Colonizing another planet doesn't fix anything!

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Random rant:

I’m so tired of this notion that people have that we’ll never solve our population problems until we colonize the moon or mars or something. It also seems to be a popular premise in movies and such.

What the hell are you thinking?

If we start putting cities on the moon, you’d see a few hundred thousand residents at the absolute most, I’d imagine. And they’ll probably be reproducing too, for that matter - and so will people on earth.

Even if you terraform mars or something, and put 500 million people on there (and that’s such a huge stretch to assume), so what? People on Earth keep breeding like they always have, and those 500 million people that left are replaced in a few years. Besides, then THOSE people will begin reproducing and overpopulating THAT planet.

What the hell are people thinking?

The only plausible way that colonization would solve any population issues is if we somehow develop a magic system that moves hundreds of millions of people magically between planets, find a suitable planet, and sterilize 80% of the everyone, or something.

2

Well, it’d make my 10 acres of real estate of the moon a lot more valuable.

3

Well, you could always use the moon and planets as a place to dump your excess p[rison population. Send them up there with inadequate equipment and accept the incredibly high casualty rate. Oh, and expect them to turn a profit, too, which gets sent back to earth. That would kinda resemble what happened with colonies on earth a couple of hundred years ago.
I think most space enthusiasts aren’t interested in space colonization as a population valve, but as a way of exploring further, and of getting humanity’s eggs out of just one basket.

4

Is this still an ongoing debate? A friend made a presentation to the class in grade school, circa 1963, demonstrating it was impossible to solve our population problems by colonizing other planets.

The only way space colonization would make a difference is if there was a costless, instantaneous way of moving people millions of miles. (Light years is probably more like it.)

Howsoever, this isn’t to say we shouldn’t colonize Mars as soon as our finances can stand it. We should. It’s putting our eggs in more than one basket, not to coin a phrase.

5

Heavy industry, such as mining for metals, can be moved to orbiting factories that strip asteroids. Power generating facilities can be in orbit, or on the moon, and beam the power back here.

As Heinlein stated, more wheat could be grown under the moon on one acre than can be grown on ten here dirtside… and I believe him.

It might not solve it, but it sure will help a lot.

besides, can you think of a good reason not to do it?

6

Maybe the answer isn’t colonizing planets or moons,but moving humans to “space stations” that can utilize solar energy for food production and harvest asteroids for metals and water etc.

7

Other than the questionable choice of forum for a rant/debate topic, I have to agree with the OP.

There may be no reason not to colonize other planets (other than the staggering upfront costs, of course), but SenorBeef is correct in his statement that such colonization would make at best an insignificant dent in the Earth’s population (and problems).

Of the solutions that posters have so far claimed for colonization of nearby space (energy, food production, mining for metals), the only one that I’d regard as a solution to a genuine problem is the mining for metals, and even that’s only in a limited sense.

The Earth has no shortage of energy; what we have is a lot of political, economic, and environmental ramifications of competing energy strategies.

Despite the gloom-and-doom predictions of the Club of Rome et al. a generation or so back, we’ve expanded food production at an even healthier clip than we’ve expanded population; true famine is mostly a matter of dictators or ruling cabals refusing to allow food aid to reach population groups in the territory they control. Growing wheat under the moon’s surface, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress-style, won’t change that. And IIRC, demographers are predicting that global population should level off at 10-12 billion late this century, as Third World birthrates continue to fall in response to better living standards.

Mining of metals is mostly an environmental problem, rather than a matter of actual shortages, AFAIK. That’s an argument for mining the asteroids, rather than Earth, for those metals. But even now, those environmental problems are at least partly a matter of politics, not necessity. For instance, gold jewelry is cheap; my wedding band cost less than $50. It’s cheap because we dig a lot more gold out of the ground than we need, and in many places, we don’t require much in the way of cleanup or environmental precautions of the outfits that do the digging. So the environmental consequences are a matter of politics, not hard necessity.

8

Well, yeah, but I can’t believe anybody seriously THINKS it would solve the problem. Sure, extraterrestrial colonization’s been posited, but my impression is that it would be more for shits and giggles, than to actually combat poulation density problems here on earth.

I now offer my solution to overpopulation/overutilization of resources: Birth control.

Kn(don’t mean to open a can of worms. Just thought I’d mention the obvious)ckers

9

Of course it won’t solve the population problem. But it’s other benefits are liable to be worthy pursuits anyway.

And am I the only one who finds it surreal that when living standards improve the birthrate goes down? Just when one can provide for more children one stops having so many.

Man, humans are a contrary species.

10

Oh, great. Let the infestation spread.

11

Right: A “population problem” is an economics problem. It has to do with (a) the supply/demand of resources to properly sustain a larger population at a given standard of living AND (b) large populations’ impact on their physical and social (too many people in the same space getting on each other’s nerves) environments. The latter is one that can be addressed with lowered birthrates and mitigation measures (such as switching energy sources). When the most economically/politically viable method for dealing with the first becomes space exploitation, then it will happen.

What space settlement really solves by itself is the “all eggs in one basket” scenario, and that only if the settlements become long-term self-sustainable.

12

There is one quite valid long-term reason for such colonization, though, and it’s best stated in the old saw that JRDelirious beat me to: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Earth is fairly well equipped to deal with the worst we can sling at her and recuperate, but there have been natural disasters over geologic time that make Mount Saint Helens look like a mouse fart, and many of them have killed off 50-95% of species in existence at the time.

There is also the question of what cultural changes humanity will make in response to dwelling under other circumstances than Earth’s.

13

You can’t make people stop breeding.

If you want to solve population pressures you need to find more resources. (food water and land).

We’re kinda full here at Earth.

14

We can, and probably should.

15

Right. That is why funding for time travel research is so important! Write your congressman!

16

I also agree with the notion of Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

No, colonizing space will not solve the population problem. Famine, disease, war, and natural catastrophe will. Colonizing space will ensure that such terrible things will not extinguish humanity forever. As it stands right now, anyone of these could easily destroy everything that we as a species have worked towards. Only by a system-wide diaspora can we ensure against that. This is why colonizing space should be the planet’s number one priority.

17

I disagree, but not quite entirely. It wouldn’t solve an over-population problem here on Earth, but it most certainly would eliminate population pressures for any who were transported off-planet.

18

This post made me laugh out loud. Thank you, ** cuauhtemoc**!

19

The person who suggests human beings stop having sex (and hence breeding) unfortunatly won’t help the over population problem on Earth :frowning:

Afterall, 1 person being killed by the mob of umpteen billion people is a little small scale for the sort of population problems we have :confused:

20

…then we could colonize Antarctica (about the size of australia), the island of Greenland (bigger than texas), and the Canadian arctic islands )or are they no longer Canadian?).
There is PLENTY of land; the main problem is: having people live peaceably, when housed in dense concentrations. When you have people crowded into places like Calcutta, or los Angeles, you have problems.