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

"Dez Akin" wrote in message
om...

Theres nothing wrong with nuclear. By the time we start considering
space habitats this far out, nuclear fusion might even be viable, but
we can build molten salt fission plants now for fueling a huge colony
for at least a couple of centuries.

You might even be right, here. But the memory of Chernobyl will live for a
long time...

--


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"

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:00:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Debatable.
Stick copies of biosphere II all over the world, and you end up with
well over 10 times the population.

How much did Biosphere II cost, per inhabitant?

A lot, but you can't conclude anything from that, since there were no
economies of scale.

Biosphere II wouldn't be a very good model in any event, since it's
primary use is scientific research. It's far from an optimum approach
for growing food.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:34:35 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:50:48 +0100, "Uddo Graaf"
wrote, in part:

Colonies that far away from the Sun? Unlikely. Mankind can multiply like
rabbits and it would still take at least 300 years to fill up the inner
planets and moons.

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:50:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

There's no basis for any of your statements.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:50:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

There's no basis for any of your statements.

If you have a better figure than 40%, and can back it up, I'd like to
see it. And if you think that the Earth isn't full enough yet - or that
wildlife can survive without habitat - then I guess you're just
unreasonable.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:48:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

There's no basis for any of your statements.

If you have a better figure than 40%, and can back it up, I'd like to
see it. And if you think that the Earth isn't full enough yet - or that
wildlife can survive without habitat - then I guess you're just
unreasonable.

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.

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.

In article ,
G EddieA95 wrote:
If Earth is not to become a pre-techological subsistence park, it will *have*
to be solar one day.

Or fusion. Or some form of imported energy (antimatter manufactured down
near the Sun?).

Even for solar, there's no reason why solar power for Earth has to be done
with solar collectors on Earth's surface -- in fact, that's easily the
*worst* place in Earth's vicinity for collecting solar power.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:48:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

There's no basis for any of your statements.

If you have a better figure than 40%, and can back it up, I'd like to
see it. And if you think that the Earth isn't full enough yet - or that
wildlife can survive without habitat - then I guess you're just
unreasonable.

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.
Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitate will be done first. 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?

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.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:48:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Earth is already full, and not more than the tiniest fraction of its
people can be launched into space.

Both of those statements are blatantly false.

We could probably double the population, but Earth is full *enough* by
any reasonable standard. We already use about 40% of the Earth's net
photosynthetic product, so we could double the population only if we are
willing to drive a large fraction of the Earth's species to extinction.

There's no basis for any of your statements.

If you have a better figure than 40%, and can back it up, I'd like to
see it. And if you think that the Earth isn't full enough yet - or that
wildlife can survive without habitat - then I guess you're just
unreasonable.

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.
Destruction of our remaining wildlife habitat will be done first. How
close to totally eliminating wildlife habitat would satisfy you? What
percent of the Earth's species would you allow to be exterminated in the
process?

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?

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.

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.

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?