow more complicit in the many injustices of the world.

There are hundreds of threads in this forum that I don't participate in for whatever reason. As a rule, when a topic doesn't interest me I try to avoid storming into a thread and pushing everyone else around, denying that the topic should or could be discussed at all.

I merely ask that FM do the same here. He's clearly made his point - we are wasting our time and being irresponsible in the process. We get it.

As for the space or feeding orphans dichotomy, I'd prefer a space or military spending dichotomy myself. For the cost of a single stealth bomber, we could have a full fledged asteroid mining program, with all the potential benefits that might entail. For the cost of the stealth bomber fleet, we could likely be building cities on Mars within twenty years.

For the same cost, we could eliminate hunger in the world entirely for several years. With the annual defense budget of the US, we could essentially eliminate a significant portion of all preventable deaths in the world. It would likely make the US and the rest of us significantly safer than their military does, in the long run.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Note that this example is but one very
small 20-meter asteroid of specific composition that could cost as little as $1 Billion to
retrieve and that could generate a maximum revenue of roughly $100 Billion, provided
the technology to make useful products in space existed.

---

That $1 billion number I think assumes that we have significant 'space resources' already in place mind you, currently that 1 billion would barely cover launching something into space to retrive an asteroid, let alon mine it... But I could see it eventually. Before such could occour, we'd need some sort of 'Space elevator' technology or atleast a better way of getting off this planet (and getting back to it).

However I still think this is pretty short sighted (using todays technology and assumptions)... The composition of asteroids could be anything really, so it's hard to know wha mineral resources would be on such (wouldn't it be fun to spend 1 billion and harvest $2000 worth of ice. We could label that as naive and make $1 billion in water bottle sales mind you ) . Any of the resources we need can be found in this planet, and I think the technology to retrieve minerals from under the earth crust (or other 'deep core' minining ideas) is as conceivable as the space asteroid mining ideas.

There is one point that I hope Hawking bringing this back up will serve to re-enforce. Humanity will stagnate quite well if we let ourselves, colonizing space and reaching for the next goal could bring humans into a new era. In some ways I don't think Hawking intends on saying the best way of us surviving is to be on several planets, but instead for humans to survive we need to give ourselves new goals and new challenges. I think as a speicies we're pretty notorious for rising to the occasion, and if there isn't an occasion to rise too, we become stagnant quickly. Hawking is simply providing the next goal for the species.

arborman we get that FM is derailing the topic, stop derailing the topic by talking about derailing the topic. (heh, my attempt at humour, srry)

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

I don't think we would ever be bale to mind below the crust, I'm not aware of many materials that can withstand those temperatures. Asteroid mining would be useful for using resources in space rather than on Earth, unless of course rarer metals are more plentiful on some asteroids. I can see Uranium expeditions being valuable three hundred years from now if we've depleted our sources here.

quote:

---

There is one point that I hope Hawking bringing this back up will serve to re-enforce. Humanity will stagnate quite well if we let ourselves, colonizing space and reaching for the next goal could bring humans into a new era. In some ways I don't think Hawking intends on saying the best way of us surviving is to be on several planets, but instead for humans to survive we need to give ourselves new goals and new challenges. I think as a speicies we're pretty notorious for rising to the occasion, and if there isn't an occasion to rise too, we become stagnant quickly. Hawking is simply providing the next goal for the species.

---

It's interesting the role politics is playing. NASA's manned science was moribund until Bush's state of the union in 2003. What I suspect and many suspect is that it was a response to the Chinese agency's long term vision of colonizing Mars - I've read their scientists say they see the world terraformed within two hundred years. India, Malaysia, each have long-term visions of manned exploration. Previously, the only competition was from the european space agency, which focuses on robotics. Perhaps we'll see a long-term shift to a more balanced approach at NASA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I don't think we would ever be bale to mind below the crust, I'm not aware of many materials that can withstand those temperatures. Asteroid mining would be useful for using resources in space rather than on Earth, unless of course rarer metals are more plentiful on some asteroids. I can see Uranium expeditions being valuable three hundred years from now if we've depleted our sources here.

---

The one problem that still exists with asteroid mining is where the asteroid came from and what it's composed of. Some extra terrestrial rocks that have landed here (most) are quite light and not the most mineral heavy, while a few have been stupidly heavy for it's size. In these cases, it's where the asteroid formed that will make the big difference (and most will be formed from outer planets/materials which will lack the heavier minerals we would be searching for).

quote:

---

Well, okay, for you I'll use more emoticons. But, I'm pretty sure your being sarcastic because, well, thinking = suffering.

---

You're not suffering. But other people suffer for the pleasure of your "thinking". Entertainment is a luxury of the rich. So is fiction, movies, hobbies ... education, philosophy, science ... activism, dissent, and politics.

Most of the world -- most of it living in the south -- earn less than $2 per day. For most people, all their time is spent just surviving and many aren't making it.

quote:

---

The World Bank has defined the international poverty line as U.S. $1 and $2 per day in 1993 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)1, which adjusts for differences in the prices of goods and services between countries. The $1 per day level is generally used for the least developed countries, primarily African; the $2-per-day level is used for middle income economies such as those of East Asia and Latin America. By this measure, in 2003 there were 1.2 billion out of the developing world's 4.8 billion people living on $1 per day, while another 2.8 billion were living on less than $2 per day2. In 2003, the richest fifth of the world's population received 85% of the total world income, while the poorest fifth received just 1.4% of the global income.
Source
*emphasis added.

---

There is a cost to our standard of living and others are paying it. There was that fellow, Joe, in another thread who pointed out the atrocities he would apportion to the "left". But millions of people die every day from preventabe causes such as malnutrition, dirty water, and treatable disease ... We tolerate their suffering in exchange for our standard of living.

If we think only in terms of how we will sustain the standard of living of Canadians without regard for the lives and well being of Africans and Asians, for example, then how are we very different from our own elites who care only about their own standards of living without regard for you or I?

I am sorry if it seems I am being a wet blanket. But I guess my point is that every one of our actions have consequences that can impact lives far beyond our own. We must, in my respectful opinion, become cognizant that we are not alone and we have responsibilities to others well beyond our own immediate needs.

quote:

---

One argument I've often heard against the space program is that the money could be spent feeding the children in Africa. It's that kind of economic and scientific ignorance which is preventing genuine progress. People don't realize just what a boon the space race has been.

---

Is it your contention that the poisoning of the planet, the depletion of the oceans, and the destruction of the forests, our biosphere, is worth the opportunity to watch reality TV?

I'm not suggesting you not play. I am not suggesting you don't imagine and dream. I wish the whole world could know the pleasure of daydreaming and wondering in curiosity and imagination. But if leisurely thought wanders into areas of topical concern then don't be offended when reality intrudes on your dreaming.

As Bono said, sorry to have to bug you.

If anyone thinks I should leave, call a moderator. Until then, I will decide on what threads I will post. That is my right subject and limited to the pleasure of the board operators and/or their agents.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

OK FM, we get it. I'm glad you've found your righteous cause, though I'm surprised it's this one. I note that you opted against responding to my points, instead choosing the easier fish to fry.

Personally I think most people on the planet could have the essentials of our standard of living, within a sustainable framework. We have a long way to go, but it is possible. It would, of course, mean that we couldn't have many (or any) billionaires, but we could have 6 billion or so people living up to the median quality of life for Canadians.

I don't include car ownership, the 5000 square foot home or any of our culture's other suicidal luxuries in that calculus, but I do include idle internet chitchat about long-term opportunities for human development.

SO I don't think it actually is a tradeoff between food for the poor and space exploration. I think its a tradeoff between military expenditures on one side, and food/medicine/education/basic needs and space exploration on the other. Rather than fight over what to do with the scraps left over after we finish paying for war and warmaking, why don't we just work together to end war, injustice and warmaking instead? Then we can all explore space with full bellies.

I will now carry on with the discussion, which can (for all intents and purposes) be based on the assumption that the aforementioned current problems are dealth with in some way first.
[/obligatory qualifiers to satisfy FM]

Re: Core mining vs asteroid mining. I suppose core mining might be possible, but I imagine it would be through some kind of controlled volcanic action. I suspect the risks inherent in that (think Krakatoa) would be significantly greater than the risks associated with launching a rocket into space, which we've done a great deal of already.

We know and have all the technologies to do the work of asteroid mining, we just haven't applied them in that manner. Remote robotics, rockets and mineral refinement are all pretty advanced in other fields - I'm sure they could be applied. No doubt there are some technological barriers remaining, but not too many anymore.

Put another way, the moon was done almost 40 years ago with comparatively ancient technology. Surely it is within our technological ability to do something similar with more recent stuff now?

