Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TG Daily)   NASA's head explodes with dark forebodings, too   (tgdaily.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, NASA, outpost, equilibrium, International Space Station  
•       •       •

14627 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:00 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-09-25 12:37:39 PM  
2 votes:

Linux_Yes: and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill too. that way, the tax payer takes the risks/foots the bill, and the contract companies make any profits that come out of the research. that there is Freedom, baby! Socialists!!


they need to stick with unmanned space trips. manned is way too expensive.


Too expensive, compared to what? We are adding people to the planet at a rate of 210,000 per day. We are going to blink and there will be 9,000,000,000 of us. We better start learning how to get off this rock.
2012-09-25 12:14:24 PM  
2 votes:

Tom_Slick: Not being educated in such matters I don't understand why they can not construct a space craft at the ISS to go to the moon and beyond, it has got to be easier to get there in a sizable craft that is already in orbit.


Because its in a very inclined orbit so the russians could get there. Its in the wrong place. The ISS is in the wrong place. Everytime we have this thread someone has to say it.
2012-09-25 07:11:09 PM  
1 vote:

pxsteel: StoneColdAtheist: It's going to go up by about half, maybe even double depending on longevity advances, then slowly drop over the next several hundred years. It isn't going to do anything even remotely like any kind of Malthusian solution.

What is going to make it decline over the next several hundred years? Longevity is going to continue to increase.


While I agree that longevity is going to continue to increase, several 'social engineering' factors lead me to believe the global population will start to drop later this century.

First of all, I doubt longevity increases will be universal accessible, just as quality health care is not today. The wealthy will be able to afford it, while the working and idle poor will not. On a related note I believe access to longevity will emerge as the great social justice issue of the next century. In the meantime, a couple of billion of those alive today will die off.

Second, in virtually every case looked at over the past century, fertility drops dramatically as soon as more than half of children born reach their 5th birthday. Add in the effects of education and the migration off the rice paddy into the city and that simply accelerates.

Numerous countries are ALREADY below replacement rates and the steepest ongoing drops are in the poorest countries that have traditionally had high fertility rates. Add in efforts to bring birth control to those corners of the world where women don't yet have it and the decline will spread there too. In coming decades I suspect more and more young adults will simply decline to become parents.

Okay, so much for the income stream. Now lets look at the exit stream. The world's population is aging rapidly, with most of those newly elderly in developing countries where they are more likely to die.

www.imf.org

That means only a relatively small fraction of those alive today will see the year 2100, much less 2300, which means we'll be starting the era of long lifes after more people alive today are dead.

Ennui. Even after most people have access to life extension technology, many will opt out for a variety of reasons. This is the most speculative notion I put forward here, and I could be totally wrong, but when centuries of life become possible I suspect that there will be a demand for a universal right to end one's life painlessly.

Anyway, this is a fascinating subject to me, but this is enough for now...back to work! ;)
2012-09-25 02:56:27 PM  
1 vote:

Mr. Carpenter: StoneColdAtheist: Most population scientists think our population will peak at about 7.5 billion later this century before dropping to about half our present 6 billion. Earth will be a very nice place to live in the year 2300.

Oh and instead of cherry picking graphs and selectively EDITING MY POST to change what I said, specifically removing the (this is statistically possible BUT...) part, how about you trying being a little bit more ethical and a little bit less dis-ingenious

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300 f inal.pdf


Get over yourself, asshat. It is not even "statistically possible". Your own source notes that "A fifth scenario is added by simply extending the constant-fertility scenario in the 2002 Revision, therefore holding total fertility indefinitely at its level in 1995-2000. This scenario produces an unrealistic, and almost unimaginable world population of 134 trillion by 2300."

That word "unrealistic" doesn't mean "statistically possible"...it means it can't happen. Here's why: we currently produce enough food on Earth to feed about half again as many people as we do now (due to spoilage, waste, diverting grains into fuels production, etc.). By careful management we could probably double our acreage under cultivation, which would get us to ~20 billion. We could also probably double our production rate per acre, which might get us to 40 billion, though at that number we'd be susceptible to random mass starvation due to hiccups in production and distribution.

Let's say we could get to 50 billion with careful, world-wide management. That's one-twentieth of ONE trillion. Nowhere near 134 trillion. What's more, other studies that include such factors as forced relocation (off farmable land into towns and cities) and forced reallocation of resources still don't come up with even 1% of that 134 trillion.

The only thing that number proves is that someone at the UN knows how to program a simple equation into a computer.

PallMall: StoneColdAtheist: Earth will be a very nice place to live in the year 2300.

Doubtful


We'll all look like Brazilians and speak Chinglish.
2012-09-25 12:54:35 PM  
1 vote:

pxsteel: Linux_Yes: and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill too. that way, the tax payer takes the risks/foots the bill, and the contract companies make any profits that come out of the research. that there is Freedom, baby! Socialists!!


they need to stick with unmanned space trips. manned is way too expensive.

Too expensive, compared to what? We are adding people to the planet at a rate of 210,000 per day. We are going to blink and there will be 9,000,000,000 of us. We better start learning how to get off this rock.


Unless we discover Stargates similar to Heinlein's "Tunnel in the Sky" (that can stay open for extended periods) we will never be able to relieve population pressure here on Earth through space travel. And even if we did, I suspect that the process of shoving 200,000 people per day (about 140 per minute) would be exceedingly cruel and casualty-prone. Not to mention the attrition rate on the virgin planets they would be sent to.

If you sit down and look at the math, however, I think you will see that the world can easily support 9 or even 20 billion people. Food? Water? These are DISTRIBUTION and POLITICAL issues. Get rid of the dictators who use food and water as weapons to control their populations and I think 99% of the problems will go away. Pollution? Technology solutions. AGW (if it exists)? Technology solutions.

The reason to get off Earth are those of racial survival. One of these days a big rock is gonna slap us.
2012-09-25 12:47:29 PM  
1 vote:

AntonChigger: pxsteel: Linux_Yes: and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill too. that way, the tax payer takes the risks/foots the bill, and the contract companies make any profits that come out of the research. that there is Freedom, baby! Socialists!!


they need to stick with unmanned space trips. manned is way too expensive.

Too expensive, compared to what? We are adding people to the planet at a rate of 210,000 per day. We are going to blink and there will be 9,000,000,000 of us. We better start learning how to get off this rock.

citation needed

At any rate, I don't disagree with you. Its going to be expensive regardless, and unmanned probes can only tell us so much.


1999-2012 = 1,000,000,000 added
1,000,000,000 / 13 = 76,923,076
76,923,076 / 365 = 210,748 per day
2012-09-25 12:40:34 PM  
1 vote:

pxsteel: Linux_Yes: and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill too. that way, the tax payer takes the risks/foots the bill, and the contract companies make any profits that come out of the research. that there is Freedom, baby! Socialists!!


they need to stick with unmanned space trips. manned is way too expensive.

Too expensive, compared to what? We are adding people to the planet at a rate of 210,000 per day. We are going to blink and there will be 9,000,000,000 of us. We better start learning how to get off this rock.


citation needed

At any rate, I don't disagree with you. Its going to be expensive regardless, and unmanned probes can only tell us so much.
2012-09-25 12:22:49 PM  
1 vote:
So last night the guys and I got together to jam a bit and we were working on "Under Pressure" and I'll be damned if Dave our bassist just didn't start going off about his good times in Miami, girls in bikinis and such. So I walked out and just sat on the grass for a bit and let my girlfriend ride my bike around. I wish I could have given it to her but it was on loan from a friend. I'll give her whatever she wants if she is so inclined.
2012-09-25 12:15:28 PM  
1 vote:
Wonder how much junk is floating around that L2 point, just waiting to smash into something soft.
2012-09-25 12:08:26 PM  
1 vote:
www.pinkraygun.com

"This will not end well."
2012-09-25 10:54:25 AM  
1 vote:
"Tentatively dubbed the "gateway spacecraft," the outpost..."

Gateway Station?


s12.postimage.org
2012-09-25 10:50:07 AM  
1 vote:
Cool idea

/never happen
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report