That’s just one aspect of the larger question of whether humans can adapt to long-term zero gravity. If so, developing new techniques of boinking will be a relatively minor problem in a subject where humans have a promising history of creativity. If not, space habitation will require simulating (more or less) normal gravity, facilitating the practice of traditional boinking techniques.
Surely there’s an R-rated SF movie or series in which this can be (or already has been) a sexy, comedic subplot.
Having read SF for 50 years, I’ve always thought we’d have a base on the moon in my lifetime and that there was a possibility, not only for manned Mars missions, but actual tangible plans to at least set up a base there.
Not anymore. Sadly.
We will eventually go to Mars, if for no other reason than putting boots on the ground. But the more I read and learn about what it would take to have a somewhat permanent human settlement there, the less likely it seems.
Kessler’s Syndrome
The consensus is that if the problem becomes insurmountable the USA will just do what it did in the post-colonial era: inflate the currency so the debt can be paid off in near-worthless toilet paper. Not that that won’t have severe problems of its own, but it is a “solution” of sorts.
Or even the trend of teens wanting babies, which would be more common if modern society didn’t make it nearly impossible to raise children without two professional incomes.
If you’re referring to nitrate produced via modern versions of the Haber process, it’s energy, and not fossil fuel per se that is required. If we can solve our general energy needs, nitrate production shouldn’t be a problem (although more expensive energy would mean more expensive nitrate which would mean more expensive foods, etc.).
A much bigger problem is phosphate. Phosphorus is an element meaning you can’t make it out of something else. And although phosphorus is ubiquitous, large deposits of economically recoverable phosphate ore are something that can be depleted. I’ve speculated we may end up creating genetically engineered clams that filter phosphate out of wastewater for recovery.
My fear is that some angry head-of-state could jump start this out of frustration or hatred. I don’t know what it would take, but a bunch of ASATs hitting some selected targets seems possible (or at least a really good sci-fi novel).
Similarly, back in like 4th grade (1979ish) I had this Charlie Brown book of science facts for kids that said that I could very well be living in a space colony by the time I was 35.
On the plus side, I saw a movie when I was ten (1973) that said I’d be living in an overpopulated hellscape by the time I turned 60.
Deafness.
You have no idea how many young people i walk by or share the train with where I can clearly hear the music from the ear buds. And they play all the time.
Raves are also bad.
Well, not really sexy or comedic, but there’s High Life
The problem in this thread – and I don’t have a solution for it – is the tendency to either suggest a problem that isn’t really being ignored, or suggest to a problem that’s minor at best.
Yours could be in second category because income is inversely related to fertility. I know you didn’t exactly deny this, only suggesting that a really high income might allow for greater fertility. I am finding less evidence there, but, at least in the U.S., there is loss of fertility even in the highest income group. See the $200,000 plus line here:
Birth rate in the United States in 2017, by household income
Or are you thinking of professionals like medical specialists, and corporate lawers, where the combined professional annual income could be more in the million dollar range? Is there evidence of their high fertility?
Now, I’m not sure you are wrong. Perhaps as income rises, the perception of how expensive it is to have children rises even faster. Then that perception is the problem being ignored. Could be me – I can’t understand that perception.
I wouldn’t go quite that far.
Pretend for a minute our national debt today was $15T. Nobody but a raging gold bug would suggest that was dangerously out of control. Probably more than optimal, but not a raging runaway snowball.
Guess what? To change the debt from 31T to 15T all we need to do is inflate the currency by 50%. We already have 17% towards that 50% in the bag since just before COVID started.
No need for “worthless toilet paper”
I don’t know how old you are, but I am 59 and still expect to see a moonbase in my lifetime, and a real chance to see at least a human on Mars. A colony on Mars? Not a chance. But we should have a permanent presense on the Moon in 10-15 years, and maybe sooner. Space hotels, too. There’s even an outside chance some of us will make it into space.
If we inflate the currency by 50%, we’ll crush the poor and working classes, and benefit the asset holders. Pensions get gutted and salaries lag prices, while property goes up in price. In the meantime, inflation is a drag on the economy. It screws up price signals, makes long-term planning more difficult, etc. Inflating away debt also makes it yard to keep borrowing.
No one should wish for more inflation.
Agreed. I certainly do not wish for inflation. Nothing good happens after it’s much above the minimum “lubricationary” rate of maybe 1% / year. The typical central bank aims for more like 2% / year only because their aim necessarily sucks and hitting even a tiny bit of deflation (= inflation <0%) would trigger a snowballing difficult-to-stop disaster.
All I was trying to point out is the excluded middle between “the US dollar becomes worthless like the Zimbabwe dollar” and “the US dollar in 20 years is worth half what it is now. Just like 20 years ago it was worth double what it is now.”
My anecdotal observations from the high income people is that they tend to wait longer to have children, if they ever have them at all. They are often in school until their mid to late 20s or later. They spend long hours at the office or travel frequently. Many enjoy the lifestyle that having money and no kids affords.
I wasn’t thinking of biological fertility (although younger women tend to be more fertile) so much as teen pregnancy is strongly discouraged in our society because it interferes with education and is a financial disaster for anyone but the wealthy or the subsidized. If there’s a causal link it’s that women who delay childbearing past their prime fertility years are going to be much more likely to have only one or two children.
I have no idea what the fertility rate is among women who are from rich families and so don’t have to study and work to be wealthy enough to afford children, but that would probably count as “subsidized” anyway.
You don’t suppose that a country that used totalitarian measures to enforce radical birth control might use totalitarian measures to enforce radical elder control? Like for example having the mean survival time in care homes be about 18 months?