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

SO I don't think it actually is a tradeoff between food for the poor and space exploration. I think its a tradeoff between military expenditures on one side, and food/medicine/education/basic needs and space exploration on the other. Rather than fight over what to do with the scraps left over after we finish paying for war and warmaking, why don't we just work together to end war, injustice and warmaking instead?

---

What you seem to have missed is that military spending is what makes it possible for one fifth of the world's population to live in relative luxury compared to the deprivations of the remaining four fifths.

Our luxury, depends on their suffering. You may call that a righteous cause and that might help you feel better but I call it a simple fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

What you seem to have missed is that military spending is what makes it possible for one fifth of the world's population to live in relative luxury compared to the deprivations of the remaining four fifths.

Our luxury, depends on their suffering. You may call that a righteous cause and that might help you feel better but I call it a simple fact.

And sorry, I must have missed your points.

---

I'm of the opinion that there actually are enough resources in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. Not Humvees for everyone, but everything we really need, in perpetuity (with careful and equitable management).

So, can we please go back to the point of this thread? Let's start with the following premise:

'Hooray! We've managed to bring about the change we all wanted. Everyone has their needs met, we don't have any wars and the environment is stabilizing. The damage is being repaired, and humans can live here until the sun goes supernova, or we get smoked by an asteroid.

So, now that that's out of the way, let's talk about improving EVERYBODY's standard of living by exploring the galaxy, starting with the solar system.'

quote:

---

Is it your contention that the starving children in Africa have made and continue to make a noble sacrifice of their lives for your, and mine, scientific progress? Is that really what you mean to say?
Is it your contention that the poisoning of the planet, the depletion of the oceans, and the destruction of the forests, our biosphere, is worth the opportunity to watch reality TV?

I'm not suggesting you not play. I am not suggesting you don't imagine and dream. I wish the whole world could know the pleasure of daydreaming and wondering in curiosity and imagination. But if leisurely thought wanders into areas of topical concern then don't be offended when reality intrudes on your dreaming.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty is growing tiresome. We're having a discussion about the future of human development and you bring up reality television, daydreaming into the discussion. You're way out of your league.

The space program is but one luxury enjoyed by the western world. You say the rest of the world is better off as a result of investment in telecommunications. I say prove it. I say demonstrate to me how the millions who will die today from lack of food, unclean water, or treatable disease are better off because you have satellite TV?

When you say "how much worse" you mean only for yourself.

Further, you don't understand, or refuse to understand, that it is a zero-sum game. For every extravagance in our world their is deprivation in theirs.

Let me try and put this another way: Your luxury, your relative physical comfort and ease of living, your leisure time and electronic friends, are possible only because a vast number of the world's citizens live in misery and abject poverty.

And it must always be that way because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to live like we do and because if they did, those rsources that enable us to live, air, water, soil, would become toxic and deadly far faster than they are already.

quote:

---

That is humouress coming from someone all concerned about the unborn but willing to sacrifice the living in other nations to the convenience of cell phones at home.

---

Sorry, I wasn't discussing the resource Coltan.

quote:

---

The space program is but one luxury enjoyed by the western world.

---

It's not a luxury it's an investment which pays for itself. If it didn't pay for itself seven times over you would have a point. Similar to infrastructure and universal primary and secondary education. Should we abandon these as well?

quote:

---

So when you fill your car up today, and then eat a decent dinner while watching a Star Trek re-run, remember it is all possible courtesy of the US military, sweatshops, dictators, and waters no longer safe to drink. You can say your life is brought to you by Third World Poverty: An Imperial Project Since 1492.

---

It is a luxury when compared to the issues of survival faced by so many.

But you see, you have choices. You can decide what to eat and where. You can decide to drive or not drive. You are educated. You live a comfortable life. We are inside the palace. We live lives of relative wealth and comfort. We do so at the expense of the vast majority of the world's population and at the expense of our own life supports.

We live in a land that was taken from someone else and we are consuming resources that have been, by and large, taken from somewhere else.

What can we do about it? Very little.

arborman:

Yes, I killed it. And in the process I was thinking about this:

quote:

---

Many people are unable to see the connection between their personal entitlements, and the social/enviro injustices they oppose.

---

And I thought, how insightful. How noble. How righteous. How perfect in another thread.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Yes, I killed it. And in the process I was thinking about this:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

And I thought, how insightful. How noble. How righteous. How perfect in another thread.

---

Well, thanks. But this discussion was only that - a discussion. Not causing any harm, that I know of.

