Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 It's just a thought, and not fact. However, what happens when the population is so great that the food supply doesn't have the capability to feed all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Re read my post, it's unlikely to happen since that would require the direction of fertility to change dramatically. Anyway, numbers makes arguments look better so here goes children born pr woman in the world 1950=5.02 2005=2.65 it is estimated to be 2.05 in 2050, which is only above the magic number in western countries. So no, I don't fear lack of food, though I suspect we will still see famines (just as we do now, even though we produce enough food). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 While that's all fine and dandy, the numbers don't take into account the rates of other countries, such as India (which is estimated to overtake China by 2030 in populace). It matters what we do with our population, but it pails in comparison to what India does with theirs. If they keep going at the same rate... I agree with your math, though it only takes into account that of the United States (at least, I think it does. You never specified what it was ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 mur'phon: Astronauts go through a lot to stay fit in space. living in space or on another planets/moon, can have numerous medical complications. They have to have rigorous exercise regimens every day, or else the change of gravity and atmospheric pressure, radiation, and such would slowly cause their bodies to deteriorate much faster than normal. Pretty much, if we want a planet that we can safely live on as easily as we do on Earth, it has to have almost the exact same gravity and barometric pressure. Also, Titan is a great chocie due to it's thick atmophere. It has tons carbon-based elements capable of producing and supportign our form of life, if terraformed properly. It's thick atmosphere would cause a normal human to die much faster, but that thickness does eliminate problems with cosmic radiation... But, another problem is entry and exit of it's atmosphere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Lit:The rates in my post was for the world as a whole, and it was spesified in my post. And you have yet to answer why taking the space way is easier/better than the fix earth way. And with what Arc has written, my way seems better and better:D Arc: You only stated barometric pressure/gas balances, so I asumed you only though of those as a problem, I agree with what you say though. Muscle loss I imagine won't be that much of a problem, hello gene therapy. Just wondering, why would the thick atmosphere cause humans to die faster, asuming they use pressurized suits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 mur'phon: Ah, yes. I seemed to have missed that. My apologies. So, why would terraforming a planet be easier than being a completely 'green' planet? It's not. My point was, at the rate we're going, the oil and other resources are going to run out before we can effectively harvest natural energy, such as sunlight, wind power, and other such sources. So, what I was saying was, "Will we have to have to terraform a planet, as the 'green' resources on Earth have 1) not been fully developed or 2) the resources have been completely depleted. Sorry if I misunderstood you in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Well, Titan's atmospher eis different. Earth has a very fine balance of atmosphere. Even the slightest changes can have drastic, undesirable effects. With terraformign, it means, literally, changing the planet to be livable on. IE, makign Titan much like Earth, so that there woudl be no need for space suits. The barometric pressure culd also have adverse effects on other forms of liek. Slight differences in gas composition on Titan could even kill us. If we were to go to a new place to live, a new planet, Titan is the best choice, considering all the pros and cons in relation to other possible planets. However, the adverse effects are more than just muscle loss... However, Gene therapy could work... I quote wiki on terraforming (bbcode won't work for some wierd reason): The principal reason given to pursue terraforming is the creation of an ecology to support worlds suitable for habitation by humans. However, some researchers believe that space habitats will provide a more economical means for supporting space colonization. If research in nanotechnology and other advanced chemical processes continues apace, it may become feasible to terraform planets in centuries rather than millennia. On the other hand, it may become reasonable to modify humans so that they don't require an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere in a 1 g gravity field to live comfortably. That would then reduce the need to terraform worlds, or at least the degree to which other worlds' environments would need to be altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 What you're suggesting sounds a bit like what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands: A group of Finches originally migrated there, living on one island. One group split off, and moved to another island. This happened multiple times, until all islands were populated. Eventually, the Finches became so different that they could no longer reproduce with anyone other than on their island. So, if we were to modify our genes, we could become so different that we would become another species altogether (although, we'd still be similar to the original race). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Welcome to economics As the supply of fossil fuels decreases, while demand increases, the price for energy will go upp, this means that those "inneficent" natural energy sources will become competetive. This means companies, eager to proffit (it's why they exsist after all) will produce such energy/reseach improvements. Voila, we now have green energy without needing to spend insanillions of tax payer money on "space energy". The only way companies are going to go for "space energy" is if it turns out cheaper than green enrgy, feel free to show that this is the case. Of course governments could do "space energy", but why should they, considering that it would a) cost a lot of tax payer money, and b) be fairly pointless if companies go the green way? Ugh, I feel like a right-winger saying all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Don't worry. Of course, I don't know why you feel like one for saying that. Anyways, I agree. Of course, this isn't taking into account the population (will there be enough energy for these people?). So, everything comes down to the population when I comment, doesn't it? I only suggested "Space Energy" if we were so pressed here on Earth, that Green Energy was no longer a feasible option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Reason to feel like a righ-winger: what I said: market, market, market, government bad, market, market :xp Fair enough, though I don't believe it will happen (numbers seem to agree), and even if it did, I believe the rich world would just pretend the poor don't exist rather than do something grandiose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I agree with you. It probably won't happen, but it's still an interesting thought to ponder. Taking a dead world and transforming it into one as diverse as Earth has its appeals, at least, to me. Not to mention the fact that it would help the (to be) overpopulated Earth. Even if we are reproducing, as your numbers said, at "2.05" for every (was it person, or couple?), that's still a growth, and, in time, the Earth will not be able to support, say, a trillion people (and if we did, conditions would be less than satisfactory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 The 2.05 number was for every woman, and 2.05 is barely enough to mantain a stable population in the richest world, everywhere else it'll mean decline (not every person survives till after reproduction). And remember this is in 2050, there is little reason to believe that population won't continue to fall. As for the "it'll look awesome" thing, sure and I think making a true virtual reality would be even more awesome, dosen't mean I'll try to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 A virtual reality world would be very interesting, indeed. However, I would still prefer to develop terraforming techniques. Call me crazy, but something about it intrigues me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Bah, a virtual reality would let you terraform any planet you want, you'd be a god and there would be little reason to live in the real world. But it's geting late 3am, and I need to convince my body that it's bed time (convince because the sun is still up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Well, it's inevitable that man will continue to reach for the stars. As such, terraforming will become a concern, though not so much for reasons of finding "cheap and plentiful" fuel for the homeplanet as to continue to feed the expansion of mans' reach beyond earth (and naturally fill the coffers of the leadership class ). I suspect that feeding the world's population will remain a political rather than ability question (barring some catastrophic world event). We use less land to produce more food than we did a century ago. No one's starving b/c there's not enough food in the world, but b/c govts basically don't care enough about the issue to resolve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 That's true, Totenkopf. I wonder what would happen if we devoted an entire county to agriculture. They'd be rich (addressing a primary concern of nations today), to say the least, and would have enough food for quite some time. As for reaching for the stars, I agree. It's a goal of humanity to explore everywhere they don't know about, and Space is no different. It's just a matter of how limited we are by our imaginations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 As I found out on CNN, apparently China is reaching into Africa's agricultureal potential... This gives me a great idea for thread... The thread would be about how you'd terraform a world to be like, and how you'd run it/live on it... This could be discussed, here, but I'm not sure if it would be serious enough... personnally, I prefer a system full of exotic planets, each of different extremes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Do you have a link for this? I'd be interested in reading into that. Ooh! I'll participate in that! Perhaps we would make a different "Social Group" for that, or would it just be a small thing in this group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 15, 2008 Author Share Posted June 15, 2008 Eh, I just made a thread for it in ASC. About the CNN thing, I'd give you the link, but it happened a week or two ago... I don't remember what they titled it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 I posted my planet. There seems to be a unifying factor of "Communism" or a "dictatorship." Also, I just thought that I should let everyone know: I'll be leaving for 19 days for camp. I'm somewhat opposed to it, but I'll try to have a good time. Have a great time without me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 What type of camp are you going to Litofsky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm going to learn Chinese for nineteen days. So, when China overruns the Country by economic or military means, I'll be spared as an interpreter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Traitor.... Hope that you have fun then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 @Litofsky Don't worry... Won't happen the British will save you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.