Print

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

[Trekkin]

The resource cost of shipping millions of people into space, much less another planet, is absurd though.  If we're going to solve overpopulation by crafting habitats for people, I think the next frontier is the oceans.  Then the arctic, then underwater, then underground, *then* space.

Minor quibble: the resource cost of shipping millions of people into space is absurd partly because we use rockets right now, which are great for one-off launches and much less efficient for anything else. If we wanted to actually move that much mass, it'd be less expensive to just build a Lofstrom loop or something. (Before you all snap at me, I said less expensive, not easier or feasible to defend from the anti-space terrorists everyone loves to conjure whenever launch structures are discussed.)

It's still not a great idea, but the per-kilo cost is orders of magnitude more absurd than it has to be right now.

[Yoink]

Earth is overpopulated. The ecology can't handle more than 10 billion humans. Every country needs to launch a one or two children per family program, to stabilize the population.

I read this as "launch one or two children per family". Like, into space.

[JoshuaFH]

Earth is overpopulated. The ecology can't handle more than 10 billion humans. Every country needs to launch a one or two children per family program, to stabilize the population.

I read this as "launch one or two children per family". Like, into space.

Of course, rockets are limited by weight, and children are smaller and lighter. It's just more economical to launch babies into space and have them grow up there.

[misko27]

Speaking of space, y'all are reasonably well-informed or a decent fascimile of such, so I have a question: can I get some sort of number on how much ice is on mars or is theorized to exist on mars? I don't care about the form (vapor, ice, liquid), just how much water actual might be there. Google is not helping.

I'm playing around in Universe Sandbox² and trying out the climate simulation, but for whatever reason it doesn't have any water on Mars. I can fix that rather easily, but I'd like to know how much. Or at least a ballpark. Or being the same neighborhood as the ballpark.

[pisskop]

Earth is overpopulated. The ecology can't handle more than 10 billion humans. Every country needs to launch a one or two children per family program, to stabilize the population.

I read this as "launch one or two children per family". Like, into space.

Earth is overpopulated. The ecology can't handle more than 10 billion humans. Every country needs to launch one or two children per family, to stabilize the population.

yes

[McTraveller]

Mars probably has more than 2 water.  Probably.

Apparently a more scientific estimate is about 2.4 million cubic kilometers of ice (2/3 on the north ice cap, 1/3 on the southern).  (For comparison, apparently that's roughly 90% of the Greenland ice sheet).

[Rolan7]

Of course, rockets are limited by weight, and children are smaller and lighter. It's just more economical to launch babies into space and have them grow up there.

That's a great point.  Even though babies and young adults have to consume considerably more, for obvious reasons.

Somewhat tragically (from a screenplay standpoint) the obvious conclusion is to ship frozen eggs and sperm, technology we have today, with a cleanroom automation for the final process.  The ship being watched over by a couple or dozen generations of caretakers, and/or sufficiently advanced AI.

Edit:  Which of course does literally nothing (or like 5 in 10 billion) to help overpopulation, but the ship sailing off into the dark might help us feel just a little less worried about our "selfish genes".

[Billy]

I'd def shoot my load into space

[LordBaal]

Call me crazy if you want guys, but the best weapon against all that, overpopulation and all its issues is EDUCATION.

Proper education, sexual education and family planing programs that are realistic and adapted to the cultures were is imparted.

Of course, rockets are limited by weight, and children are smaller and lighter. It's just more economical to launch babies into space and have them grow up there.

This sir, is quoting material for the ages.

[Yoink]

I'd def shoot my load into space

Shut up, Kirk.

[Billy]

Shut up Banjo.
Call me crazy, Eugenics.

[Rolan7]

I'm a doctor, not a xenoprophlicitian!

(latin was surprisingly ready for current day, but not the xenotech future)

[Trekkin]

Eugenics isn't crazy. It's evil. Every single time it has been consciously tried, it has been used to punish "undesirable" people and to give people's worst prejudices the veneer of social good. It has also never been an effective selection pressure, in part because people's grasp of heritability is remarkably fluid when they see an opportunity to rip gametes out of people.

There are some things humanity at large simply is not ready for. Control over its own population genetics is among the most insidiously dangerous.

[wierd]

I would extend that even to custom embryos as well.  Yes, you have a smattering of disease causing genetic variations that cause disease when they are homogeneously expressed.  However, we are far from full comprehension or total knowledge about all the genetic and epigenetic factors at work in human genetic expression. Those disease causing genes may well convey survival benefits to the species under certain edge cases.

See for instance, delta-32 ccr5.  Without HIV and smallpox, it would be hard to imagine why a defective receptor protein would be desirable. Since we dont know what future diseases may manifest (as we dont have crystal balls), wholesale elimination of defective genetic variants via designer embryos is potentially shooting the species in the foot.

Is this a serious ethical snarl? Certainly-- where do you balance "I dont want to suffer from cystic fibrosis you cunt!" with "Do you know what all the consequences of removing that genetic variation from the genome are, and are you willing to be responsible for it?"

Right now, we just dont have enough of the picture to safely remove purely deleterious variations, as we cannot fully quantify that they are indeed wholly deleterious. As our knowledge improves, and techniques improve, my position will change. To me, we are at the stage where people thought it should be routine to remove tonsils. We know better today, and only remove tonsils for specific reasons.

[heydude6]

Eugenics isn't crazy. It's evil. Every single time it has been consciously tried, it has been used to punish "undesirable" people and to give people's worst prejudices the veneer of social good. It has also never been an effective selection pressure, in part because people's grasp of heritability is remarkably fluid when they see an opportunity to rip gametes out of people.

There are some things humanity at large simply is not ready for. Control over its own population genetics is among the most insidiously dangerous.

Have to agree with that right there. People tend to be very narrow minded when it comes to artificial selection. Take chickens for example. People have been breeding them for generations trying to make them grow larger and larger, but in their quest for size they neglected one important thing, taste. Chicken from less industrialized countries tends to taste better because they weren't subjected to the hyperspecific selective pressures of factory farms.

I bet if people tried eugenics right now, they'd be breeding for muscles and height and completely neglect intelligence.