In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.950215092616.856A-100000 at cajal>,
Joseph J. Strout <strout at cajal> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>> : The only long-term solution, of course, is to expand from Earth. As you
>> : pointed out, long lives would be benificial given ample room and
>> : resources. Fortunately, there are resources aplenty in our home solar
>> : system. The gas giants, especially, are rich in energy and raw
>> : materials.
>>>> This is a nice idea but apparently just science fiction (unless some new
>> technology is developed to get large numbers of people off the planet
>> cheaply - in terms of energy).
>>I skimmed the argument that transpired in rec.arts.sf.science some time
>ago about this topic. I was convinced that emmigration ALONE would not
>solve the problem. But, neither will population control, IF we assume
>very long lifetimes, unless we are willing to virtually stop having
>children. Me, I like kids, and I dislike dying, so space it must be. As
>for "cheap", this is a relative term. Our energy production (and usage)
>*per capita* has been increasing exponentially (I believe); there is no
>reason to suppose that we can't emmigrate faster than we reproduce. My
>home town produces a few thousand babies a year. Could we lift more than
>a few thousand people in a year? Sure (assuming space travel becomes as
>*relatively* cheap as, say, jet travel today). In other places, the
>situation is worse -- more babies and less resources -- and there we need
>to curb growth as well.
>>> Ideally, I think a world population of ~1 billion is a good idea - with
>> disease, poverty and war elliminated - at least that's what we should be
>> aiming for - BEFORE we worry about going to other planets and stars.
>>Er, if you eliminate disease, poverty, and war, and disallow emmigration,
>then what happens to the other 4 billion people "over the course of a
>couple centuries"? Euthanasia would work, I suppose, and may be best for
>the planet and species in the long run, but I certainly would support
>>I'm a middle-of-the-road-ist; I think Drexler may be a bit
>overenthusiastic (and yes, I've read Nanosystems), but I also think we
>mustn't be too short-sighted. Futurists tend to be too optimistic in the
>short run, and too pessimistic (or underimaginative) in the long run.
>We'd all *have* flying cars by now, if we had needed them, but we
>didn't. A handful of shared flying vehicles, we found, was more
>economical. Likewise, if we really *need* to get off the planet, we will
>do so; but until the need outweighs the cost, we will sit.
>>Phil, I would enjoy haggling over these issues with you some more, but
>we're straying rather far from the charter of this group. Perhaps we
>should continue by email?
I, for one, disagree about this discussion being 'far from the
charter". I think there's too little debate about the impact
of cryonics. Let's continue to examine outcomes publicly.