If you are trying to suggest I'm a hypocrite, I suggest you go to hell. I used to like reading the threads you created with the news links. For some reason I thought that would mean you were capable of rational discussion on a variety of topics. Apparently you are a one trick pony.

Conversation with you must be a real delight.

'What kind of toothpaste do you use?'
'Can't you hear the cries of the children? They are dying for your toothpaste, stooge!'
"umm. Ok. I'm thirsty, I think I'll have a glass of water.'
"Millions have no clean water! Children, blood, poison evil shut up shut up!'
'Oookay then. See you tomorrow'
'There is no tomorrow as long as you drink your 'clean water' you fascist!'

quote:

---

but I will no longer respond to to any of your posts. Debating with someone who believes in the zero-sum economy is like debating a creationist - a waste of time and utterly demeaning.

---

quote:

---

I'm done trying. There are plenty of forums where this topic can at least get off the ground once in awhile.

---

quote:

---

For deliberately admitting to derailing a thread, the moderators should consider banning you.

---

funny because it actually seemed that Frustrated Mess actually raised some legitimate concerns surrounding Hawkings musings that yourself and Arborman seemed to personalize and then launch an attack against him. So if there is any thread derailing going on it appears to be more the attacks that have been launched against FM.

quote:

---

If you are trying to suggest I'm a hypocrite, I suggest you go to hell. I used to like reading the threads you created with the news links. For some reason I thought that would mean you were capable of rational discussion on a variety of topics. Apparently you are a one trick pony.

---

I never suggested you are a hypocrite. I think what you said, however, echoed what I have been arguing here. But if you think the shoe fits ....

Sorry, but the last sentence is a repsponse to your obvious hostility. And to be perfectly honest, the only reason I am here in this thread was due to the reference to the earlier Hawkin's thread. If it wasn't for that, I would have ignored it.

Your anger is misplaced.

And further, you know, if you had of said, "Hey, FM, I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but do you think you can leave us alone to discuss space exploration?" I would probably would have said "sure". Instead, you were hostile and insulting right from the start. So don't pretend you were some sort of "friendly poster" who I managed to piss off.

Just in case you forgot your first post in this thread, let me remind you:

quote:

---

Right. All discussion should be properly focused on 'FM approved' topics. Other ideas are likely more propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
Why, just this morning, while riding my bicycle to work, I irresponsibly daydreamed about this very topic. No doubt that directly led to several child deaths somewhere, and my conscience will have difficulty bearing the burden.

I should have been focusing my daydreaming attention of FM approved topics. Because thinking about, or talking about this topic is entirely inappropriate. That's why FM keeps coming back in here to tell us to stop doing it. For some reason, not only does FM not want to talk about space colonization, but he doesn't want any of us to do so either, and by doing so we are somehow more complicit in the many injustices of the world.

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, FM could just leave this thread alone if s/he doesn't see it as an appropriate topic of discussion. I know, but then how would we learn the error of our ways, without his/her enlightened guidance?

---

Okay, I've read up to this point in the thread, where I think the disagreement has already occurred.

I feel frustrated a lot of the time too when people are all like, "Hey, why are you guys trading recipes when children are starving in (country)? Hey, why are you people yakking on babble instead of getting out there and volunteering for your NDP candidate? Why is everyone all upset over x when y is happening! Why!?"

But I don't see Frustrated Mess's posts that have led up to this argument that way. From what I can tell (sorry, haven't had time to read the article, so I'm going by what I can get from posts in this thread), space colonization has been proposed by Hawking as a way of helping human beings as a species survive the environmental problems and population growth that is causing the earth to be too small to hold us. So, I think Frustrated Mess is on topic by critiquing this proposed solution to population growth and environmental destruction, and saying that Hawking is engaging in magical thinking.

If this thread had merely been about the space program, or about space exploration or colonization on its own merits, then yeah, I could see people getting annoyed with people coming along to say, "Why are you talking about space travel when there are x number of people starving in y country!" But in this case, space colonization is being proposed as a solution to a specific problem. Frustrated Mess is saying that this is not a realistic solution, and that there are more effective solutions to the problem and that this proposed one is magical thinking that, made into policy, would distract people from taking more realistic action on the problem.

I don't see why this is a problem.

However, later in the thread, I've been noticing some name-calling, and calling people creationists and such. Not sure who started it and where, but I think we all know it's not necessary or productive.