Earth's population in 5 billion years - populate space?

Page 2 - 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
nexium(Neil) - Also, meanwhile, our solar system is not static in the Milky Way but moves relative to the specific arm we are near. We may have a somewhat close encounter with another solar system in the next billion years or so. <br /><br />A star may very well pass close to the Oort cloud, making travel to its solar system more workable assuming future better technology. <br /><br />Who knows - we may even have the technology to convert earth into a spaceship!<br /><br />Actually, technically, our earth really is a spaceship - more marvelously designed for comfortable travel in space than human techonolgy could even dream of creating now!<br /><br />However, we were created in God's image, and given enough time............
 
N

newtonian

Guest
stevehw33 - Thank you for the link.<br /><br />Is the Virgo supercluster centered in the Great Attractor?<br /><br />The link seems to imply we are receeding from it now.<br /><br />However, I have read (e.g. in Scientific American) that we are already heading towards the Great Attractor, along with thousands of other galaxies.<br /><br />Also missing from the link is a time frame. <br /><br />Are we due to pass close to the Great Attractor in trillions of years? Or quadrillions of years????<br /><br />Will we end up gravitationally bound to it?<br /><br />BTW - I do not agree with the 'eaten up' conclusion of the link's link to the Virgo supercluster and our local group. It is likely some sort of orbit would result rather than being eaten up - if, in fact, we end up gravitationally bound to it or not!
 
N

newtonian

Guest
crazyeddie - Well, you do agree with the Bible on Malthusian population predictions, and also with Awake! on said subject.<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />"The bible says nothing at all about Malthusian population predictions."<br /><br />And you expect me to refute that incorrect statement without quoting the Bible?<br /><br />For starters:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:28) 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”<br /><br />Note man was told to fill the earth.<br /><br />When someone tells you to fill a cup of coffee, do you continue pouring after it is full?<br /><br />Or do you fill it to a comfortable limit?<br /><br />Further, the Bible repeatedly refers to the future of earth as a paradise - while Malthusian population predictions involve something quite in contrast to paradise.<br /><br />Here are two examples - consider if these conditions would be possible in an overpopulated earth?:<br /><br />(Isaiah 65:21-25) . . .And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. 22 They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. 23 They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them. 24 And it will actually occur that before they call out I myself shall answer; while they are yet speaking, I myself shall hear. 25 “The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my
 
N

newtonian

Guest
stevehw33 - Good post.<br /><br />I agree (note quotes above) that earth will support a higher population being well fed if we eat primarily vegetation rather than meat.<br /><br />On energy availability being involved, and your noting geothermal heat, I might add:<br /><br />Earth actually has an immense amount of energy in its core for geothermal heating and this can be used for food production in the conventional ways - note extremophiles especially thermophiles already produce food by means, in part, from energy from geothermal heat.<br /><br />Note also that earth's future may, if current popular models of stellar evolution do apply to our sun, involve immense input of energy from our sun during red giant phase.<br /><br />This abundance of energy could be allowed to simply destroy life on earth.<br /><br />Or, it could be used to support a much larger population with all energy needs supplied abundantly plus more to spare to store for the future in earth's core.<br /><br />However, even so there is a limit to how large a population could be well fed, including flora and fauna in all biodiversity!<br /><br />Yes, I agree on the importance of use of alternative energy sources. Note that there are many ways of converting energy from less intensive to more intensive forms.<br /><br />For example, pump storage has been used for some time to pump water up during low energy needs or high energy availability (compare strong winds or high sunlight vs...) and then let it run turbines during energy needs.<br /><br />Also, one could produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water for intensive energy use from a more gradual energy input.<br /><br />As in hydrogen fuel cells.<br /><br />The nice part of this is that the product is distilled water, a very useful waste product compared with current pollutants!<br /><br />For future energy needs, have you considered nuclear fusion?<br /><br />On spaceflight - how about ion drive?<br /><br />BTW - no one has faulted my opening math calculation. Is it correc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY