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

Ool wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ...

Sorry, insolation = solar input.
Basically placing optical filters between the sun and earth, to
reduce the light at some wavelengths.
Yes, this is a big project.

If you could do that I'd suggest leaving the Earth alone and building
space habitats instead, in which you'd have much simpler control over
the weather and climate...

Once you start working out the numbers...
It turns out that in principle, you need at the most a few tons per square
kilometer,
For building habitats, you need on the order of tonnes per square meter.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
California by itself is for the most part empty.

Less than half the population density of Switzerland.

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message om...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:03:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
[...]
And I've described numerous times why I think we're far from being so.

You have *asserted* numerous times that we're far from being so. You
have not *described* the technological "deus ex machina(s)" that you are
counting on.

We don't need such devices to double the population.

The population of the US doubled more than once during
the 20th century.

And the home ownership rate is the highest ever.

Deus ex machina?

Homo homini deus!

Human beings are net assets to each other: the
more people there are, the better it is for each of them.

Usable space, elbow room, is really a commodity like
any other, produced for people by people, in cooperation.
Therefore, *the more people the less crowding* - a seeming
paradox that has held true throughout all human history -
and there is no limit in sight.

"Ool" wrote in message
...

If you could do that I'd suggest leaving the Earth alone and building
space habitats instead, in which you'd have much simpler control over
the weather and climate...

Hear, hear.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

The oceans are mostly deserts due to lack of nutrient. What's to stop
someone loading a freighter with sand from the Sahara, scattering it
into the Atlantic, and coming back a few months later with a fleet of
fishing trawlers?

In what way is SiO2 a nutrient?

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:03:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

OK, you said that twice the current population would be
overpopulation. That's equally nonsense.

I said that we *could* double our population, but at the cost of a
substantial portion of our remaining wildlife habitat.

That's not necessarily true.

We destroy more wildlife habitat every day. We've been doing it
throughout recorded history. We will continue to do it because it is
much cheaper than the alternative.

And I've described numerous times why I think we're far from being so.

You have *asserted* numerous times that we're far from being so. You
have not *described* the technological "deus ex machina(s)" that you are
counting on.

We don't need such devices to double the population.

I didn't say we did, and doubling the population is not "far" off
either. We can do that in a single lifetime.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:03:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

OK, you said that twice the current population would be
overpopulation. That's equally nonsense.

I said that we *could* double our population, but at the cost of a
substantial portion of our remaining wildlife habitat.

That's not necessarily true.

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

sigh Room for building housing and shopping centers is not the
problem. Except for designated Wilderness areas, National Parks, etc.,
a large majority of our land is already in use for farming, ranching,
mining, logging, etc. Wildlife populations have been decimated since
Columbus, so we don't have as far to go as you might think.

And I've described numerous times why I think we're far from being so.

You have *asserted* numerous times that we're far from being so. You
have not *described* the technological "deus ex machina(s)" that you are
counting on.

We don't need such devices to double the population.

The population of the US doubled more than once during
the 20th century. Deus ex machina?

The population has doubled about 28 times since the first person set
foot in what is now the US. So?

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 25 Mar 2004 22:24:28 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher M. Jones) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

OK, you said that twice the current population would be
overpopulation. That's equally nonsense.

I said that we *could* double our population, but at the cost of a
substantial portion of our remaining wildlife habitat.

That's not necessarily true.

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.

groan I have driven, and flown (and hiked) all over California and
the West for 40 years. A lot of places in the West would have trouble
growing a crop of tumbleweeds. Is there a point to all this?

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:48:45 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air.
There's lots of room out there.

Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty.

groan I have driven, and flown (and hiked) all over California and
the West for 40 years. A lot of places in the West would have trouble
growing a crop of tumbleweeds. Is there a point to all this?

Yes. We're not running out of room. At some level of technology,
those places currently barren can become gardens.

Ool wrote:

"Russell Wallace" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:35:54 GMT, Dick Morris
wrote:

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

If you think life doesn't have value, why not end yours? If you think
it does, there's your answer.

Also if it became really uncomfortable down here--I don't think it
will but if it did--that could be a blessing in disguise. We could
finally rally support for some serious space mining and colonization
efforts and make the leap into a future of growth and wealth unima-
gined by most people today.

Think what 9/11 did for swinging public opinion in favor of an ill-
planned war! Now imagine what another Tunguska meteorite could do for
space exploration...! Or global warming... Or another ice age...

Don't see things so negatively! We'd survive a meteorite like the one
that wiped out the dinosaurs (as a species, that is) because we have
all our technology. If anything it would shake us off our lazy asses
and get us to work on the future. Isn't that what you (Dick) want?

Whatever gave you that idea?
--
__ “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 \-_/'