Notices

View Poll Results: do you think we will live on mars one day?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    17 73.91%
  • no

    6 26.09%
  • that's crazy

    0 0%
Results 1 to 54 of 54

Thread: [poll] do you think we will live on mars one day?

  1. #1 [poll] do you think we will live on mars one day? 
    Forum Freshman mathformonkeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    an exoplanet
    Posts
    45
    we are destroying our earth

    scientists are tying to come up with a way to live on mars

    do YOU think it will happen


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    We are not destroying our earth. We couldn't if we wanted to...

    Terra forming Mars, has been a thought for some time. Well into the future, after probably hundreds or thousands of years of scientific study and many generation of some system of a science colony and our gained technology, people may live on mars, as a society.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman mathformonkeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    an exoplanet
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We are not destroying our earth. We couldn't if we wanted to...

    Terra forming Mars, has been a thought for some time. Well into the future, after probably hundreds or thousands of years of scientific study and many generation of some system of a science colony and our gained technology, people may live on mars, as a society.
    well,i guess my science teacher is wrong about everything
    she said global warming is real
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by mathformonkeys
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We are not destroying our earth. We couldn't if we wanted to...

    Terra forming Mars, has been a thought for some time. Well into the future, after probably hundreds or thousands of years of scientific study and many generation of some system of a science colony and our gained technology, people may live on mars, as a society.
    well,i guess my science teacher is wrong about everything
    she said global warming is real
    Global warming is not a good thing, but it will not "destroy the Earth".
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    We are destroying the world slowly. Already over 75% of the rivers in China are polluted by toxic waste; the same goes for many many other places. Seeing that we are all using computers, I assume that none of us are in extreme poverty. That is the problem; places like where I live are so separated from the hell that billions of people have to endure, that we start to forget what is going on everywhere else. We isolate ourselves in our own little worlds in order to neglect the painful reality that this world is.

    Whenever I talk about this to my friends, they always respond with some stupid remark like, "well we don't live there and it doesn't effect us, so why should we care?" Remarks like that show humanities mental weakness-to not have compassion for others and to not believe in the saying, "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to yourself". Anyone who does not care for those effected by the crimes of governments and corporations should be shot.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    The people who believe global warming does not exist are idiots. It is beyond apparent, but like what Janus said, it will not annihilate the world, it will only make it harder to survive and live a decent life.

    I think we will start WW3 before we can summon the funds and technology to live on Mars. Though if religion were abolished, I would say by 2100 it will be feasible.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Our likelihood of ever living on Mars depends a lot on whether it will ever be profitable to have a colony there. Even bare self sufficiency would be pretty difficult, and nobody's going to build the infrastructure if they can't harvest something like a mineral resource from it.

    A possibility I've often wondered about is steering some large asteroids so they impact Mars in the hopes of maybe heating it up and increasing its atmosphere. Granted that both effects would be temporary, but "temporary" in this context could mean it lasts thousands of years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by mathformonkeys
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    We are not destroying our earth. We couldn't if we wanted to...

    Terra forming Mars, has been a thought for some time. Well into the future, after probably hundreds or thousands of years of scientific study and many generation of some system of a science colony and our gained technology, people may live on mars, as a society.
    well,i guess my science teacher is wrong about everything
    she said global warming is real
    Global warming is not a good thing, but it will not "destroy the Earth".
    No, but it will cause a shift in the continents, and likely put a lot of the current landmass underwater where we can't use it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by mathformonkeys
    well,i guess my science teacher is wrong about everything
    she said global warming is real
    What does GW have to do with destroying the planet? Might add, everything in science is not about MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, or in fact, normal weather patterns on the planet. The planet, in all likelihood will be destroyed near the time our sun burns out, or consumed by it, about 2-5 billion years from now, and humans will long be gone...

    CF; IMO, as humans we are here and frankly thriving along with most organic life, because the planet has been warming for some years. Since the Dino period, life has never been so lucky that nature has conformed to conditions for this life, both plant and animals.

    There may or may not be a WWIII, but I promise you man will not be living on Mars in 2100. Today, the first man visit is expected to be around 2040. Economic conditions excluded, science is concerned with a whole lot more than colonizing Mars, our Moon or some near by moon.

    Janus; Your correct on the earth and incorrect on 'bad thing', IMO. Fear most for future generations the interference to nature or the natural process for cleansing earths atmosphere. If nothing else, check out what oxygen level is required for humans and where CO2 level would have to be to elevated temperatures 10 degrees above where they are. We currently have 22% oxygen in our atmosphere, humans will show effects if below 16 or above about 24-25%. CO2 in less than 400 parts per million, not near one percent and mankind can tolerate much more, probably 100 times more. If temperatures rise, whats the problem. People have live in year round 90-110 F range for ever and will forever, although I feel this will not happen or if it does 100,000 years off...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    What does GW have to do with destroying the planet?
    And what do these have to do with living on Mars?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman mathformonkeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    an exoplanet
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    What does GW have to do with destroying the planet?
    And what do these have to do with living on Mars?
    yes........just talk about living on mars please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; People adapt, why/how, I don't know. They live in Alaska, Siberia and many places where temperature never reach 20F and darkness prevails most of the year. As mentioned, they also live in places where 90 degree F is a very cool day and they live where day/night, winter/summer temperatures change dramatically. Most was establish prior to profit and even today, very little exploration could be or ever could be for expected profits. HOWEVER, I do understand your point...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by mathformonkeys
    ... living on mars ...

    Aren't the NASA people, or perhaps it was the US government, talking about sending a manned mission to Mars. That would entail 'living' on mars in a manner of speaking. The ISS has astronauts for months at a time. That is 'living in space.'

    I think we will live on Mars - the idea of some sort of base there is not terribly far-fetched, I don't think we will see terraforming, or people spending years at a stretch on Mars, in our lifetimes. JMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    there's obviously the tiny issue of the very thin atmosphere that needs to be resolved first though - without it you might as well live on the moon
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Let's compare two scenarios. Tomorrow morning we wake up and Mars is terraformed. All of the unknown technology to make this happen has been somehow discovered overnight. Foests, lakes, herds of animals and fortunes to be made are already there. A fleet of ships awaits anyone who wants to take the one way trip. Yes, the trip is one way, because your physiology will gradually and irreversably adapt to Martian gravity if you stay there to live. Return to Earth would most likely mean heart failure. Of course, you don't have to return.

    Now in the second scenario, tomorrow we wake up and thousands of space habitats orbit above the Earth. All of the technology to accomplish this result actually already exists. These are long tubes that spin to create a centrifugal force so that people standing on the inside rims undergo a force equal to one G, the gravitational pull of the Earth. Imagine a map of your neighborhood, say two square kilometers. If you rolled the map into a tube so that the edges of the map do not overlap, it would now represent the Space hab (the hab's ends would of course be closed). Forests, lakes, herds of animals and fortunes to be made await you.

    Energy from the Sun is not diminished by a planet's atmosphere and provides power for a million times the Earth's population. Resources from the Moon or asteroids are virtually endless. A ten mile diameter nickel-iron asteroid contains more ore than has been mined on Earth in all of history. Moving resources and products around between habs is very cheap, as you are not fighting with a planet's gravity.Enough living space for the Earth's population can be constructed in less than 60 years.

    Would you rather live on Mars, tens of millions of miles away, or on a Space Hab, say one hundred thousand miles away? Don't forget, if life in a space Hab sucks, you can always return to Earth with no ill effects.The real question is, what should we plan on spending trillions of dollars actually accomplishing?

    People always talk about injustice or impending doom. That is why some people always work toward solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Would you rather live on Mars, tens of millions of miles away, or on a Space Hab, say one hundred thousand miles away? .
    Mars.
    I am a creature of habit, accustomed to living on a planet, not a creature of habitat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Scenario one and two both have problems, although S2 does seem the most logical. Having a bunch of hobbits on mars and backward old-fashioned monkeys on earth sounds like the perfect scenario for world war 3 to me, or war of the worlds as Mr Wells called it.

    Resource gathering will probably be the main driving force behind any space exploration, and this would be much more cheaply, safely and quickly done through robotics. The only reason for humans to be in space is for sentimental and scientific purposes.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Scientists are not trying to figure a way to live on mars because we are destroying the planet, they are trying to figure out a way to live on mars for many reasons. The largest of that is exploration and scientific and technological improvements.

    Another reason is that, hundreds of thousands of years before the sun explodes, this planet will be inhospitable. Not because of our doing, but because of the natural processes of the solar system. The sun will get larger and the surface of the earth will be as hot as mercury's.

    At that point, mars will be much warmer than it is now and not too hot for us to survive, even if attempts at terra-forming had failed and we still need protection from Mars' climate. Until our very distant descendants can figure out a way to either move the planet, or create a space colony that can sustain generations of life until a new habitable star system can be found.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Would you rather live on Mars, tens of millions of miles away, or on a Space Hab, say one hundred thousand miles away?
    Thank you. The space habs are relatively practical and within our means. Even orbiting Mars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Scenario one and two both have problems, although S2 does seem the most logical. Having a bunch of hobbits on mars and backward old-fashioned monkeys on earth sounds like the perfect scenario for world war 3 to me, or war of the worlds as Mr Wells called it.

    Resource gathering will probably be the main driving force behind any space exploration, and this would be much more cheaply, safely and quickly done through robotics. The only reason for humans to be in space is for sentimental and scientific purposes.
    The only major disadvantage to robotics that I see is the time delay you get when you try to remote control them because of the incredible distances involved. Even on the Moon, it takes 1.5 seconds after you give it an instruction to see what the machine just did. For Mars, it's more like 20 minutes.

    If we could get them to be versatile and coordinated enough so they could do their own maintenance on themselves, then I'd advise doing almost everything by machine out there. It would still help to have a few humans on site, though, so they can control them without the delay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I totally agree with you that terraforming Mars would be a colossal waste of effort. Other sore points though...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    The only reason for humans to be in space is for sentimental and scientific purposes.
    I believe just the opposite. Why stick around? No good reason I can think of. Return to research our origins and get all teary eyed.

    If you want a reason to live in space, how about there being finite room on Earth? Or the high cost of lowering extraterrestrial resources down to the surface?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Resource gathering will probably be the main driving force behind any space exploration, and this would be much more cheaply, safely and quickly done through robotics.
    Robots huh? Why not people? We're expendable aren't we? Anyway, we'll always want employment, wherever we pioneer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Well, unless there´s a sudden disaster that ends all life on Earth and kills of the human race..
    "The Future" is a loooooooong time. So yes, sometime we will certainly be able to live on Mars. I dont know if we will do it, but there will be sufficient knowledge and tech available to do so if one would want.

    Could be 100 years, could be 100000 years. Still is the future.

    But more likely I think is constructing some sort of very large colonyspaceship that supports a few hundred thousand of people for very many generations, then send that ship sailing thru the space looking for new solarsystems and planets.

    I mean in the VERY long run our sun will die, so we need to move sooner or later. Might aswell go of in all different dirrections to up the odds of human race survivability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    We're still hoping to find life on Mars, so this debate could be irrelevant if we do, and conservationists have their way.

    I'd like to see the matter resolved sooner than later. I want to inoculate a lot of moons and planets with our kind of crap. Maybe something grows, we eat it someday. Maybe we nuke ourselves to oblivion, yet some of our crap survives elsewhere. In that light, sterilizing probes is doubly optimistic.
    :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    The great thing about a space hab is that you can use a solar sail. Light pressure will move it out to other planets or planetoids for free. So you could control your Mars robots from orbit, or mine asteroids with robots from the safety of your nearby hab. With mirrors, you can focus sunlight enough that your hab will function comfortably out to Jupiter’s orbit. With a nuclear reactor for power, you could even travel out to the next star, because your hab is a self sufficient microcosm. The hab’s interior living space can resemble a desert oasis, an Iowa farm or a clutch of igloos.
    Our ancient ancestors lived in trees or caves. Today, we build our homes out of wood and stone. In the future, people will build habs that remind them of our species’ first home, the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    It seems to me that any model calling for great monuments of metal and robotics per human being, is inherently wasteful and, well, childish. Do we want more human beings, or more toys? We can and will have both, but the eternal question is: in what ratio?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The only major disadvantage to robotics that I see is the time delay you get when you try to remote control them because of the incredible distances involved. Even on the Moon, it takes 1.5 seconds after you give it an instruction to see what the machine just did. For Mars, it's more like 20 minutes.

    If we could get them to be versatile and coordinated enough so they could do their own maintenance on themselves, then I'd advise doing almost everything by machine out there. It would still help to have a few humans on site, though, so they can control them without the delay.
    It will be somewhere around 2040 before we actually get a human on mars, by then we should have machines capable of performing mining operations without having to have a human control them.

    Quote Originally Posted by pong
    I believe just the opposite. Why stick around? No good reason I can think of. Return to research our origins and get all teary eyed.
    Don't get me wrong, i'm all for space exploration by humans. I think it should be our aim, eventually, to get of this planet and start exploring the galaxy. But we need to look at this realistically, whats the point in all of us floating around the solar system in tin cans?

