Print

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

[Heron TSG]

Yeah, once the food shipments stopped there were only ~50,000 people left on the planet, and they made their living by selling scrap metals from the old cityscape, using the land they cleared for farming.

[counting]

Asimov using the fall of ancient Rome city as an analog to describe the fall of Trantor. As in history the city of Rome also relied on food imports to sustain its massive population. Also after the fall, the citizens scattered (from millions to thousands) and the remaining people tore down buildings and shipped out stones elsewhere to build churches and monasteries.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

It was in Foundation, actually. Trantor was so dependant on food imports that, by the time of the Mule, only a few thousand people lived there.

I was referring to a passage about some character or other worrying over it, but same thing so w/e.
Also both awesome books.

[counting]

They are from two different series, and have different central topics (galactic empire vs robots). Set in different time frame (far future vs near future). Aismov later linked them together.

In the robot series, the "Spacer worlds" are facing the opposite problem of overpopulation (at least for human beings). The Solaria world even only had 20,000 people on the entire planet (but billions robots). It's another extreme of individualism. Will the world be better that way? Aismov said NO. The Spacer becomes way to comfortable with their lives that they lack the motive to venture out. And it's the Earthlings that eventually exploring further into the stars and build the galactic empire without using robots, and the spacer worlds become lost and fade away.

But at the end of the galactic empire, they are facing again with the problem of lacking new frontiers to expand to (the whole galaxy is colonized). Hence the only "solution" is to collapse and rebuild from the start. Although later Asimov introduced the concept of Gaia world, and claimed that its a better solution. At planetary level all things are linked into a giant living being, thus magically solved all problems. I don't think it's a very solid sifi idea, and somewhat lack of details, but I agree it's a creative one. (at that time)

[Heron TSG]

I believe the Foundation series ended

Spoiler: AN ACTUAL SPOILER (click to show/hide)

with the protagonist, Golan Trevize, deciding that the whole Galaxy should be linked together to fend off the invaders from another galaxy, a seeeecret spy of whom was amongst them the whole while.

[Lord Shonus]

In the robot series, the "Spacer worlds" are facing the opposite problem of overpopulation (at least for human beings). The Solaria world even only had 20,000 people on the entire planet (but billions robots). It's another extreme of individualism. Will the world be better that way? Aismov said NO. The Spacer becomes way to comfortable with their lives that they lack the motive to venture out. And it's the Earthlings that eventually exploring further into the stars and build the galactic empire without using robots, and the spacer worlds become lost and fade away.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Spacers' problems had nothing to do with low population (except that it was caused by the extremely robophiliac society causing most of them to shun human contact) and everything to do with the endless luxury and leisure produced by their uncomplaining machine slaves sapping their initiative and drive.

[counting]

The robot series focus on the problem of robots. It's the cause. And it result in a long-life spam and passive society structure, and it requires the population maintaining at a low level. Low-population is a "side effect" you can say that. But in the end it creates the problem that no human being want to explore outside of their comfort zone, and led to the central debate on spacer worlds of using human-like robots (like Daneel) to pioneer the new space explorations, and build human-like societies on new found planets before real human arrives. I think its exactly because low population, so each living human being becomes too precious and self-serving to be lost in space exploration, and the using of human-like robot will create a slavery society that may end badly for human race (In the end human will be like living in a zoo, and a robot galactic empire will rise). And the spacers knew this may come true hence reject the idea and stay in their 50 worlds.

Zero-growth = Zero-expansion.

[Nivim]

 Great underground cities whose only aboveground sign is some well-concealed air vents and elevators is something I've often fantasized about, and most of the digging work has already been done, such as by the massive mining operations under New York. Given the width and stability, such areas could easily be converted into those housing developments and shopping malls that are the blight of the land everywhere else, and the surface above them could be converted into forest and farmland at about the same rate.
 I once heard an thoughtless suggestion about putting wood down in those massive coal tunnels so "some" years down the line our descendants would have more coal, and thought myself that perhaps we should use those places for all the tonnes of filing paper the U.S. government produces; it would accomplish the same purpose!

(To whom it may concern:) The reason that spaceflight costs so much money is because, even if it had perfect efficiency, it is still the process of trying to move a very large amount of mass against a very, very large resistance through a very, very, very large distance. No matter how many new technologies we come up with to accomplish this, it is still using more energy than you could ever output in your lifetime, and within very tight constraints. So, the key is less building great space elevators or automated mining systems, and much more insuring that the political and economical systems are efficient and robust enough to support such projects. Those of you following politics might have noticed is has a natural tendancy to have the absolute minimum of these qualities possible yet still sustain itself.
 To sum; space-flight/colonization is inherently expensive and requires capability to handle great expense first. Why can't we get those working right first?

[counting]

First, money is the relative measurement of accessible other commodities. It's "expensive" only because it's productivity is low on the market. (Not many companies dedicated on commercializing "rocket fuel"). And it's untrue that no matter what technologies advanced, a human can not produce enough energy to lunch oneself into space. The only major energy input on Earth now is the sunlight. Let's calculate how hard to launch into space exactly.

To launch above the Karman line (the definition of space, 100 km above sea level), one requires 1 MJ/kg. That is 1 million J (Joule) of energy to launch 1 kg of payload (with perfect efficiency). And the input power on the ground from the sun is 0.1 W/cm2. That means a 1 meter square of perfect sunlight-to-chemical energy conversion device can produce 1000 J per second. So if you accumulate 100,000 seconds of sunlight power using this device, you can lifted 100 kg (I think most people are under this weight) of object into space. 1 day is 86,400 seconds, assume only half a day can gather sunlight, then it means 2.3 days of 1 meter square sunlight power conversion can launch yourself into space.

The above calculate is under perfect condition. So even if the system is only 1% efficiency, then you can still gather enough energy to launch yourself into space in 230 days. I don't think it's anywhere impossible even at current technology level. (I think we are way more efficient than 1%). Hence it's the problem of how the economy and society distribute their efforts of going into space. And contrary to public believe, we human never actually put any great effort of going into space. Even at the height of space race in 1960s, the space project still only used less than 5% of government spending. And even down to 0.5% in recent years. Most human produced energy is dedicated on the running of "Earth-bound" affairs, like wars and overproduce consumer products that are not really necessary. I think human has great chance and very capable of transforming into space colonization society if chooses to.

[Nikov]

People lived in the Western world tend to forget the entire Europe + North American population is about 1 billion only 1/7 of the entire human population (no even match the population of China alone). Major population on Earth lived in Asia. (Especially East and South Asia, like China and India). And major population growth concentrate in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Brazil, India. Even China has positive population growth of using the birth control policy for so long. As long as these countries maintain their population growth, and immigrate the excessive population to wealthy country, there is good chance total human population growth rate will maintain for several decades. (Today it's still 1% annually over all)

The birthrate in all these regions, including Africa, is falling. Sure, we'll still grow. But 1 trillion people by 2500 is a baseless assumption, since the current 1% growth rate is falling.

[counting]

The birthrate in all these regions, including Africa, is falling. Sure, we'll still grow. But 1 trillion people by 2500 is a baseless assumption, since the current 1% growth rate is falling.

It's only an assumption that on average long-term growth rate MAY be. Through out history the growth rate raises and falls, but for a long period of time it always increase. The question is on the scale of millennium, and human DO overcome the problem of production and carrying capacity of restricted on Earth, can human reach and create a society of 1 trillion beings?

I admitted I chose 1% because its a easy number for calculation. But whether it's 1% or 0.5%, as long as it's positive, human population should reach that threshold. Just the question of how quickly. (assuming 0.5% in the long-run, than the time is about 1,000 years to 1 trillion, at 3000 A.D.). And who could say that once if we succeed the space colonization or other method of revolution, then the population growth rate won't just back up to higher than 1%?

[Nikov]

You still assume it will will always be positive and will proceed exponentially. I will remind you human population globally was functionally stable until the agricultural revolution, it has peaked in many "developed" nations, and there is no reason to suppose 2500's Nigerians will not be down to replacement-level birth rates. I seem to recall the notion of mass global overpopulation being rediscovered a half-dozen times since it was first floated in England during the late 18th century. England's population is now shrinking with no mass famines to speak of, if I recall correctly. This has happened to so many different nations in so many different cultures one can only suppose it is common for human civilization. By furthering gender equality, education and economic development, any country will proceed to the 2.1 birthrate required for stability.

[counting]

You still assume it will will always be positive and will proceed exponentially. I will remind you human population globally was functionally stable until the agricultural revolution, it has peaked in many "developed" nations, and there is no reason to suppose 2500's Nigerians will not be down to replacement-level birth rates. I seem to recall the notion of mass global overpopulation being rediscovered a half-dozen times since it was first floated in England during the late 18th century. England's population is now shrinking with no mass famines to speak of, if I recall correctly. This has happened to so many different nations in so many different cultures one can only suppose it is common for human civilization. By furthering gender equality, education and economic development, any country will proceed to the 2.1 birthrate required for stability.

What's to say that there WILL NOT be another revolution? As I state earlier that its made out of assumption that "if we succeed the space colonization or other methods of revolution". The recent (from 18th to 20th century) population growth rate burst (up to 2.2%) has largely related to the industrial revolution and helps the death rate to drop (total = birth - death). And for 2 centuries, the extension of life spam has reach a certain bottle neck, and the birth rate somehow drops for the past half a century, resulting in the reduce of over-all growth rate. And I don't think the average birth rate will always remain low for centuries to come in the future.

Human reproductive capacity didn't change, woman can still having 15 children on average if she wants to. But people "choose" no to. And in a very long run, country differences may not be that important as you mentioned, but the over-all expansion desires as human race should not vanished. I think if a new revolution does occurred in the future, then the passive view of tomorrow will be replaced by the positive view. Those hold on to the view of a "we are an already developed country, so we no longer need to advance" will be beaten by those who fight for a better future. Not every country will destine to end-up like western countries. (It's really the more related to population density and production level, like Japan land lock in islands, and Europe is a relative small land area compare to it's population)

Stagnate is never a good thing. Or maybe you would like to believe a second dark age is coming ahead not far from now. But I strong believe that human will grow out of it eventually. (Or we can all lost hope and stock on this little planet for eternity, but I am a positive guy )

[counting]

Since most are more familiar with space colonization idea, I provide another more current idea of increasing human habitat - Seasteading

Green Float

Ocean colonization actually more practical at current political and economical condition. And we can learn a lot about how to build self sufficient colony and how to operate it. (managing is a practical problem needs to be resolved as well)

[Lord Shonus]

The cheif problem with ocean habitats is that, apart from space, they don't reduce resource drain very much (possible exception: kelp farming if that proves viable).