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

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.