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

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Do you think humans should colonize other planets?


  • Total voters
    23

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,874
2,462
8,070
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 :)
 
Jul 27, 2021
160
109
260
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/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
1,621
1,375
3,560
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]
 
Jul 27, 2021
160
109
260
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..'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 31, 2021
7
1
15
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!
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2021
160
109
260
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):



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

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,874
2,462
8,070
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 :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,621
1,375
3,560
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 31, 2021
7
1
15
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

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,874
2,462
8,070
  • Like
Reactions: The Tube
Jun 1, 2020
1,621
1,375
3,560
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
1,621
1,375
3,560
"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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 31, 2021
7
1
15
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

The devil is in the detail
Feb 18, 2020
3,874
2,462
8,070
"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 :)
 
Jul 26, 2020
5
2
515
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Fabian
Aug 31, 2021
7
1
15
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"
 
Jul 27, 2021
160
109
260
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY