Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

Ok, how about giving me a compelling reason for doubling the population.


Because the alternative to *letting it double* (no one wants to purposely
raise the P that much, but it will get there), would be a tyranny such as the
world has never see. I for one would rather see a few more wildlife species
gone than live in a world where infanticide, euthanasia and mass executions are
used to keep the P down.

If Earth is not to become a pre-techological subsistence park, it will
*have*
to be solar one day.

Or fusion. Or some form of imported energy (antimatter manufactured down
near the Sun?).

Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy *sink* (making it
requires more energy than you get from it).
Even for solar, there's no reason why solar power for Earth has to be done
with solar collectors on Earth's surface -- in fact, that's easily the
*worst* place in Earth's vicinity for collecting solar power.

Worst, yeah, but with current space technology, by far the cheapest.
Especially post-shuttle.

(G EddieA95) wrote in
:

Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy *sink*
(making it requires more energy than you get from it).

sigh

Only from AOL....

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

"G EddieA95" wrote ...
Ok, how about giving me a compelling reason for doubling the population.


Because the alternative to *letting it double* (no one wants to purposely
raise the P that much, but it will get there)

Which you know because?

would be a tyranny such as the world has never see. I for one would rather
see a few more wildlife species gone than live in a world where infanticide,
euthanasia and mass executions are used to keep the P down.

Signs are very strong that Western, relatively prosperous nations, are
trending _down_ in population. The alternative to 'letting it double' might
be raising the rest of the world to our standard and having to worry about
whether to 'let it halve'.

(no one wants to purposely
raise the P that much, but it will get there)

Which you know because?


Population is mathematical. Since 1800, we have abundant data points that
define the S-curve. It climbed slowly, picked up fast in the XX century, and
is leveling out now. Estimates are that it will flatten out around 10b before
2100.

Unless of course it crashes before then.

"Coridon Henshaw @ (TH+ESE) sympatico.ca)" (chenshawREMOVE wrote in
message ...
(G EddieA95) wrote in
:

Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy *sink*
(making it requires more energy than you get from it).

sigh

Only from AOL....


Umm, he's right on both counts. Unless you know of a source for ready
made antimatter.

Antimatter is a great storage mechanism, but creating the antimatter in the
first place requires energy.


--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

"G EddieA95" wrote ...
(no one wants to purposely
raise the P that much, but it will get there)

Which you know because?

Population is mathematical. Since 1800, we have abundant data points that
define the S-curve. It climbed slowly, picked up fast in the XX century, and
is leveling out now. Estimates are that it will flatten out around 10b before
2100.

Er, 10 billion isn't double 6 billion.

Also have you seen the size of the error bars on that thing?
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
7.4 billion 2050 (low) [Already past peak and going down]
Also 8.9 billion 2050 (medium) [Going up a bit over 0.1 billion / 5 years]
10.6 billion 2050 (high)

Unless of course it crashes before then.

So in other words you don't know it will get there.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote ...
"Coridon Henshaw @ (TH+ESE) sympatico.ca)" ...
(G EddieA95) wrote in
:

Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy *sink*
(making it requires more energy than you get from it).

Only from AOL....

Umm, he's right on both counts.

Economically viable power generating manmade fusion doesn't exist.

10b before
2100.

Er, 10 billion isn't double 6 billion.

Close enough as makes no nevermind. The error is only 16%.

[thank you for the link]


Unless of course it crashes before then.

So in other words you don't know it will get there

No, but if it does crash, that will be because of some near-final catastrophe
between now and 2100. A world in which the P has crashed, is probably one
without a desirable future. So we have to assume it won't.

Umm, he's right on both counts.

Economically viable power generating manmade fusion doesn't exist.


Correction taken. Should have said, "manmade fusion, other than in research
labs and nuclear explosions, doesn't exist."