|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article , : Eric Chomko wrote: : Could the world's population of today (~6.3 billion) fit inside the world as we : knew it back in 1492 (Asia, Europe and Africa)? : Yes. Most of the New World is -- by European standards -- very thinly : populated. The bulk of those 6.3G people *are* in the 1492 world. One : can reasonably ask about supplies of certain natural resources, but there : was no significant problem just making folks fit. ....as he posts from Canada. Canada and Australia are 7 and 6 people per sq. mi. population, respectively. Let you go to Singapore where the number of people is 10,000 persons per sq. mi. I suspect that you would change your tune regarding population. : Tell me about that crystal ball you own that lets you see a decline in : the Earth's population. When is the population going to start : decreasing and at what rate? Also where? : Look at any reputable set of projections, e.g. the ones discussed in : Cohen, "Human population: the next half century", Science 14 Nov, p. 1172. Based on? : There is room for uncertainty about exactly when the population will peak, : and how high -- because of variables like how aggressively birth control : will be promoted in the next few decades, and how long it will take to get : AIDS under control in Africa -- but the overall shape of the curve is not : in doubt. It peaks sometime in the mid-late 21st century and then starts : to fall slowly. I still see nothing that rivals the current up trend. : The global population growth rate peaked at 2.1% circa 1965 and has been : falling slowly ever since -- it is now 1.2%, just over half the 1965 : figure. Cautious predictions say it will be 0.33% by 2050. The national : growth rate will be negative in most advanced countries by 2050 -- it : already is negative in a few -- and many of them in fact will have fewer : people than they do today. The exact date when the global growth rate : will go negative is sensitive to assumptions about how the poor countries : will evolve in the next few decades. We'll see... I think you confuse immigration rates with population growth. Eric : -- : MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer : pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : : We can ask why government supports science at all. Presumably the : : Because left to its own devices the religious fanatics would have all be teaching : Creationism again rather than just the state of Kansas. : Bzzzz. Wrong explanation, but thanks for playing. The real reason is : that there are strong stakeholders in the government that find science : funding useful. The rise of science funding came after WW2, when the military : saw how useful a large cadre of scientists could be. Bzzzt, back to you! The current cadre of scientists led by Linus Pauling stated to that same Military Industrial Complex the dangers of the military based upon science of which the latter chose to ignore leaving a wedge between the MIC and the scientfic community that you feel is in their pocket. Hint: nuclear bomb. : Who are the stakeholders asking for manned spaceflight? NASA, of course, : but who else? Science community. Adventurers. And anti-war types that feel if we are going to spend a ****load of $$$, why do it on war rather than space? : Space flight, like mountain climbing, isn't purely about science. There is an : obvious element of art that is beyond your and Van Allen's comprehension. : Ah, space is art. So you wouldn't mind if NASA's budget was made a subset : of the National Endowment for the Humanities? Sure dude! JFK would have loved it! I'll let YOU be the architect that doles out the funds. : BTW, I didn't realize there was a National Mountain Climbing Administration. : Which part of the budget is that in, anyway? If it's like NASA, it must : be important, no? It is tied into the National Park Service. Really! I think Teddy Roosevelt, though no mountain climber, understood it exactly! (Now Teddy Roosevelt was one Republican that I could have voted for!) Eric : Paul |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : Could the world's population of today (~6.3 billion) fit inside the world as we : knew it back in 1492 (Asia, Europe and Africa)? Or, did we need to find the New : World to expand mankind? : Easily. Africa alone could feed 15 billion people at currently achievable crop : yields. What? 15 billion people on what? Most people in Africa eat much worse than the rest of the world. If what you say is true (and I doubt it), then it is a sad statement about humanity in general regarding our ability to feed ourselves. : Tell me about that crystal ball you own that lets you see a decline in the Earth's : population. When is the population going to start decreasing and at what rate? : Also where? : The UN gives population projections quite frequently; go look at them. While : rediction is always difficult, there are strong trends around the world toward : lower birth rates, falling below replacement in nearly all industrialized countries. : As the populations age (and this happens automatically after the birth rates : decline) the death rate begins to increase, so after coasting on "demographic : momentum" the population will begin to fall. I have heard about this decline. But I have never actually seen an example of it. : This fall is starting in Japan, will start soon in Europe, and will likely : happen elsewhere as economies develop. Yes, the CIA prediction. : The big long term problem appears to be how to keep industrial societies from : suffering population collapse. We shall see. As of yet I see the earth increase in population like a clock! Eric : Paul |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:37:33 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor : glow in such a way as to indicate that: : Rand Simberg ) wrote: : : On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:35:17 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor : : glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : : The earth is 8000 miles wide and not increasing. Go here to see the population : : increase: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw : : : It's not clear what your point is, if any, because the earth's : : population is going to be decreasing in a few decades. : : Could the world's population of today (~6.3 billion) fit inside the world as we : knew it back in 1492 (Asia, Europe and Africa)? : Physically? Sure. : Or, did we need to find the New World to expand mankind? : Probably not, but we did need it to have a social laboratory to let : society and technology evolve to do that comfortably. But I think you do see the need for more room for humans as we increase our population. : Tell me about that crystal ball you own that lets you see a decline in the Earth's : population. When is the population going to start decreasing and at what rate? : Also where? : Go ask the UN. It's their prediction, not mine. Cite please, UN and future population trends. Eric : -- : simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) : interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org : "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." : Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. : Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:17:41 +0000 (UTC), : (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Because left to its own devices the religious fanatics would have all be teaching : Creationism again rather than just the state of Kansas. : Kansas discontinued teaching Creationism in 2001. No kidding? Pretty quiet about it don't you think? Eric : Brian |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Paul F. Dietz ) wrote: : Eric Chomko wrote: : Could the world's population of today (~6.3 billion) fit inside the world as we : knew it back in 1492 (Asia, Europe and Africa)? Or, did we need to find the New : World to expand mankind? : Easily. Africa alone could feed 15 billion people at currently achievable crop : yields. What? 15 billion people on what? Most people in Africa eat much worse than the rest of the world. If what you say is true (and I doubt it), then it is a sad statement about humanity in general regarding our ability to feed ourselves. Unfortunately it is a sad statement about humanity. Witness Ethopia, a country once known as Africa's breadbasket. It was a next exporter of grain before the Communists came to power. Then it became a net importer as much of the population starved to death. : Tell me about that crystal ball you own that lets you see a decline in the Earth's : population. When is the population going to start decreasing and at what rate? : Also where? : The UN gives population projections quite frequently; go look at them. While : rediction is always difficult, there are strong trends around the world toward : lower birth rates, falling below replacement in nearly all industrialized countries. : As the populations age (and this happens automatically after the birth rates : decline) the death rate begins to increase, so after coasting on "demographic : momentum" the population will begin to fall. I have heard about this decline. But I have never actually seen an example of it. Look at the median age in Japan. : This fall is starting in Japan, will start soon in Europe, and will likely : happen elsewhere as economies develop. Yes, the CIA prediction. : The big long term problem appears to be how to keep industrial societies from : suffering population collapse. We shall see. As of yet I see the earth increase in population like a clock! Then learn to tell time. Eric |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Brian Thorn ) wrote: : On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:17:41 +0000 (UTC), : (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Because left to its own devices the religious fanatics would have all be teaching : Creationism again rather than just the state of Kansas. : Kansas discontinued teaching Creationism in 2001. No kidding? Pretty quiet about it don't you think? What, because you didn't hear about it? