h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'1) Population. . .'

From what I understand, we're making something like 150 babies *per minute*. If we're to get 'significant numbers of people off Earth in the context of population control, we're talking about inconceivable heavy lift rocket use, especially when you consider that the U.S. Shuttle, the space vehicle with the largest crew capacity ever, presently manages to lift seven people at a time at a much less frequent rate than once a minute. You're talking something like 200 shuttle launches *every minute* just to keep our population steady. Plus we need somewhere for them to go.

Introduce a swingeing "baby tax" on Earth alongside a generous "baby bonus" for any born in an off-planet colony.

Oh and, the 200 Space Shuttle launches per minute? Dead easy with the Space Elevator SoRB mentioned earlier.

Personally, I think the sensible solution to the population problem would be to institute a mandatory redefinition of marriage to be between two men and two women and limit each such four person union to two children.



Don't get me wrong: I'm in favour of the various space programs. I'm just not as sold on the space-colonization-as-solution-to-the-population-issue (even with a space elevator) as I was when I was an adolescent.


A space elevator carrying 150+ people a minute? To where? Low-earth orbit? How does that benefit us much? To transfer vehicles aimed at Mars? How many and how big are these transfer vehicles? They'll have to have big doors to get 150 people through them each minute.


Seriously, let's explore space in order to explore space and let's colonize space in order to colonize space, and, along the way, let's divert some asteroids and comets. I think there are enough justifications for it without resorting to the idea that we can ship enough people out there quickly enough that Earth will be a paradise for those left behind. (what will convince the last 150 to leave a near-paradise for a tin box or the airless red chill of Utopia Planitia?)

Eeek! Three Mothers-in-law

Oh. And mothers in law would be exiled to the off-world colonies.

Oi!

Stop talking absolutes!

2 a day would be an improvement, and various other methods would help as well. We may drown in humanity but personally I'd rather see it delayed as long as possible.

Not to mention that we are not talking about individuals born and being *recycled*, we are talking about the possible death of a species. A species I happen to hold near and dear.

Seriously, I'd like to see the vast majority of people become sensible enough (education?) to realize that one child per couple is a worthy goal. On this subject I would recommend to all "The Time Before History" by Colin Tudge http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/The-TIME-BEFORE-HISTORY-Colin-Tudge/9780684830520-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+'colin+tudge' particularly the final chapter in which he does the mathematics for us and demonstrates that there is the potential for vastly more people to live a satisfying and productive life if *we* take measures to reduce population than if we just let things putter along as they have.

>Seriously, I'd like to see the vast majority of people become sensible enough (education?) to realize that one child per couple is a worthy goal<



anhaga, you dreamer!




Me, too!

'anhaga, you dreamer!'


That's why I'd try to redefine 'couple' as 'four'. Perhaps this would fool people into accepting two children per 'couple' and avoid the baggage of previous 'one child per couple' programmes.

Two children per couple is fine, because not all of those children will breed. I haven't.

A couple I knew at school had just the two children. One of them, one of my best friends, died in a motorbike accident at fifteen.

Allow all couples two children, but encourage extreme sports...

SoRB

What happens if they divorce and remarry?

I can see a few religions having a teensy-weensy problem with the idea of limiting children.

Not just religionists, but most people putting individuals' freedom above living sustainably on Earth. Which is most of Western society these days. The book anhaga referred to is called 'The Day Before Yesterday' in the UK, and it is utterly superb. Well worth a read.

In an earlier post, SoRB said that the highest purpose of humanity was to achieve immortality through colonising space. I disagree, I think it would be to leave Earth in something close to the state it's in at the moment, or even better, the state it was in before we started destroying it.

NASA *was* also in charge of monitoring the global environment. They collected and compiled satellite data that provide a record of the Earth's surface temperature for 30 years. That's being shouldered aside for the ole' moon base.

"2. HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE?
In his opening statement at a hearing on Hubble options, Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee, observed: "One can't help but root for it"; surely he can do more than that. It's widely expected that on Monday the President's asking budget will only include funds to dump Hubble in the Ocean. What madness compels this act? Hubble, Joe Taylor testified, "is still in the prime of its scientific life." Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Institute, said it's the nation's "most productive science facility." It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle. The James Webb Space Telescope won't go on line before 2011. Even more powerful, we will no doubt come to view JWST with the kind of affection we now feel for Hubble. But long before that happens Hubble is posed to explore dark energy and extrasolar planetary systems. The official explanation for cutting the service mission to Hubble is that, at more than $1B, it's too expensive. Whoa! Lou Lanzerotti testified that it would cost no more than a flight to the ISS, and the nation is committed to 25-30 shuttle flights to the ISS. Would someone tell us what the ISS is doing? And how is NASA paying for 25-30 flights at $1-2B each? Is Ken Lay doing NASA's books? As we pointed out years ago, shuttle arithmetic is not that hard. You just divide the cost of the shuttle program by the number of flights (WN 28 MAR 03). President's budget or not, it's Congress that controls the purse"

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn020405.html


There is a finite amount of research money. If you really want to explore/colonize other planets, why not solve some of the basic problems from here, on earth, for much less money?

"From what I understand, we're making something like 150 babies *per minute*."

I think you've misunderstood how birth rates work - moving 1 person off the Earth for every one born would not keep the population at a steady level, it would systematically *reduce* the overall population of the planet. If you carried on doing it for long enough, there'd be nobody left - you'd have effectively dropped the on-world birth-rate to zero, at which point you have exactly one generation left, who get old, and die alone.

From what I've read, replacement rate is actually about 2.1 children per couple - not exactly sure why, but anyway... As such, 1-child-per-couple policies are only the right answer if they are (or because they inevitably are) temporary and/or imperfectly enforced - otherwise they, too, would see the population gradually dwindle to nothing.

What's stupid, though, is that some countries are actually instituting policies to encourage people to have *more* children, because they're worried about "ageing populations". There's no shortage of *humans*, of course, just of "French", "Japanese", or "British" - in the UK, we're simultaneously told to worry about our low birthrate (1.8?) and the "flood" of immigrants which we have "no room for".

The "simple" solution to over-population requires neither space travel nor enforced family planning, just an end to the stupid ideas and systems that stop us allocating resources properly to the population we have got! (Yeah, I know, not simple at all...)

[IMSoP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/science/space/13shuttle.html?ex=1344657600&en=06a3d8a8305f49a2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

We can't even get the space shuttle program working properly, and we want to build moon bases?

Morning Arnie,

<< There is a finite amount of research money. If you really want to explore/colonize other planets, why not solve some of the basic problems from here, on earth, for much less money? >>

The Precise point of my question!. Post1.

Novo
Terra Bound......

For anyone who is interested, do a google search of "Hubble Space Telescope" and then one for "International Space Station". The results I got for "Hubble Space Telescope" are from entirely from astrophysics/astronomy and science journals, and are about astrophysics and astronomy - understanding who the universe "works". The results for "International Space Station" are mainly about dealing with humans onboard. There were a minority about actual science, and it was unclear that the science being done could only be done on the ISS.

As far as the future of humanity is concerned, the most interesting and relevant science to be done in space is the effect on humans of living and working in space. It is unclear how this might be achieved without sending humans into space.