    If you want a reason to live in space, how about there being finite room on Earth? Or the high cost of lowering extraterrestrial resources down to the surface?
    The worlds population growth rate is falling, when it will level off who knows. But there will be enough room for us.

    If we do decide to send all those people to mars what else are they going to need? Doctors, nurses, teaches, farmers, police etc etc. We are talking about thousands of people, and they are going to what to come back to earth occasionally. Who is going to pay for all of this, governments/tax payers? nope. The only way to pay for it is through the private sector, and they would pay for a million dollar machine rather than a million people.

    Robots huh? Why not people? We're expendable aren't we? Anyway, we'll always want employment, wherever we pioneer.
    People use to say the same thing during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Saying that, people travelled all over the world from Europe for work, perhaps the same thing will happen here. Then of course they will want representation in governments or perhaps they will abandon any loyalty after a couple of generations and form the united states of mars? or the united tin cans of Jupiter.

    -----------------------------

    I'm really only taking about the next century or so. My point is that there is a huge number of things we need to consider before hand. If all we are after is to keep the price of iron down, then robots will do just fine, after all, we use robots for deep sea exploration, no need for people to go all the way down there.

    If we are talking about our long term plans, then yes lets get of this rock and explore the galaxy, inside our machines.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    If all we are after is to keep the price of iron down, then robots will do just fine...

    If we are talking about our long term plans, then yes lets get of this rock and explore the galaxy, inside our machines.
    I see what you mean now. Sensible.

    Honestly, the thought of population leveling off, scares me. It seems like death. But that's values and aside from the main topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by mathformonkeys
    well, now that i think about it....
    mars is a lot smaller than earth
    yes, and space habs are much smaller than mars...

    The point is that in the short-run (next few centuries) Mars can provide earth some release from overpopulation. In the long term though, (next few millenia) we will need to create a series of ringworlds in order to sustain all of the planets surviving lifeforms for transport to other star systems.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    The worlds population growth rate is falling, when it will level off who knows. But there will be enough room for us.
    Really? I never knew the growth rate was decreasing. In any case, the growth rate is still exponential isn't it? I can't see any reason for that to change on a long-term basis, short of thermonuclear war, bioloigcal epidemics, or large scale natural disasters.

    I can't see any basis to predict that our growth rate will level will decrease, and because of that, in my opinion we will be forced into space sooner or later, due to insufficient resources and over-population.

    We may yet have a long way to go before then, and find solutions closer to home (For example Tokyo engineers building skywards, and using innovative city planning, to accomodate a growing poulation), but eventually I believe we will need to look elsewhere, any by that time our technology may allow us more freedom to do so.

    (As an example of Tokyo engineering...check out the proposed SkyCity 1000...Youtbe has dicovery channel's programme on it in about 4-5 parts...so much innovation there.)
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The earths surface is 70% Water and 30% Land. Of the 30%, we currently live on 5% is in concentrated areas and about 25% is used for growing or feeding of animals for food. In the US, agriculture has tripled per acre used for agriculture in the past 50 years and pasturing animals for dairy or human food, is more a convenience than necessity. Feed lots, egg farms, even sea food can be produced in much smaller areas and the technology ever increasing.

    The worlds population is 6.3 billion, expected to be near 10 billion by 2100 and no one I know of, thinks we will have a problem in this time frame.
    If population did continue to grow and if humans desired or wanted food products currently required, there should be no problems in a thousand years and to 40-50 billion people. I don't think any one expects nothing will be done, to slow population growth.

    On Earth, we use virtually none of the 70% sea/ocean surface for living on or the 17-20% desert areas. California/Arizona did turn thousands of square miles of desert into viable agricultural area, not out of necessity but for commercial reason. Most all desert lands, can produce food and are located in mountain ranges (reason deserts form) and supply the water required for at least a two crop/year yield.

    What would be the NEED, for society (not science oriented) to live on Mars, the moon or in flying objects around the planet. Would it be much simpler to dome cities in desert lands of create some form of habitable structure on the oceans, than mess with other planets &/or moons, which are not or likely ever to be naturally habitable by humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The earths surface is 70% Water and 30% Land. Of the 30%, we currently live on 5% is in concentrated areas and about 25% is used for growing or feeding of animals for food. In the US, agriculture has tripled per acre used for agriculture in the past 50 years and pasturing animals for dairy or human food, is more a convenience than necessity. Feed lots, egg farms, even sea food can be produced in much smaller areas and the technology ever increasing.

    The worlds population is 6.3 billion, expected to be near 10 billion by 2100 and no one I know of, thinks we will have a problem in this time frame.
    If population did continue to grow and if humans desired or wanted food products currently required, there should be no problems in a thousand years and to 40-50 billion people. I don't think any one expects nothing will be done, to slow population growth.

    On Earth, we use virtually none of the 70% sea/ocean surface for living on or the 17-20% desert areas. California/Arizona did turn thousands of square miles of desert into viable agricultural area, not out of necessity but for commercial reason. Most all desert lands, can produce food and are located in mountain ranges (reason deserts form) and supply the water required for at least a two crop/year yield.

    What would be the NEED, for society (not science oriented) to live on Mars, the moon or in flying objects around the planet. Would it be much simpler to dome cities in desert lands of create some form of habitable structure on the oceans, than mess with other planets &/or moons, which are not or likely ever to be naturally habitable by humans.
    I agree with this fully, manned space exploration, at least for the next few centuries, is more about exploration, discovery, learning than it is for finding a habitat.

    Right now, there is no "Population Problem", usually the only people saying this are people who listen to China's Government who is committing forced abortions, not because of overcrowding, but because the government, being communist based, is trying to make their economy work better the way they see fit. If they just utilized their land better, the overcrowding would be a non-issue.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    I agree too, but as said in my previous post, there may come a time when it is absolutely necessary and feasible to spread our race beyond Earth. Ok, maybe in 1000 years time Earth may still be enough, and as I said, there are many innovative effective city planning schemes both technologically and economically that will help us do this. But what about 2000 years, 3000 years, 50000 years, etc..? Provided we are not wiped out, what's to say our population won't increase such as it has already, when eventually there is simply not enough room.

    When I say this, I do not have in my mind the latest reports of proposed mars landings from NASA, or any current political issue, only the fact that we as a race have grown and spread exponentially, for as long as we have known, and that each new person requires new resources, of which there are finite on Earth.

    NB: It might be of interest that Stephen Hawking is also of the view that our civilization will eventually need to spread into space. This may be that he watches too much sci-fi, or may be an educated estimation from an experienced superbrain. I'm not saying I believe this simply because Mr.Hawking does, but it certainly seems to be a good estimation for our future, based on our past.

    For the present day, I'm with the majority...there is no need for it. However, their is a big scientific want for it, and I think in the interest of science, we may see mars-landings within the next couple of centuries or sooner. I'm all for it.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    The world population is currently 6.7 billion and is expected to peak at around 9 billion in 2075. (UN report page 82) Europe's population is falling despite high levels of immigration from outside Europe. Japan is on the verge of having a negative population growth. USA's population growth is mainly due to immigration. South America, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Australasia all have a growing population. The peak global human growth rate was 2.19 in 1962, it has been steadily declining ever since and is currently around 1.14.

    India is due to overtake China as the world most populated country in about 10 years time.

    China has a huge problem on it's hands with regards to it's population. The average fertility rate for a woman of child bearing age at the moment is 1.75, this isn't though uniformed across China. The villages and rural areas have a much higher fertility rate than the city's. The average fertility rate for a Chinese city is 0.86, the lowest of which is Jiamusi city (0.41), which is the lowest fertility rate recorded anywhere in the world. As more people move into the city's away from the country-side the fertility rate is expected to continue to decrease. The major problem though is China's one child policy and parents preference for boys. This has created a lopsided population with some estimates of a 55m/45f ratio. This trend is expected to continue as China continues it's one child policy and older generations with a roughly equal m/f ratio pass away.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The earths surface is 70% Water and 30% Land. Of the 30%, we currently live on 5% is in concentrated areas and about 25% is used for growing or feeding of animals for food. In the US, agriculture has tripled per acre used for agriculture in the past 50 years and pasturing animals for dairy or human food, is more a convenience than necessity. Feed lots, egg farms, even sea food can be produced in much smaller areas and the technology ever increasing.

    The worlds population is 6.3 billion, expected to be near 10 billion by 2100 and no one I know of, thinks we will have a problem in this time frame.
    If population did continue to grow and if humans desired or wanted food products currently required, there should be no problems in a thousand years and to 40-50 billion people. I don't think any one expects nothing will be done, to slow population growth.

    On Earth, we use virtually none of the 70% sea/ocean surface for living on or the 17-20% desert areas. California/Arizona did turn thousands of square miles of desert into viable agricultural area, not out of necessity but for commercial reason. Most all desert lands, can produce food and are located in mountain ranges (reason deserts form) and supply the water required for at least a two crop/year yield.

    What would be the NEED, for society (not science oriented) to live on Mars, the moon or in flying objects around the planet. Would it be much simpler to dome cities in desert lands of create some form of habitable structure on the oceans, than mess with other planets &/or moons, which are not or likely ever to be naturally habitable by humans.
    The thing of it is, the abundance of food determines the abundance of everything else. If people are having to go to an ungodly amount of effort just to eat, then they don't time to do anything else, like cool stuff.

    America's rise as an industrial power occurred in the wake of the westward expansion when food and arable land were so abundant as to be hard for people living in other parts of the world to imagine at the time.

    Do you want the third world to ever rise up out of the poverty they're mired in, or do you just want the world to tread water? The easiest way to feed somebody is just for them not to be there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    A space hab can be built right now. It would contain all of the things that the builder was ‘habitually’ used to having around. In fact, it would be just like living where you live today, except that you wouldn’t have to worry about super volcanoes or mega-tsunamis or any disasters at all. The inhabitants of some super city on Earth would have to. The Earth is the graveyard for a trillion extinct species. It is a ‘bulls-eye’ floating in space. Unlike a space hab, we can’t move the Earth away from a comet or an asteroid.

    Mars has a surface area about equal to the land area on Earth, so if 100 billion people could live on Earth, then somehow colonizing Mars might double this. However, literally 100 billion times the Earth’s population could live in space habs. A space hab would use energy from the Sun to make electricity, smelt ore, run factories, etc. Agriculture would grow 24/7, for 365 days a year. Resources could be mined on the Moon and fabricated into building materials by automated machines (again using free sunlight), many of which have already been designed. Solar powered mass drivers shoot the products up into orbit where they are easily moved to the space colony.

    Imagine a forum two million years ago in a forest in East Africa. The primate inhabitants live in a dwindling environment due to overpopulation and climate change. Some of them have decided to ration the remaining limited resources and limit procreation. They may even attempt to spread to a smaller nearby forest where they will eventually have to follow the same draconian measures to survive. Another group of the primates decide, “Screw this! We’re going to live on the ground and fill every corner of the planet.” We of course, can live in space and fill every corner of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree bit4bit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    621
    Cat, interesting data, but do you think this will really be an absolute peak in the Earth's population? It could be that the Earths population might be due for a slowing down, but whether this will be permanent or temporary who knows. The report is up to 2500, and beyond that it may be that the population is ready to increase again.
    Chance favours the prepared mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    An interesting point came to mind reading your post Ach. Transport of ore from the surface of the Moon to a hab in near Earth orbit might actually be easier than transporting the same amount of ore over land from say Atlanta, or LA.

    Space is basically an ocean with near zero friction. If you start an object in motion toward a destination anywhere in the Solar System, it will drift there. At most you may have to make a few course corrections here and there, to make up for any miscalculations or accommodate the randomness of the solar wind.

    One has to do a lot more math to get the trajectories right, of course, but we've got computers for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Thanks to Cat for bringing some facts to the discussion.

    No one has directly mentioned biodiversity, though kojax made an oblique reference. Mankind is a pestilence on the face of the planet. We have initiated a massive extinction event that could see 1/3 of species perish before the end of the century and most of the large mammals. (Remember that we already probably took care of most of them during the last 10,000 years.) We have triggered climatic changes whose consequences remain unknown, but which will be unnerving and disruptive at best. We are extracting more from the biosphere than can be replaced by natural processes at a factor of about 1.4. Water tables are falling globally. Metal resources are being mined out. We are nearing peak production of oil. International conflicts abound. All of these can be attributed direcly to overpopulation.

    I am, at heart, an optimist, but unless and until we reduce our population to a sustainable level, at which all can enjoy a materially sound existence, then mankind has a pretty bleak future. Imaginative, schemes for moving the excess population off planet can only be envisaged by someone who has failed (I mean utterly and abyssmally failed) to consider the logistics of the problem.

