Do you think humans should colonize other planets and exploit their resources, too?

[Catastrophe]

OK, colonise them. But, do it in conjunction with population control (reduction). By reduction, I do not mean killing people.

Average assets are total assets divided by population.
Breed like rabbits and be poor, or act like advanced humans and live in plenty. (Vide "Insights").

There is NO question here of nazi-type issues. Advanced means intelligent beyond the current average, irrespective of any other consideration.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

I have encountered different excerpts from the same or parallel work, I think, for the Earth carrying capacity.

‘Economics of population development’ and ‘A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity’, stating that

... among the many factors which drive demographic transition:

• increased education (a strategy that seems to be robust across all three paradigms of the resources/ population issue)
• innovation and technology education
• limit population, because of the established association between increased levels of education and lowered birth rates.
• “better manners” paradigm (or some portion of it) to be open to schooling for children in developing countries
• robust decision making to make decisions that—while not ideal for any one future scenario— will yield an acceptable outcome regardless of which predictions about the future are closest to correct.

https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

 

[Catastrophe]

Sadly, I do not believe humanity capable of reducing population, without Nature taking a hand.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Sadly, I do not believe humanity capable of reducing population, without Nature taking a hand.

The fertility rates in places like the EU presents reasons to think reduction is at least possible. A birth rate of 2.1 is needed just to maintain a population and it is currently at 1.53. [more here].

But, to your point, the world rate is about 2.4, though it is dropping at about 0.4% per year. [here]

 

[Lariliss]

Sadly, I do not believe humanity capable of reducing population, without Nature taking a hand.

Cat

Sadly, frankly, fairly agree.
Hundreds of thousands years ago humanity separated itself from Nature, and still sure about it.
We are going separated from humanitarian times, both educators and disciples.

We could be heroes just till 2050, trend says

Maybe economists will say: '...told you..'

 

[The Tube]

If we only could. Humans as well as every living thing on our planet have evolved to live here, entangled and in relationship to our environment. We are balanced with our surroundings even though we are constantly tipping it into chaos, while believing we are the ones setting order. Evolution has fine tuned life to coexist on Earth as I'm sure it will have done on other worlds where life has hypothetically arisen. We will have to mutate into something else for jolly space faring to happen. (A European has bother visiting the Amazon ffs!)
It'll be to our detriment, and the other worlds, when we try.
We will become an angry bunch of radiated beasties, rampaging through the galaxy! We will become the terrifying creatures out of our own scifi horror movies! But yes. We should go for it. Something has to be the cause of death so it might as well be us!

 

[Lariliss]

Population rate increase possible.
Also, the age distribution is not taken into this numbers.
It is possible to query by region, by age range, by sex from here (rough CSV as well):

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

World population by age and region 2023 | Statista

Worldwide, the share of the population under 15 years of age is over 25 percent. Especially Africa has a high share of people of this age.

www.statista.com

Older than 65 are getting more, younger than 14 are getting less more obviously.
14-65 has a slight descent recent years.

 

[Catastrophe]

The fertility rates in places like the EU presents reasons to think reduction is at least possible. A birth rate of 2.1 is needed just to maintain a population and it is currently at 1.53. [more here].

But, to your point, the world rate is about 2.4, though it is dropping at about 0.4% per year. [here]

Helio, If 2.1 is reached in 2060 (difficult to be precise from this graph), does it give anywhere you can see, what the corresponding population would be then?

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, If 2.1 is reached in 2060 (difficult to be precise from this graph), does it give anywhere you can see, what the corresponding population would be then?

Perhaps 11.5 billion [graph here] by a little after 2100. But human fertility rate comes with choices, unlike with rabbits. Stressful environments will diminish the rate and, in some cases (China), make it mandatory.

 

[The Tube]

Perhaps 11.5 billion [graph here] by a little after 2100. But human fertility rate comes with choices, unlike with rabbits. Stressful environments will diminish the rate and, in some cases (China), make it mandatory.

Isn't there a TED talk that showed we will never pass the 10m mark regarding human population census?

 

[Catastrophe]

population | Search Results | TED
https://www.ted.com › search › q=population

Results 1 - 30 of 1434 — Data visionary Hans Rosling's favorite talks keep an eye toward health, economics and population growth -- from business in Africa to ...


Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | TED Talk
https://www.ted.com › talks › transcript

Here [among the poorest], population is growing. So these [poorest] two billion will, in the next decades ...
9 Jul 2010

Cat

 

[Helio]

There is a limit, IMO, on how the poorer populations can sustain high fertility rates. Diseases, starvation, and other calamities should impact these high rates eventually. Though I'm no expert.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Diseases, starvation, and other calamities should impact these high rates eventually."

aka Nature.

Cat

 

[Lariliss]

"Diseases, starvation, and other calamities should impact these high rates eventually."

aka Nature.

Cat

Bill Gates already gave a comment in an interview about pandemic question: 'I am not happy to say this, but I told you..'.

 

[Helio]

"Diseases, starvation, and other calamities should impact these high rates eventually."

aka Nature.

Cat

Yes. But when a species is fully capable of making choices, then the problems are not the normal passive processes we have in evolution (Nature). It is surprising, a little, that often those who can least afford a large family are the ones with large families. The thought seems to be more kids improves the odds that some will be able to take care of them when they are older. If this is true, and governments offer better elderly care, perhaps such things will affect fertility rates. There are so many other factors, of course.

 

[The Tube]

The original question

Yes. But when a species is fully capable of making choices, then the problems are not the normal passive processes we have in evolution (Nature). It is surprising, a little, that often those who can least afford a large family are the ones with large families. The thought seems to be more kids improves the odds that some will be able to take care of them when they are older. If this is true, and governments offer better elderly care, perhaps such things will affect fertility rates. There are so many other factors, of course.

There is also the idea of those who are less educated, unemployed and who have less resources will contemplate basic urges over what's best for communities. I.e. sexual engagement with more pregnancies and higher birth rates.

 

[Catastrophe]

"It is surprising, a little, that often those who can least afford a large family are the ones with large families. "

I have to preface with the heaviest of caveats here. The following comment does not in any way refer to any specific group of people by whatever characteristic you care to mention, except the one point of intelligence, which, as we all know, is not specific to any particular grouping of humanity.

IMHO, intelligent people understand the issue of population excess. Sadly, many of lesser intelligence do not appear to do so. If, as may be the case, these are the ones liable to indulge in overpopulation, then we have a "survival of the unfit". By "unfit", in this context, I mean those who purposefully endanger the future of humanity.

I hope all who read this, have read the caveat carefully.

Cat

 

[Fission]

This is a moral question, which has been concerning me. I would like to know every ones opinions.

This used to be a topic for comics or science fiction. Aliens who had wrecked their own world colonizing ours. I believe that Neil Armstrong justified the Mars colonization project on just those grounds. The idea is ridiculous! Anything we wish to know about other planets can be learned far better by robotic missions. Humans beyond the Moon add nothing other than massive expense and risk. The effort and funding should be directed towards solving the problems we have caused on the Earth and make this a better planet.

 

[The Tube]

This used to be a topic for comics or science fiction. Aliens who had wrecked their own world colonizing ours. I believe that Neil Armstrong justified the Mars colonization project on just those grounds. The idea is ridiculous! Anything we wish to know about other planets can be learned far better by robotic missions. Humans beyond the Moon add nothing other than massive expense and risk. The effort and funding should be directed towards solving the problems we have caused on the Earth and make this a better planet.

If it weren't for the actions of cowsdoo we'd all be stuck on the second verse of "Old Macdonald"

 

[Lariliss]

Let me put an ‘integral’ point to the ‘resources exploitation / overpopulation / colonization of other planets’ (GDP has no correlation here).

Not referring to any specific group of people.


By ‘integral’ I mean:

1. Mapping (mathematical, not putting on the World map literally) overpopulation vs resources consumption (hence, lifestyle). Birth rate and power consumption per person are not correlated. Example (going to extremes): a lonely educated adult locked down in their flat with a boiler, electric kettle, microwave oven, several laptops/desktops, hot shower, hot floor in winter, even electric car charging near home; and working for a sophisticated ML algorithm feeding to server farms. Another example will be contrary to the previous. This is not a surprise for many locations on the planet, right?
2. Colonization strive, in my opinion, could be more related to climate change and ecosystem survival resources shrink. Narrative to unfocus from necessity of going out of comfort. Extreme example: one has to leave a car, stuck in a jam in flooded street.

In many areas the weather went to extremes this summer.

Surveillance from earth and space and coordination, let them be timely.


P.S.: I have checked, for ML technology power consumption drastic decrease techniques are already announced. We need them for fast decision making.

 

[Catastrophe]

If this species had half a brain, it would realise that average standard of living = total resources divided by total population, and that the good of all would be realised by keeping a level of population such that resources are not used up in one go, engendering the need to despoil other worlds.

That way, Earth would be able to sustain the species for an indefinite period. Colonisation would not be necessary for survival. However, long term survival may be threatened from other directions. Limited exploration and colonisation may be expedient, but should be kept within the limits of sustainability. The overall governing principle must be sustainability, and the stricter the better, always bearing in mind ability to overcome minor, lesser threats.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

The Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of people. In fact, we are probably above the level of sustainability right now. Our only hope is to reduce the birthrate. This is best done by removing the incentive to have a high number of children. Those incentives include the need for multiple children due to high infant mortality due to lack of vaccination and the need for children to support the parents in their old age. Analysis has shown that when a country's per capita GDP reaches the $US 5,000 level, the birthrate drops to the level of sustainability (17 births per thousand per year). This is my graph derived from data obtained here:
GDP - per capita (PPP) vs. Birth rate (indexmundi.com)

https://imgur.com/a/zOoNYf8

View: https://imgur.com/a/zOoNYf8

 

[Catastrophe]

Bill, whilst I do agree with you in principle, I think that incentives or constraints (carrots or sticks) are likely secondary to contraceptive issues. To some, no doubt, such topics may not always be first of consideration 'at the right time'.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

I will restate my position for clarity, to see if we can agree:
- The World has too many people right now.
- Forced sterilization is unethical.
- Voluntary birth control and voluntary vaccinations will help the situation
but are probably not enough to fix the problem.
- The quicker we get the Third World to a levels of per capita income around
US$5,000 the quicker the population of the World will decrease to sustainable levels.

 

[Catastrophe]

Bill, are you suggesting that, if people get more money, their levels of common sense, IQ, and responsibility will automatically rise? Sadly, I believe that the opposite might apply.

Maybe this thread is getting pretty near closing, don't you think?

Do you think humans should colonize other planets and exploit their resources, too?

Not if it is the excuse to extend overpopulation even further.

OP seems long gone.

Cat