Is it really possible we will ever leave our solar system?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fkawi1

Guest
Do we even know enough yet to answer that question? And another thought is will we be able to afford it?Seems to me if we decide we can't do that then someone should be thinking up something to do about population control here on our own small planet? I don't know what the figures are but how many more people can we support before there will have to be some type of control? It surely can't continue unchecked forever? And who would be the one to decide?I know this is kind of a far reaching thought but there are no dumb questions are there?
 
T

themanwithoutapast

Guest
Depends on what you mean with "we." Here is a concept to spread the human race throughout the galaxy that might be entirely within technical capabilities of this century (however a. it requires the existence of habitable exoplanets b. a number of technological breakthroughs):<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_space_colonization<br />----------<br /><br />Ok now, on a serious note, population growth is not a concern. All calculations show that if current trends continue the population will level off at about 10 billion inhabitants due to declining birth rates in developed countries and countries where the standards of life is growing (e.g. India or China). <br /><br />Oh, and to answer your question on how many people Earth could sustain? Well, with technology improvements and the current scarce use of available land I would say at least 20 times as many people as are currently living on Earth... if not a lot more...<br /><br />
 
F

fkawi1

Guest
Thank you very much for that informative answer! Also the link. It appears that the answer to my first question is pretty simple.<br />But I find it amazing that we have room for 20 times the current population? Even with advances in technology!<br />I guess its not the amount of people so much really as it is what they will or will not do as a whole to protect and preserve the resources we have left. Most people seem pretty greedy and self-serving as it is now. I guess living in Texas doesn't help me relate to being close to your fellow man either, Texans sure do like alot of space! lol<br />Plus when the ice caps melt that will take away some land surface also?<br />
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br /> I guess living in Texas doesn't help me relate to being close to your fellow man either, Texans sure do like alot of space! lol </font><br /><br />Funny, that you should mention Texas and world population. IIRC, I heard or read somewhere, that if you took all the people in the world, and stood them side by side, they would all fill the state of Texas!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Hmm<br />There are over 6.5bn people. If you allocate each homo sapiens one square meter, then you get a surface of 6.5bn suqare meters, that is a square of ... 80km edge.<br />That's the size of L.A. urban area, not Texas..
 
F

fkawi1

Guest
That may be, looking at it from that point of view. But realistically we could not or should I say we would not just all<br />crowd next to one another at arms length and be content with that space to live. How about all the land that is owned by just a small percentage of that total that wouldn't just give it up so others would have a space? Granted my lot is only 175' x 50', but I do own it and live alone and thats my space. Or all the National Parks, or all the land that would be needed just for roads, stores, and other industry to support all the people? It just isn't that easy to say that 20 times more people can really find space on earth, considering also post 9/11 we damn sure don't want them coming here!
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
only option after urban spread horizontally is vertical. hence the new generation skyscrapers; something is gonna be built in dubai eventually, plus the petronas twins, trums new pad in chicago, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Interesting reminder indeed.<br /><br />Btw, allocate a cube 50m-edged to one homo sapiens. (living space + resources)<br />Dig caves in an icy body 150km+ of diameter. (there are thousands in the Solar System).<br />And you get a theoretical occupancy of 14bn people, per icy body..., hence more than 100trillion for all known Kuiper belt objects.<br /><br />Best regards.<br />
 
N

nexium

Guest
Ever is a long time. There is a slight possibility that 6.6 billion people is too many to be sustainable, especially if we continue our wasteful ways. So far we have not ran out of anything, inspite of dire predictions, which have come and gone.<br />Items in short supply become more expensive (such as tin) so we find substitutes in most applications. <br />If modern civilization holds together a few more centuries, the embryos will likely be a light year from Earth and prototypes of a generation ship flying our solar system. At that point we could decide it is too risky and too costly. If modern civilization fails, will it rise again in a few thousand years, and those decendents travel to the stars? It is unknown what the future will be. If we someday learn to work together in wisdom, 130 billion humans can live on this Earth, perhaps not comfortably, but survive until we again become selfish and irrational. Neil
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
This is pretty far afield for Missions and Launches. Perhaps better in SS&A??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Please don't call me sir. I just get all confused.<br /><br />"You idiot", MW, Wayne, or ??? is fine <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The mods will decide if it should be moved. I just made a suggestion.<br /><br />There's a lot of threads in M&L that really don't belong there lately, so I'm suggesting an adherence to the forum subject.<br />It was not directed at your thread in particular.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But realistically we could not or should I say we would not just all crowd next to one another at arms length and be content with that space to live.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The greatest population density in London is found in Kensington & Chelsea (nearly 37,000 per square mile in 1998, and it's gone up since), which also happens to be the richest borough - average household income over $200,000 and average property prices over $2 million - and a highly desired place to live.<br /><br />At that density, a 900 miles square woud be sufficient for the world population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts