Malthusian Theory and Travel Beyond Earth Orbit

John Maxson wrote:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

A more economical vehicle does give us a better shot at accessing
space resources, but it won't mean anything with respect to population
growth. You just won't be able to move people off Earth fast enough,
assuming you even had enough volunteers, and a waiting colony to settle
them in.

If not, should we start resigning ourselves to that now, by
investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

What would those plans consist of?

Among other things, a large, self-sustaining off-Earth human presence
would also have that effect, even if it wasn't the actual purpose.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space, so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

What strife is amenable to throwing money at it?

Finding better ways to grow food is desirable (and plenty of people
research that, even if also because there's money in it, too), but you
still have to pay for the production somehow, then get ti to thpse who
need it.

On the other hand, some strife grows out of human behavior, history
and social conditions. What kind of 'research' would be required, for
example, to keep Israelis and Palestinians away from each other's
throats? How do you spend money to prevent wars in Liberia, Sri Lanka
and assorted other places on Earth?

When I hear the: "If we can put a man on the Moon... (which we havent
done *lately*, BTW)" argument, I point out that that was entirely an
engineering problem. There's no engineering soultion for the problem
they're likely to complete the question with.

Some things *are* harder than going to the Moon.


How many spy satellites does the world really need, anyhow?


The 'world' doesn't launch and use them, individual nations do. And
those that do (or want to), believe their security can be enhanced by
having a clearer idea of their possible adversary's ability and intent.

And this is good. Otherwise, they might feel the need to arm
themselves for the worst-case scenario, or even attack first, when it
wasn't necessary. With good intelligence, one can resond appropriately,
and minimuze suprises. Good reconnisance has a stabilizing effect.

Besides, a thousand spysats are still cheaper than even a minor war.
If they prevent even one, it's worth it.

Joann Evans wrote in message
...

You just won't be able to move people off Earth fast enough,
assuming you even had enough volunteers, and a waiting colony
to settle them in.

That's the way it looks to me also, at the present time.

What would those plans consist of?

I've been thinking along the lines of trying to turn virtually all
waste products of our consumption into reusable resources,
redistributing population centers to less populated areas, and
limiting population growth through compassionate planning.

What strife is amenable to throwing money at it?

I wouldn't throw money at anything, other than maybe solid
education made compulsive through the junior college level.
All strife leading to our extinction should be open to remedy.

What kind of 'research' would be required, for example, to
keep Israelis and Palestinians away from each other's throats?

It would be a kind that hasn't been attempted yet, obviously.

How do you spend money to prevent wars in Liberia, Sri
Lanka and assorted other places on Earth?

If we begin soon enough, I think better education is one way.

The 'world' doesn't launch and use them, individual nations do.

That wasn't my point. Spy-sats can also be subject to treaties.
It's missile, anti-missile, nuclear, and WMD systems proliferation
that to me seem to be a dead-end, leading to our extinction.
Spy-sat overkill falls in the the category of mistrust, as I see it.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

You're the type who'd buy a box of CrackerJacks so you
could eat the toy and play with the carmeled popcorn.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Michael Gardner wrote in message
...

why are you bringing this up in s.s.* since space plays no role?

John Maxson wrote:

[snip]

That wasn't my point. Spy-sats can also be subject to treaties.

Yes, but why? Its the only way to verify some *other* treaties, and
for reasons I'll give below, it would itself be an unverifiable treaty.

It's missile, anti-missile, nuclear, and WMD systems proliferation
that to me seem to be a dead-end, leading to our extinction.
Spy-sat overkill falls in the the category of mistrust, as I see it.

Yes, but trust isn't required, if you can use them to verify for
yourself.

In any case, it almost doesn't matter. If we get the kind of human
presence in Earth orbit that pretty much everyone on this NG hope for,
with multiple space staitions for multiple purposes (tourism,
manufacturing, etc.)and orbital spacecraft being flown to and from them
(and to unmanned sats for whatever reason) hundreds of times a day
(including people transferring to deeper space flights, a'la 2001),
it'll be impossible to keep anyone from pointing whatever optics they
want (even a good hand-held camera, in some cases) toward the ground,
because it'll then be almost trivial to do so. And everyone pretty much
accepted long ago that in order to have any sort of orbital space
flight, that the satellites/vehicles must pass repeatedly over anyone's
national territory, unlike aircraft where airspace is typically
respected.

The worst that will then happen is greater effort toward
camoflaging/hiding that which you don't want seen from orbit. And this
is already an old technology.

It's like what I said earlier about how the process of human expanson
into space for economic and exploratory reasons will help insure
survival of some part of the human species. Helping insure
non-extinction may not be the goal, but it will naturally fall out of
what you *are* doing. Eventually, you just will not be able to limit
orbital reconnisance systems. Indeed, the view is a major part of the
selling point for orbital tourism....

Joann Evans wrote in message
...

It's like what I said earlier about how the process of human
expanson into space for economic and exploratory reasons will
help insure survival of some part of the human species. Helping
insure non-extinction may not be the goal, but it will naturally fall
out of what you *are* doing.

I agree with where you're coming from. I think a feedback loop
has been (and still is) possible to effect which delays and/or
ultimately eliminates the Malthusian outcome (given best inputs).

Eventually, you just will not be able to limit orbital reconnisance
systems. Indeed, the view is a major part of the selling point for
orbital tourism....

I hope you're right; I don't have any problem with that. However,
I don't see that strategy as a major part of the 'Rumsfield Doctrine.'

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"What would those plans consist of?"

Hopefully protecting the ozone and keeping enough of forestry to produce
oxygen
say 1000 years from now? What is the size of the hole in our ozone layer
now?
Can it be reversed (I don't think so but stupid questions are allowed
right?)

If it can't be reversed will it continue to grow (yeah) but at what rate?

Does it effect global warming (it being the hole in the ozone?)

How much is left of the rain forest? Let's say we started with 100% at a
given
year. Can someone go way back and quote a year it may have been 100% (the
rain forest)
then do some math as to how much we lose yearly? Can it be reversed too?

Then maybe do the same math for the hole in the ozone? At one point there
wasn't any
hole right? What year would that have been? Start from there and figure how
much per year
it grows. Then calculate say 1000 years from now what size the hole is and
how much
rain forest is left. Great thread and very fascinating. I know I strayed off
shuttles
but I am *truly* interested in these numbers and who knows whoever
calculates it
may be googled forever as some kids science book report research !



"Joann Evans" wrote in message
...
John Maxson wrote:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

A more economical vehicle does give us a better shot at accessing
space resources, but it won't mean anything with respect to population
growth. You just won't be able to move people off Earth fast enough,
assuming you even had enough volunteers, and a waiting colony to settle
them in.

If not, should we start resigning ourselves to that now, by
investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

What would those plans consist of?


snipped for brevity.........

Paul Maxson

" why are you bringing this up in s.s.* since space plays no role?"

Michael why do you always badger him, honestly?
It's a good thread, much better than some others going around that go on for
weeks
about things not related to space.
"Let it be."

Thanks!

Paul

"Michael Gardner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

Joann Evans wrote in message
...


Great - he used to simply be pursuing conspiracy thories - now he's
trying to save mankind.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy Paul Maxson wrote:
"What would those plans consist of?"

Hopefully protecting the ozone and keeping enough of forestry to produce
oxygen
say 1000 years from now? What is the size of the hole in our ozone layer
now?
Can it be reversed (I don't think so but stupid questions are allowed
right?)

The ozone holes are decreasing.


How much is left of the rain forest? Let's say we started with 100% at a
given
year. Can someone go way back and quote a year it may have been 100%
(the
rain forest)
then do some math as to how much we lose yearly? Can it be reversed too?

There hasn't been such a time for a long time - read up on the farming
practices of (ancient) Mayas.

Paul Maxson

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Wow that long? I had no idea. Thanks for the time frame. So the ozone layer
has some method of self healing? I didn't know that either, great info.

What could our Space program due to help keep the band aid
(so to speak) on if anything? (Trying to make it on topic to space.)

IOW, the hole increases because of us then nature decreases it with time or
what?

Would there ever come a time when the level of increase overcame the level
of
decrease and fried our skin at today's technology rate?

In sci.space.policy Paul Maxson wrote:

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy Paul Maxson wrote:
"What would those plans consist of?"

Hopefully protecting the ozone and keeping enough of forestry to produce
oxygen
say 1000 years from now? What is the size of the hole in our ozone layer
now?
Can it be reversed (I don't think so but stupid questions are allowed
right?)

The ozone holes are decreasing.


How much is left of the rain forest? Let's say we started with 100% at a
given
year. Can someone go way back and quote a year it may have been 100%
(the
rain forest)
then do some math as to how much we lose yearly? Can it be reversed too?

There hasn't been such a time for a long time - read up on the farming
practices of (ancient) Mayas.

Paul Maxson

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Wow that long? I had no idea. Thanks for the time frame. So the ozone layer
has some method of self healing? I didn't know that either, great info.

The ozone layer doesn't come from the rain forests. The area of rainforest cleared
by Mayas is estimatable to an extent and their methods essentially meant that they
had to let the forest reclaim the farmed lands after a number of years.


What could our Space program due to help keep the band aid
(so to speak) on if anything? (Trying to make it on topic to space.)


Nothing. this really isn't on topic AFAICT in sci.space.*

IOW, the hole increases because of us then nature decreases it with time or
what?

The processes that created it in the first place and maintained it continue
to exist - once the fast ozone destroyers are removed it will start to replenish
itself.


Would there ever come a time when the level of increase overcame the level
of
decrease and fried our skin at today's technology rate?



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

The best use for the space program would be protecting the planet from a rogue
asteroid hit.

I kinda wish we would have a VERY close call, no one killed or injured but so
dramatic everyone would be nasas friend. Helps if theres another one on its way
in say 10 years.

Imagine what we could do if we really needed too.

Apollo would look like a kids toy in comparison.