Malthusian Theory and Travel Beyond Earth Orbit

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:02:29 -0500, "John Maxson"
wrote:

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

How does the world's population bare any relation to the space
shuttle?

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)?

Depends on NASA's future plans mostly. A heavy lift rocket can move a
nice amount of mass out of the local gravity well, but it depends on
what NASA plans to put on it.

No manned craft is being planned that would last a trip to even the
Moon and back. So unless they blast the ISS out of orbit and to a
Lunar orbit (a role that it is not too good at), then you won't be
seeing people around the Moon until about 2020.

If NASA has not returned to the Moon all of 50 years after they last
were there, then I for one would vote that they be got rid of.

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

Humans have been around for millions of years already, in more
primitive forms, where there is no reason to believe that we won't be
around for millions of additional years.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space,

I can only feel that the military would have done a better job with
human space exploration (and domination and control) than what NASA
has.

so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

There will always be famine, disease and natural disasters, where if
you want to cure world strife, then the only answer seems to be to
kill everyone.

Not a popular choice...

So have space and solving this unending supply of world problems.

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

When you can spy on your neighbours every actions, then we have enough
or optionally too many.

Cardman.

Cardman writes:

Humans have been around for millions of years already,

IIRC, homo sapiens has been around for approx 130000 years.

... where there is no reason to believe that we won't be
around for millions of additional years.

There are lots of reasons why we should consider the possibility
that our species is a lot closer to its End than to its Beginning.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...2814/story.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...rs/2976279.stm

--
Manfred Bartz

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:36:06 -0500, "John Maxson"
wrote:

Cardman wrote in message
.. .

How does the world's population bare any relation to the space
shuttle?

My question is related to the passenger capacity of the shuttle's
replacement (relative to the world population at its maiden flight)
and not at all to the present space shuttle (which is grounded).

Since the OSP is the next on the list, then total seating would be for
either three or four.

So that would make for one of two passengers, where you can work out
for yourself the time it would take to shift the world's population.

No manned craft is being planned that would last a trip to even the
Moon and back. So unless they blast the ISS out of orbit and to a
Lunar orbit (a role that it is not too good at), then you won't be
seeing people around the Moon until about 2020.

My subject is not related to the moon; the moon is in earth orbit.

So is the ISS, which is what you did mention. And as you mentioned the
public, then this was related to colonization, whereby I then
mentioned that they cannot even go to the Moon yet.

Humans have been around for millions of years already, in more
primitive forms, where there is no reason to believe that we won't
be around for millions of additional years.

I think you'll run into considerable disagreement about that.

Hey, so we have pessimists, but that does not change the fact that we
are going nowhere really quickly.

I can only feel that the military would have done a better job with
human space exploration (and domination and control) than what
NASA has.

Why should we judge "better job" by "domination and control?"

Cos' NASA owns ****! ;-P

There will always be famine, disease and natural disasters, where if
you want to cure world strife, then the only answer seems to be to
kill everyone.

I don't see how your list adds up to "world strife."

Then please compile your own list.

Cardman.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:05:56 +1000, Manfred Bartz
wrote:

Cardman writes:

Humans have been around for millions of years already,

IIRC, homo sapiens has been around for approx 130000 years.

Yes, but I did say in one form or another. Don't knock great grand par
just because he is a little on the slow side. :-]

In just thousands of years from now, then it will be our turn to play
the dumb ancestors.

... where there is no reason to believe that we won't be
around for millions of additional years.

There are lots of reasons why we should consider the possibility
that our species is a lot closer to its End than to its Beginning.

And I see that none of them cover human intelligence.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...2814/story.htm

Yes, humans all dead before 3 years ago.

Viruses are the cause, even if no virus has ever yet achieved that
100% kill rate. Also governments would be really, really and I mean
REALLY dumb to even try.

You want to know what will happen in such an expected outbreak, then
take a good look at how human intelligence contained SARS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...rs/2976279.stm

Humans all dead by 2100.

Possible causes...

super-eruptions: Come on eruptions are usually always local, where
plenty of people live no where near a volcano, like me. Worst case
scenario is the nuclear winter thing, where very many people would
die, but not even close to all.

asteroid impacts: Have you read the odds today? Not in my life time
buddy, where in the future they will certainly be able to solve this
threat for good.

engineered viruses: Still not got that 100% yet... And then some
people would just live underground for years until everyone else was
dead and rotted away.

nuclear terrorism: Like even a third world War could destroy our
entire species let alone terrorists with like one crude bomb.

super-intelligent machines: By 2100 right? Come on their still
learning to walk and now they are our new masters? Also if they were
super intelligent, then they would more likely take care of us.

