Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

There's a problem you can't circumvene though. Population pressure will eventually break down human society. Humans(like any species) can't survive with a constant high population density

...already addressed multiple times: we're building in three dimensions.

Even then, there's only a limited amount of people you can support before society collapses, if only because nobody has anything useful to do.

The most important problem will be the weather though. Cities tend to absorb heat

That's not a problem. That's beneficial, because the waste heat would be reclaimed.

This is, incidentally, a significant part of the solution for the energy consumption issue. One doesn't actually need to collect all those exojoules every year, any more than one needs to "acquire new dirt" to plant new seeds each season.

Waste heat is waste heat. You can't recuperate the energy. You can use it to warm things up, or exploit temperature differences to produce power, but the Chaos theory will remain in effect. Can't infinitively reuse the same energy.

Also heat tends to form more of a problem when the average temperature lies between 40 and 60 degrees, or higher if you build superhigh megacities.

If you are talking about a population of trillions of people then you are not talking about "anytime soon".  Many centuries if not a few millennia would be the better estimate.

...I admit that does skew the naure of the debate somewhat. If 6.3 trillion people materialized overnight, that would be very different than if it were gradual growth over a few hundred years. And looking at even the fastest predicted growth rates, we would have those centuries.

Honestly I think a few decades would be enough time to finish up all technological requirements of supprting trillions of people. We're almost there. The majority of everything discussed so far could be done with today's technology. But the infrastructure would take quite a lot longer. And if we do have centuries to work with...I think that the technological advances in that time will make a lot of our accounting now pretty much irrlevant. I've been avoiding futuristic Star Trek style solutions here, but we've gone from our very first flight to sending an object outside the solar system in roughly 100 years. So...looking to what we'll be capable of 100 from now...stuff like interplantary teleportation and matter replication seems pretty reasonable to me.

In any case, the planet herself would have no problem accomodating trillions of humans. It might not might not actually happen...but the people saying it's "not possible" aren't any different from those who thought it impossible to fly, to travel in space, etc. Of course it's possible. In fact, even saying it now...I suspect that "trillions" is probably a pessimistic figure by several orders of magnitude. If we simply colonized down like ants, the available space is so large that I don't have an intuitive grasp of it. And each level we build up has more surface area that the last. Space is totally not an issue. It's just a matter of providing proper input and output in the form of food, water, climate, plumbing, entertainment, communication, etc. And those are all simply engineering problems.

Trillions is no problem. It just a question of what technology is required to fill in the empty gaps in what we can do.

[/quote]
Almost everything is possible with the right tech level. Hell, with enough energy investement you could probably make a discworld or something.


Then again, none of this will help you against a shortage of resources because popualtion growth and resource usage exceeds technology and infrastructure investements. As might happen in a relatively short time.

[LordBucket]

there's only a limited amount of people you can support before society collapses,
if only because nobody has anything useful to do.

...what, seriously? Society will collapse if people aren't forced to work for survival? Personally I thought free time generally resulted in things like art and innovation.

Waste heat is waste heat. You can't recuperate the energy.

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperator
"A recuperator is a special purpose counter-flow energy recovery heat exchanger positioned within the supply and exhaust air streams of an air handling system, or in the exhaust gases of an industrial process, in order to recover the waste heat."

none of this will help you against a shortage of resources because popualtion growth
and resource usage exceeds technology and infrastructure investements.

Yes once again we go full circle.

What resources are going to be "used up?" Specifically list them please, rather than mindlesly repeadting that vague and unspecified "resources" will run out.


You appear to be locked into a hunter/gatherer mindset. "I gather the berries, and then the berries are gome." "I kill the wildebeast, and then there is no more wildebeast."

The universe is not so static.

Law of Conservation of energy

Things don't "vanish" upon use. They simply change form. When you pick and eat berries they cease to be berries and become part of your body. When you excrete them they return to soil and can becomes berries again.

Can't infinitively reuse the same energy.

Chaos theory will remain in effect.

I believe you mean entropy, not chaos theory.

Nothing needs to last forever here. The lifetime of the human race and/or Sol should be plenty long enough for our purposes.

[10ebbor10]

there's only a limited amount of people you can support before society collapses,
if only because nobody has anything useful to do.

...what, seriously? Society will collapse if people aren't forced to work for survival? Personally I thought free time generally resulted in things like art and innovation. Yes, sheer population pressure reinforced by having no purpose can drive people mad. Enough to attack or harras other people, potentially setting up a chain reaction. Similair things have been observed by mice and some primates.

Waste heat is waste heat. You can't recuperate the energy.

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperator
"A recuperator is a special purpose counter-flow energy recovery heat exchanger positioned within the supply and exhaust air streams of an air handling system, or in the exhaust gases of an industrial process, in order to recover the waste heat."
It recovers heat in such a way that you can use it to heat others things.(The only thing it does is mixing hot and cold air, nothing else) You can not turn it into electricity or any other kind of power. You need a difference to do that. Otherwise it would be a pretty major breach against Entropy. Also, this will not be a case of slightly to much heat, but an overal temperature between 50-70 degrees celcius in inland parts of the city, should no airconditioning be supplied

none of this will help you against a shortage of resources because popualtion growth
and resource usage exceeds technology and infrastructure investements.

Yes once again we go full circle.

What resources are going to be "used up?" Specifically list them please, rather than mindlesly repeadting that vague and unspecified "resources" will run out.
Fossil fuels
Areable lands (Really, there ain't that much good areable lands on Earth)
Fossil fuels
Phosfates
Rare Earths
Copper
Other metals
Drinkable water
Storm safe areas
Time
Easily accesible energy
...


You appear to be locked into a hunter/gatherer mindset. "I gather the berries, and then the berries are gome." "I kill the wildebeast, and then there is no more wildebeast."

The universe is not so static.

Law of Conservation of energy

Things don't "vanish" upon use. They simply change form. When you pick and eat berries they cease to be berries and become part of your body. When you excrete them they return to soil and can becomes berries again.

I know. Question is wherether or not society understands and can/wants to change in time. Due to nature of the problem, we might pass the point of no return before we even begin to get the first real effects. (In case of global warming: the oceans slow the effect, and Permafrost meltdown is dangerous enough to kill us all.)

As for the economy. Oil and other fossil sources of energy replenish so slowly that we can take them as not replenishing at all on a human timeframe. We're still quite far from a complete switch to green energy, and a complete switch is highly unlikely to be possible on a short timeframe. (For one, there are not enough rare Earth's and not using them in green power construction makes them way less efficient. )

Can't infinitively reuse the same energy.

Chaos theory will remain in effect.

I believe you mean entropy, not chaos theory.

Nothing needs to last forever here. The lifetime of the human race and/or Sol should be plenty long enough for our purposes.

[Zangi]

there's only a limited amount of people you can support before society collapses,
if only because nobody has anything useful to do.

...what, seriously? Society will collapse if people aren't forced to work for survival? Personally I thought free time generally resulted in things like art and innovation. Yes, sheer population pressure reinforced by having no purpose can drive people mad. Enough to attack or harras other people, potentially setting up a chain reaction. Similair things have been observed by mice and some primates.

That implies that those people are not participating in art and innovation.... and umm yea, I guess there is 'entertainment'... wonder how lax or tight those restrictions will be in the future... ?

I suppose it'll be a bit more manageable if 80% of the world is like Liberia.  And the 20% gets to live in the mega-cities?
Edit: quote fail

[10ebbor10]

Nah, that makes the situation even worse. Revolutions are dreadfull things, and wars too. (Also mass starvations.)

With a trillion people on Earth, you're going to have an enormous supply of idiots who want to blow things up for no reason.

[Eagle_eye]

Another issue is just how much waste we would produce with a population that large. Unless we're growing all our foods with hydroponics by that point, we are going to be putting an unbelievable amount of fertilizer into the environment, or else have converted most of the earth into farmland. Either way, the Earth may be able to sustain a human population of a trillion, but I really doubt existing ecosystems could.

[10ebbor10]

Another issue is just how much waste we would produce with a population that large. Unless we're growing all our foods with hydroponics by that point, we are going to be putting an unbelievable amount of fertilizer into the environment, or else have converted most of the earth into farmland. Either way, the Earth may be able to sustain a human population of a trillion, but I really doubt existing ecosystems could.

At that point we're using vat grown food, or algae based stuff. Also, no ecosystems. They are in the way of our mega city.

[Eagle_eye]

If you destroy existing ecosystems, you risk seriously altering Earth's climate.

[Zrk2]

So the world is ending? I thought so.

[Zangi]

If you destroy existing ecosystems, you risk seriously altering Earth's climate.

Domed Mega-City of course.  Leave the poor folk we don't need outside in the elements.

[Heron TSG]

If you destroy existing ecosystems, you risk seriously altering Earth's climate.

Domed Mega-City of course.  Leave the poor folk we don't need outside in the elements.

Caves of Steel or X-Com Apocalypse?

[mainiac]

Caves of steel IIRC had a human population about the same as the earth today.  Moving everyone into the megacities allowed most of the earth to be empty except for the robots.