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

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:21:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is room for plenty more people without having to totally
eliminate habitat, and the planet's "net photosynthetic product"
(whatever that means) is not a fixed number.

Increasing it substantially would be a rather expensive proposition.

Not necessarily. It depends on the technology level (including
biotech).

Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitate will be done first.

Not necessarily.

How close to totally eliminating wildlife habitate would satisfy you? What
percent of the Earth's species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

It doesn't matter how much I'd allow. It won't be my decision.

Do we have the right to make such a decision? Do you care?

I don't find the argument that, if I don't agree with you about the
fullness of the earth, it's because I'm "unreasonable," particularly
compelling.

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

Doubling the potential for another Einstein, another Bach. Doubling
the potential for more innovative solutions to problems. Doubling the
amount of total consciousness in the known universe.

Doubling the potential for another Hitler, another Stalin, another
Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton,
etc., etc., etc. Doubling our crime, pollution, etc. Doubling our
energy requirements. And if you're one of the desperately poor
inhabitants of some third world slum, consciousness might not seem such
a blessing. I will bet serious money that a lot more scientific,
technological, and commercial innovations have come out of Seattle than
from Calcutta, or Mexico City. Or both of them put together. Two or
three generations after the last doubling on Easter Island, the
survivors were not only not busily adding to their store of knowledge,
they had even forgotten why their ancestors carved all those statues for
which the island is famous. The world can be so nonlinear sometimes.

If humanity has any value, then twice as much has twice the value. If
humanity doesn't have any value to you, then do you propose that we
exterminate ourselves?

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity? We want to see a stable population precisely
because we value the principles of human freedom and dignity embodied in
Western Civilization. We don't want to live in a world that's been
impoverished, either economically or biologically. Endless population
growth threatens to do both, sooner rather than later. There may be a
handful of nut cases in the entire world who really want to exterminate
the human race. I don't know of any.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:59:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:21:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is room for plenty more people without having to totally
eliminate habitat, and the planet's "net photosynthetic product"
(whatever that means) is not a fixed number.

Increasing it substantially would be a rather expensive proposition.

Not necessarily. It depends on the technology level (including
biotech).

Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitate will be done first.

Not necessarily.

How close to totally eliminating wildlife habitate would satisfy you? What
percent of the Earth's species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

It doesn't matter how much I'd allow. It won't be my decision.

Do we have the right to make such a decision?

Who is we? And if not us, who?

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

I don't find the argument that, if I don't agree with you about the
fullness of the earth, it's because I'm "unreasonable," particularly
compelling.

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

Doubling the potential for another Einstein, another Bach. Doubling
the potential for more innovative solutions to problems. Doubling the
amount of total consciousness in the known universe.

Doubling the potential for another Hitler, another Stalin, another
Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton,
etc., etc., etc. Doubling our crime, pollution, etc. Doubling our
energy requirements. And if you're one of the desperately poor
inhabitants of some third world slum, consciousness might not seem such
a blessing. I will bet serious money that a lot more scientific,
technological, and commercial innovations have come out of Seattle than
from Calcutta, or Mexico City. Or both of them put together. Two or
three generations after the last doubling on Easter Island, the
survivors were not only not busily adding to their store of knowledge,
they had even forgotten why their ancestors carved all those statues for
which the island is famous. The world can be so nonlinear sometimes.

If humanity has any value, then twice as much has twice the value. If
humanity doesn't have any value to you, then do you propose that we
exterminate ourselves?

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:59:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:21:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is room for plenty more people without having to totally
eliminate habitat, and the planet's "net photosynthetic product"
(whatever that means) is not a fixed number.

Increasing it substantially would be a rather expensive proposition.

Not necessarily. It depends on the technology level (including
biotech).

Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitate will be done first.

Not necessarily.

How close to totally eliminating wildlife habitate would satisfy you? What
percent of the Earth's species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

It doesn't matter how much I'd allow. It won't be my decision.

Do we have the right to make such a decision?

Who is we? And if not us, who?

Nobody. If species become extinct due to natural forces that's one
thing. If we drive species to extinction due to greed or stupidity
that's another.

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

I don't find the argument that, if I don't agree with you about the
fullness of the earth, it's because I'm "unreasonable," particularly
compelling.

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

Doubling the potential for another Einstein, another Bach. Doubling
the potential for more innovative solutions to problems. Doubling the
amount of total consciousness in the known universe.

Doubling the potential for another Hitler, another Stalin, another
Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton,
etc., etc., etc. Doubling our crime, pollution, etc. Doubling our
energy requirements. And if you're one of the desperately poor
inhabitants of some third world slum, consciousness might not seem such
a blessing. I will bet serious money that a lot more scientific,
technological, and commercial innovations have come out of Seattle than
from Calcutta, or Mexico City. Or both of them put together. Two or
three generations after the last doubling on Easter Island, the
survivors were not only not busily adding to their store of knowledge,
they had even forgotten why their ancestors carved all those statues for
which the island is famous. The world can be so nonlinear sometimes.

If humanity has any value, then twice as much has twice the value. If
humanity doesn't have any value to you, then do you propose that we
exterminate ourselves?

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:47:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

Because it has, and there's no reason to suppose that it won't
continue for a very long time.

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

It's not necessary to control population to do that.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:47:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

Because it has, and there's no reason to suppose that it won't
continue for a very long time.

To think that population can continue to grow for a very long time, at
anything like the current rate, simply because it has in the past has no
logical basis. The real world doesn't work that way. But it really
would require some sort of technological "deus ex machina" to save us.
What would that be? Surely you don't mean Julian Simon's absurd
proposal for feeding the world (even vast muliples of the present
population) by growing crops in high-rise, 100-story hydroponicums with
artificial lighting powered by breader reactors (fueled by the 3.3 ppb
of uranium in seawater)? Even feeding the present population of the
world by such means would require an amount of energy that would dwarf
the electrical generating capacity of the entire world at present. The
cost of such a high-tech, ridiculously inefficient system would be
preposterous. High-tech solutions that *average* people cannot afford
to use to support themselves are of no use.

How could wanting to stabilize the population translate into putting
*no* value on humanity?

Based on your above litany, you would seem to think us a scourge of
the earth. You haven't answered my question.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

It's not necessary to control population to do that.

The Polynesians became a scourge on Easter Island, and elsewhere,
because they didn't control their populations. On Johnston(?) Island
they died out completely.

Destroying our remaining wild areas in order to grow more food will be
much cheaper than your high-tech solutions, so political and economic
forces will mandate that it happens. As competition for a dwindling
resource intensifies, people become poorer rather than richer, so
expensive, high-tech solutions become less and less affordable in any
event.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:54:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:47:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

Because it has, and there's no reason to suppose that it won't
continue for a very long time.

To think that population can continue to grow for a very long time, at
anything like the current rate, simply because it has in the past has no
logical basis.

I don't expect it to grow for a very long time at anything like the
current rate. All reputable projections show it as declining within
this century. I'm simply saying that doubling it (or even increasing
it by a factor of ten) isn't a problem at all per se, given a modicum
of intelligent governance.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

It's not necessary to control population to do that.

The Polynesians became a scourge on Easter Island, and elsewhere,
because they didn't control their populations. On Johnston(?) Island
they died out completely.

They were too close to the edge with inadequate technology. We are
not.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:54:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:47:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Do you care?

Of course I care. If there are enough who care, the species will
survive. If not, they won't, but the population growth is a secondary
issue. What matter is how it grows, not whether.

There's your problem right there. You imagine that some sort of
technological "deus ex machina" is going to allow us to have endless
population growth.

Because it has, and there's no reason to suppose that it won't
continue for a very long time.

To think that population can continue to grow for a very long time, at
anything like the current rate, simply because it has in the past has no
logical basis.

I don't expect it to grow for a very long time at anything like the
current rate. All reputable projections show it as declining within
this century. I'm simply saying that doubling it (or even increasing
it by a factor of ten) isn't a problem at all per se, given a modicum
of intelligent governance.

....which you still decline to characterize.

I certainly have. Go back and look again. The whole point of the
population stabilization movement is to prevent us from becoming a
scourge.

It's not necessary to control population to do that.

The Polynesians became a scourge on Easter Island, and elsewhere,
because they didn't control their populations. On Johnston(?) Island
they died out completely.

They were too close to the edge with inadequate technology. We are
not.

They got to the edge in the first place because they didn't control
their population.

"Dick Morris" wrote in message ...

To think that population can continue to grow for a very long time, at
anything like the current rate, simply because it has in the past has no
logical basis. The real world doesn't work that way. But it really
would require some sort of technological "deus ex machina" to save us.
What would that be? Surely you don't mean Julian Simon's absurd
proposal for feeding the world (even vast muliples of the present
population) by growing crops in high-rise, 100-story hydroponicums with
artificial lighting powered by breader reactors (fueled by the 3.3 ppb
of uranium in seawater)?

I'd bet my money on SPSs fueling those hydroponica rather than nuclear
reactors--*if* they ever become necessary at all... There's enough
space for them up there--a ring of 260,000km circumference.

(If space elevators ever become possible we might as well grow all our
food up there in the first place and reforest the whole planet...)

Even feeding the present population of the
world by such means would require an amount of energy that would dwarf
the electrical generating capacity of the entire world at present. The
cost of such a high-tech, ridiculously inefficient system would be
preposterous. High-tech solutions that *average* people cannot afford
to use to support themselves are of no use.

I can afford a tank full of gas, even though I couldn't afford an oil
rig. For the same reason I could probably afford a tank full of hy-
drogen in the future, even though I couldn't afford to build an SPS on
my own...



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

Ool wrote:
"Dick Morris" wrote in message ...

To think that population can continue to grow for a very long time, at
anything like the current rate, simply because it has in the past has no
logical basis. The real world doesn't work that way. But it really
would require some sort of technological "deus ex machina" to save us.
What would that be? Surely you don't mean Julian Simon's absurd
proposal for feeding the world (even vast muliples of the present
population) by growing crops in high-rise, 100-story hydroponicums with
artificial lighting powered by breader reactors (fueled by the 3.3 ppb
of uranium in seawater)?

I'd bet my money on SPSs fueling those hydroponica rather than nuclear
reactors--*if* they ever become necessary at all... There's enough
space for them up there--a ring of 260,000km circumference.

You may then aswell grow the crops on orbit and de-orbit using electric
propulsion (mass-driver or similar) and parachutes. Youcan even produce
the material for the parachutes in orbit.


(If space elevators ever become possible we might as well grow all our
food up there in the first place and reforest the whole planet...)

Space elevators are not needed for this at all.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

It doesn't matter how much I'd allow. It won't be my decision.

Do we have the right to make such a decision?

Yes we do. "Rights" come from the human mind. Not from Mother Earth.

Do you care?

I do, but not to the point that I would accept a population-control society.

Doubling our
energy requirements. And if you're one of the desperately poor
inhabitants of some third world slum, consciousness might not seem such
a blessing.

Funny, we don't hear about mass-suicide in these poor places. Even the
"desperately poor" seem to enjoy being alive, and propagating their life.

We want to see a stable population precisely
because we value the principles of human freedom and dignity embodied in
Western Civilization.

Then we don't want a Chinese-type society . And lowering the P requires it.