- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,246
- Points
- 63
Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers
Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations
Links below open in new window
FrozenGate by Avery
Kepler Goes Down :(
- Thread starter daguin
- Start date
- Joined
- May 14, 2013
- Messages
- 3,438
- Points
- 0
I believe its absolutely necessary to continue manned space missions. If we don't there will be much slower progress in developing new technologies to make it easier and cheaper.
We must develop the technologies to colonize space and other planets as well as some faster than light way to reach other star systems. If we don't then the human race wont be here for long.
I doubt the earth can support more than 10 billion people, maybe more than that with new technology I don't know, but if I am right then we don't have much time. Do you know what happens if you put too many rats together in one cage? They kill each other. Humans will be no different. Once resources start getting too short then there will be wars just over resources. If an asteroid or comet doesn't strike the earth first we will destroy it ourselves do to overpopulation. We must develop the technology to move people off world to other locations.
There are current technologies that could help solve both the problems of overpopulation as well as manned space flight. For example genetic engineering, now that we can genetically engineer plants and animals, we can also do the same with humans. What we should consider doing is to genetically alter the entire global population so that in two or three generations we would be much smaller then our current size, lets say something like less than one meter tall. Imagine for a moment how much less space and resources people would need. If the earth can support 10 billion people now then if we were 1/4th our present size then the earth could support a population of 40 billion. This could buy us enough time to develop better technologies for space colonization and long distance space travel. Also people of such small size would be easier to launch into space and would be more suitable for long distance space travel. Just one idea but I think it could work.
Alan
We must develop the technologies to colonize space and other planets as well as some faster than light way to reach other star systems. If we don't then the human race wont be here for long.
I doubt the earth can support more than 10 billion people, maybe more than that with new technology I don't know, but if I am right then we don't have much time. Do you know what happens if you put too many rats together in one cage? They kill each other. Humans will be no different. Once resources start getting too short then there will be wars just over resources. If an asteroid or comet doesn't strike the earth first we will destroy it ourselves do to overpopulation. We must develop the technology to move people off world to other locations.
There are current technologies that could help solve both the problems of overpopulation as well as manned space flight. For example genetic engineering, now that we can genetically engineer plants and animals, we can also do the same with humans. What we should consider doing is to genetically alter the entire global population so that in two or three generations we would be much smaller then our current size, lets say something like less than one meter tall. Imagine for a moment how much less space and resources people would need. If the earth can support 10 billion people now then if we were 1/4th our present size then the earth could support a population of 40 billion. This could buy us enough time to develop better technologies for space colonization and long distance space travel. Also people of such small size would be easier to launch into space and would be more suitable for long distance space travel. Just one idea but I think it could work.
Alan
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,246
- Points
- 63
O'really?
~ LB
~ LB
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,438
- Points
- 83
I was thinking more along the lines of hookers and blow actually.
As for population, we have always had the technology and means to solve overpopulation: starvation and war. In fact, it is said that wars were used as a way to reduce populations -- or a result of that need.
If we wanted to be realistic about solving overpopulation without killing or neglect we'd be investing in new methods of birth control -- not searching the stars for new places to put people. The latter is what a cancer does when there are no "natural forces" to limit growth -- except host death.
Even so, this world can support nearly endless numbers of people so long as the will is there. The sun bombards the earth with 12.2 Trillion watt-hours per sq mile (4.7T/km^2) per year, and there are literally endless mineral and water resources to tap. There is also enough space for everyone on the planet: even 100 Billion people would have 5000m^2 of land area each if spread out over the surface. We'd be building upwards of course, which would house even more people.
The question is: what do we really get out of having more people? Mankind's society has been built on the idea that labor is something important in creating a functioning society. A society without means to work, an outlet for labor, is a dysfunctional society. We see this already with refugees, the unemployed, occupations (Gaza, etc.), even those who choose not to work.
This need to dump labor that makes me think that maybe we will be colonizing places off Earth. We have to give people something to do and build. The alternative scenario is that society becomes more wired together over the internet, and we create and build our worlds there. A giant MMORPG people live out their lives in, accomplishing things. It already happens. The future may be something of both.
Still, as for means, humankind can endlessly expand if allowed.
What would I like to see invested into? For one, a space elevator. It's not so we can go living out there, but rather so we can move things back and forth from space to Earth. This can include weightless labs, disposal of waste, and even energy generation from having an earthed connection to the ionosphere. Though who knows, maybe it'll negatively impact things like weather, communications, etc. Overall, everything would still remain Earth-centric, with space being just another resource. It'd also mean that we could send up bigger and better scopes and probes.
I want to see more advancements in therapeutic cloning and augmentation. I want to experience the world through my senses and abilities, not just read about what "humanity" has accomplished (yeah, great, you were an astronaut, what good does that do for me?). I want good health so that I can see what is here in the world. Sure, I can definitely do more with the time I'm allocated, but imagine the possibilities if you know you have infinite time? We can think in terms of centuries, not decades. I might even bother learning another language, or take a year or two off for traveling, or live a couple decades in some monastery or something.
More immediately, I'd like to see more investment and deployment of better nuclear reactors, such as molten salt nuclear reactors. They'd be quite a bit better than particle-spewing coal or that ecologically disastrous hydro-electric. This should facilitate a move towards more inexpensive personal transport -- not this regressive public transportation trend that comes about from resource costs and/or artificially promoted and funded.
As for population, we have always had the technology and means to solve overpopulation: starvation and war. In fact, it is said that wars were used as a way to reduce populations -- or a result of that need.
If we wanted to be realistic about solving overpopulation without killing or neglect we'd be investing in new methods of birth control -- not searching the stars for new places to put people. The latter is what a cancer does when there are no "natural forces" to limit growth -- except host death.
Even so, this world can support nearly endless numbers of people so long as the will is there. The sun bombards the earth with 12.2 Trillion watt-hours per sq mile (4.7T/km^2) per year, and there are literally endless mineral and water resources to tap. There is also enough space for everyone on the planet: even 100 Billion people would have 5000m^2 of land area each if spread out over the surface. We'd be building upwards of course, which would house even more people.
The question is: what do we really get out of having more people? Mankind's society has been built on the idea that labor is something important in creating a functioning society. A society without means to work, an outlet for labor, is a dysfunctional society. We see this already with refugees, the unemployed, occupations (Gaza, etc.), even those who choose not to work.
This need to dump labor that makes me think that maybe we will be colonizing places off Earth. We have to give people something to do and build. The alternative scenario is that society becomes more wired together over the internet, and we create and build our worlds there. A giant MMORPG people live out their lives in, accomplishing things. It already happens. The future may be something of both.
Still, as for means, humankind can endlessly expand if allowed.
What would I like to see invested into? For one, a space elevator. It's not so we can go living out there, but rather so we can move things back and forth from space to Earth. This can include weightless labs, disposal of waste, and even energy generation from having an earthed connection to the ionosphere. Though who knows, maybe it'll negatively impact things like weather, communications, etc. Overall, everything would still remain Earth-centric, with space being just another resource. It'd also mean that we could send up bigger and better scopes and probes.
I want to see more advancements in therapeutic cloning and augmentation. I want to experience the world through my senses and abilities, not just read about what "humanity" has accomplished (yeah, great, you were an astronaut, what good does that do for me?). I want good health so that I can see what is here in the world. Sure, I can definitely do more with the time I'm allocated, but imagine the possibilities if you know you have infinite time? We can think in terms of centuries, not decades. I might even bother learning another language, or take a year or two off for traveling, or live a couple decades in some monastery or something.
More immediately, I'd like to see more investment and deployment of better nuclear reactors, such as molten salt nuclear reactors. They'd be quite a bit better than particle-spewing coal or that ecologically disastrous hydro-electric. This should facilitate a move towards more inexpensive personal transport -- not this regressive public transportation trend that comes about from resource costs and/or artificially promoted and funded.
millirad
0
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,416
- Points
- 63
Space elevators could probably be developed(hypothetically of coarse), if all of mankind were united to complete it and use all available resources to create one.
But then we would have created a narrow pyramid with very strong light-weight materials and using a light strong cable to lift the carriage people/objects would ride in.
All for the purpose of the best Disneyland ride? What would be it's practicle application?
But then we would have created a narrow pyramid with very strong light-weight materials and using a light strong cable to lift the carriage people/objects would ride in.
All for the purpose of the best Disneyland ride? What would be it's practicle application?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,246
- Points
- 63