Some paranoid minds at work I see, but this is all good, when this is
part of the process in perceiving threats that we can then all tackle.

Also when a space revolution occurs and NASA lays dead, then will
humans live in space and away from all these threats.

Cardman.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:29:01 +0100, Cardman wrote:

In just thousands of years from now, then it will be our turn to play
the dumb ancestors.

Some of us may be jumping the gun a bit

Dale

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:01:08 +0100, Cardman wrote:

Well as I am a optimist, then I will see you next in countless
billions of years from now, when our ancestors at that time decide to
bring everyone back to life (for a joke) and make them immortal.

Nah, that will just mean yet another Jackson Five reunion tour.
I'll pass

Dale

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:36:19 -0700, Dale wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:29:01 +0100, Cardman
wrote:

In just thousands of years from now, then it will be our turn to play
the dumb ancestors.

Some of us may be jumping the gun a bit

LOL, yes.

There are always the pessimists (or doom bringers) in society, where
they have always been wrong so far.

So I see no reason why in a million years from now our ancestors
cannot still be living here and no doubt in a few nearby star systems.

Like all those dinosaurs.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:16:14 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM
atomicrazor . com wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

Humans all dead by 2100.

Possible causes...

super-eruptions: Come on eruptions are usually always local, where
plenty of people live no where near a volcano, like me. Worst case
scenario is the nuclear winter thing, where very many people would
die, but not even close to all.

Perhaps, but the human race could be brought below viability levels on a
global level and then die out. Met any dinosaurs recently?

What like the crocodiles and alligators...

Nature has just had it in for big creatures.

asteroid impacts: Have you read the odds today? Not in my life time
buddy, where in the future they will certainly be able to solve this
threat for good.

You certainly haven't been reading the odds then.

I have been reading the odds, where even a recent computer calculation
and simulation showed that impacts were less likely than expected and
questioned if we should bother looking for them at all.

Also just about all the likely impact types won't even come close to
killing our whole species.

engineered viruses: Still not got that 100% yet... And then some
people would just live underground for years until everyone else was
dead and rotted away.

And then what do they do?

Live on and grow.

Sure, some people might survive, but not civilisation.

And yet all the knowledge is available for when society supports
enough population once again.

Knowledge above all else is the key to advanced civilization.

I'm more concerned about nanotachnology derived illness myself.

I am still waiting for nano-technology to do more then make some nice
patterns myself.

nuclear terrorism: Like even a third world War could destroy our
entire species let alone terrorists with like one crude bomb.

super-intelligent machines: By 2100 right?

More likely much earlier than that.

That is what they said back in like the 1950s, where here we are with
no intelligent robots or flying cars.

They still have to work on intelligence by a huge degree long before
you can even touch on self-awareness.

One main problem is that no computer even comes close to the
processing power of the human brain.

Come on their still
learning to walk and now they are our new masters? Also if they were
super intelligent, then they would more likely take care of us.

On what do you base that comment?

Do you have pets? Animal conversation, wildlife parks that Australian
guy and his crocodiles.

Habitats are made based upon their needs. And someone intelligent who
can say why his living quarters suck is much more likely to soon find
improvement.

Intelligence also promotes co-operation, understanding and will often
lead to wisdom. So a greater intelligence would seek control followed
by protecting us from ourselves.

Either that or they leave us alone to "evolve".

Such artificial intelligence would be free from the emotions that are
responsible for both the good and bad things in society. Instead they
would have rules not unlike what Arthur C. Clarke imagined.

Some paranoid minds at work I see, but this is all good, when this is
part of the process in perceiving threats that we can then all tackle.

You do know who Martin Rees is?

Not really, but I expect that he should not have children.

Cardman.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:12:22 +0000 (UTC), "Dave"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:16:14 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM
atomicrazor . com wrote:

Perhaps, but the human race could be brought below viability levels on a
global level and then die out. Met any dinosaurs recently?

What like the crocodiles and alligators...

And have you noticed how wide spread they are?

One of the reasons why they lived on was due to staying in the same
places all the time. Still I answered your question with a "yes".

I have been reading the odds, where even a recent computer calculation
and simulation showed that impacts were less likely than expected and
questioned if we should bother looking for them at all.

You don't understand probability then.

You should read the science data then, when they can indeed count how
uncommon they are.

Sure, some people might survive, but not civilisation.

And yet all the knowledge is available for when society supports
enough population once again.

How?

Diseases do not destroy books, computers, file data and tons of
equipment. So it is all there to read when they pick it up.

Knowledge above all else is the key to advanced civilization.

And how does it live on?

Know what a book is?

That is what they said back in like the 1950s, where here we are with
no intelligent robots or flying cars.

shrug So, they also said we wouldn't land on the moon either.

There was lots of science fiction around about landing on the Moon and
even a few movies before it happened. And basic physics said it was
possible long before it occurred.

Intelligent machines are a different question, when we are still not
sure how our own intelligence works.

Do you have pets? Animal conversation, wildlife parks that Australian
guy and his crocodiles.

Tigers, the great apes and all the other animals we're not going to have for
much longer?

I doubt if they will become exist, when they are too well known.

The 3000 or so species that no longer exist?

No doubt in that DNA sampling bank that may being them back to life
one day.

I think you mean Issac Asimov.

Yes, too many authors these days.

What on earth do you base that on?

That these intelligent machines will be created by humans. Where a
rule like "do not kill humans" would be a good start.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:12:22 +0000 (UTC), "Dave"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:16:14 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM
atomicrazor . com wrote:

Perhaps, but the human race could be brought below viability levels on
a
global level and then die out. Met any dinosaurs recently?

What like the crocodiles and alligators...

And have you noticed how wide spread they are?

One of the reasons why they lived on was due to staying in the same
places all the time. Still I answered your question with a "yes".



I have been reading the odds, where even a recent computer calculation
and simulation showed that impacts were less likely than expected and
questioned if we should bother looking for them at all.

You don't understand probability then.

You should read the science data then, when they can indeed count how
uncommon they are.

Really? All the data suggests they are all too common.

Hint: You need to understand how individual risk assessments are actually
made, not how you think they are made.

Sure, some people might survive, but not civilisation.

And yet all the knowledge is available for when society supports
enough population once again.

How?

Diseases do not destroy books, computers, file data and tons of
equipment. So it is all there to read when they pick it up.

Books rot perfectly well all by themselves.

Computers need quite an extra ordinary support structure to keep
functioning.

Given that most people will be worried about mundane things like food and
fuel, looking after books and keeping computers working will be quite a long
way down that list.

Knowledge above all else is the key to advanced civilization.

And how does it live on?

Know what a book is?

Yes, I also know quite a lot about the dymanics of acid cleaned paper.

Here's an experiment for you. Take a pile of books and put them in a
building for a few years with no maintenance, probably broken windows and a
leaking roof, then come back and try to read them.

Historically knowledge has either been lost, or you've had people like monks
responsible for re-writing the information and thus saving it. Given the
kind of scenarios that we are talking about, this is unlikely to be an
option because of the shear volume of data and the type of printing.

Secondly, I am interested in how you would, for example, from a book, work
out how to make a viable anti-biotic.

That is what they said back in like the 1950s, where here we are with
no intelligent robots or flying cars.

shrug So, they also said we wouldn't land on the moon either.

There was lots of science fiction around about landing on the Moon and
even a few movies before it happened. And basic physics said it was
possible long before it occurred.

And what part of physics says AI is impossible?

Intelligent machines are a different question, when we are still not
sure how our own intelligence works.

You related to John Ordover?

He was saying the same thing. While we do not know, its quite irrelevent to
the topic of AI, or for that matter other methods of E-I (Enhanced
Intelligence) where we do have some very good ideas.

We also have another 20 years before we get the necessary hardware which,
based on historical developments, is plenty of time.

Do you have pets? Animal conversation, wildlife parks that Australian
guy and his crocodiles.

Tigers, the great apes and all the other animals we're not going to have
for
much longer?

I doubt if they will become exist, when they are too well known.

The 3000 or so species that no longer exist?

No doubt in that DNA sampling bank that may being them back to life
one day.

Heh.

I think you mean Issac Asimov.

Yes, too many authors these days.

What on earth do you base that on?

That these intelligent machines will be created by humans. Where a
rule like "do not kill humans" would be a good start.

Then you won't mind telling me how you can code such a rule...

BTW - how would like to define human?