    Let's get real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 Real enough for ya? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Someone who takes the Agent Smith view of humanity, that we are a disease, a plague, a cancer of this planet, and then calls himself an optimist obviously has failed utterly and abysmally to consider the logistics of starving humanity down to what he considers a ‘sustainable level’. Limiting the birth of unborn children is imaginative, but which of the already living humans would you have done without?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
    Many very accomplished scientists have already figured out the logistics for moving all of the Earth’s population off planet. All of the cities in the western hemisphere were built in the last five hundred years. In less than that, all of our cities will be rebuilt in orbit, where energy from the Sun is free and resources abound. Solar power stations that beam their energy back to the Earth is the industry that will start space colonization. There are also nine million millionaires in America alone that may want to vacation in orbit. Modular space stations will grow to Bernal Spheres up to a kilometer in length. If about a quarter of the space colonists built new structures, in less than sixty years there would be enough living space for the present world population. These would be true living spaces with perfect environments, animals, plants, and everything else. There are already designs for space craft that use the atmosphere for fuel, so getting up to orbit really is not a problem. Just because NASA doesn’t move millions of people to orbit, doesn’t mean that we can’t. Of course, the optimists who don’t want to be part of this can always stay on the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Real enough for ya? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Someone who takes the Agent Smith view of humanity, that we are a disease, a plague, a cancer of this planet, and then calls himself an optimist obviously has failed utterly and abysmally to consider the logistics of starving humanity down to what he considers a ‘sustainable level’.
    No starvation is required. A progressive reduction in population can and will occur if we address the issue. Europe is about to decline in population without immigration. If a modicum of wealth can be delivered to people and a degree of security, the majority reduce the number of children to replacement levels, or lower.

    Please provide the calculations showing how you can move 200,000 people per day off planet every day, every year, indefinitely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Three million people fly in jetliners every day. You don't think that in a hundred years spaceliners using the atomosphere for fuel, won't accomplish the same?
    "Saying that there are too many children is like saying that there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ah Mother Teresa. Of course you know, it's theoretically possible for flowers to overpopulate as well. They just haven't so far (and it doesn't look like they will any time soon.)

    Religions are stuck in an old world, where population problems were routinely being solved by diseases and massively genocidal wars. If it weren't for the nuclear bomb, we'd have had several such wars since WW2. I mean, we'd probably be on something like World War 7 by now.

    What I mean to say is: there was a time when it was indeed impossible to ever have too many children. That time is long past, but religions have a hard time adapting to change.

    It's fun reading the various sci-fi's that talk about aliens invading and these classic, soldier vs. soldier, non-nuclear wars ensuing, where we give as good as we get. Always a common theme: the population gets trimmed down to the nubbins, and the survivors remain to "rebuild". And it's funny the feeling evoked by seeing that. There's always a lot of hope for them, a certain kind of hope that's lacking right now in the real world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Three million people fly in jetliners every day. You don't think that in a hundred years spaceliners using the atomosphere for fuel, won't accomplish the same?
    Could you explain what component of the atmosphere would constitute fuel? If you have a viable solution, perhaps our concerns over a global energy shortage are unfounded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Kojax, I am probably the least religious person here, but if it makes sense, it doesn’t matter who said it. The way I see it, there are two choices. Live on Earth in some joy-joy world where an environmental fascist can tax the carbon footprint your flatulation causes, or have your mail forwarded to “P.O. Box, Kiss my freakin’ A, Space Hab”. Spaceward, Ho!

    O'-In a story in Sci-American a few years ago, a guy had used a 'laser' to superheat the atmosphere under a spaceship design that resembled a saucer (go figure). It was a great article. I haven't been able to find an online link though. There really are solutions that don't require everyone to be sheeple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    I haven't been able to find an online link though.
    :?
    http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/
    That took forty eight seconds.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    There really are solutions that don't require everyone to be sheeple.
    If you do not understand that a space habitat would have a rigidly controlled populace, then you do not understand the fragility of a space habitat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    O-Thanks, but the story in Sci-American is what I couldn't find a link to.

    One space hab might be a controlled environment, but not millions of them. A Bernal sphere is huge. You could put a city in it. You can move around if you don't like where you are. Anything youn can still do in the U.S. of A. you could do in space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    O-Thanks, but the story in Sci-American is what I couldn't find a link to.
    Right. But this is from the company that is running the project. I haven't dipped into to it yet. You probably need a SciAm subscription ot access the article now.

    I concede that eventually space habitats can be large enough that the chances of an individual causing significant damage are vanishingly small. (In the extreme, think of RingWorld). However, the first colonies will be small, necessarily. These will require an authoritarian government, with draconian punishment for those infringing the rules. It will be extremely difficult for later colonies to avoid carrying over that mindset.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Take 48 seconds to google Freeman Dyson, Dyson Ring, Bernal Sphere or L-5 Society. These space habs are nothing like the ISS. They would be populated by anyone willing to live in a perfect environment, with endless energy and resources. Americans started out as indentured servants and slaves, but we didn’t stay that way. Virtually any community could build their own space hab and live anyway that they wanted. You build modular habs that link together as they are built, and as I posted, as the population of builders grows exponentially, it only takes sixty years to go from zero to enough habitats for everyone on Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Technically since society began, there has been a ruling population and another working class. Today and tomorrow will be no different...

    One thing I am not getting from this thread, is where all this material is coming from to build all these ideas, how its getting into space and for what reason, once the reason goes beyond exploration. Unlimited energy, I understand, but unlimited resources???

    If going hypothetical and taking futuristic science, such as nanotechnology, space elevators or just launching matter into space and using, say the moons matter and reformulating into building products and fuels. Why 'millions of hab's' and not just one to two, which could exit the solar system, have there own natural gravity (by then, one way or another).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Everything in the solar system can be deconstructed and built into habs. Asteroids and the Moon at first, but anything goes, even planets (even the Earth). Mass drivers use alternating electric current to propel building material from low mass sources into orbit and space elevators can be used to move items from planets. One large sphere would not have as much surface area for gathering sunlight as millions of habs, but planet or moon sized interstellar ships are possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I have a pet colony design that's essentially a single celled organism. It's alive. It is sloppy & wasteful, and it's optimized to reproduce, by division naturally. Our role in that is comparable to genetic code. We would occupy a relatively tiny portion of the colony metabolism/environment, in human habitats within a greater "natural" habitat.

    Habs within habs, within habs...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Everything in the solar system can be deconstructed and built into habs. Asteroids and the Moon at first, but anything goes, even planets (even the Earth). Mass drivers use alternating electric current to propel building material from low mass sources into orvit and space elevators can be used to move items from planets. One large sphere would not have as much surface area for gathering sunlight as millions of habs, but planet or moon sized interstellar ships are possible.
    Since mass transfer, via laser beams, has had some success, suppose it will be practical in a few decades. But extracting atoms from various matter to produce viable products may take awhile. As for sunlight, the energy would would be independent of a larger sphere or smaller habitat, much like done on all probes, mars landers and even the Space Station, today. Get much past Mars and the sun would do no good, at least with todays technology. Any ship or artificial planet, would be domed and self sufficient for decades if not centuries, once outside this solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Take 48 seconds to google Freeman Dyson, Dyson Ring, Bernal Sphere or L-5 Society.
    With respect, I hardly need to google for concepts and individuals I have been familiar with for decades. Decades during which I have thought long and hard upon their strengths and limitations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackson33
    One thing I am not getting from this thread, is where all this material is coming from to build all these ideas, how its getting into space and for what reason, once the reason goes beyond exploration. Unlimited energy, I understand, but unlimited resources???
    It certainly isn't coming from the Earth. Our gravity well just does not make that practical, even with one or more beanstalks in place. (And they are the only mechanssm that might permit an exodus on the scale Arch thinks is feasible.) Energy is not an issue - just build lots of solar panels. For material either latch on to a few NEOs, or build a prototype beanstalk on the moon.

    Habs within habs, within habs...
    That sounds habit forming. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, the best source of escape energy would be to use nuclear powered space craft. Super heating air in the upper atmosphere and then running it through a scram jet type of jet engine, it may be possible to reach escape velocity before reaching outer space.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Kojax, I am probably the least religious person here, but if it makes sense, it doesn’t matter who said it. The way I see it, there are two choices. Live on Earth in some joy-joy world where an environmental fascist can tax the carbon footprint your flatulation causes, or have your mail forwarded to “P.O. Box, Kiss my freakin’ A, Space Hab”. Spaceward, Ho!

    O'-In a story in Sci-American a few years ago, a guy had used a 'laser' to superheat the atmosphere under a spaceship design that resembled a saucer (go figure). It was a great article. I haven't been able to find an online link though. There really are solutions that don't require everyone to be sheeple.
    The only reason we worry about taxing flatuation is because, taken together, 6 billion people can make enough of it to ruin the planet. 6 million could not. Basically the only way you can get the freedom you're after, without getting into space is to either:

    A) - Just accept that the planet's biosphere is going to fall apart and we're all going to die, and then just be happy you're alive now.

    or

    B) - Cut down the population to an acceptable level, without using thermo-nuclear weapons in the process.

    As for using space habs to solve that problem: You don't think it's enough for parents to have to save for their children's college? Try saving up enough money to build a space hab for your children.

    If we go the over population route, then the only way any parent can say that they're honestly providing a future for their children is to ensure that they're part owners in one of those habs. Otherwise, they're just expecting society to bear the burden for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •