On 22 Feb 1995, Rick Abrams wrote:
> 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.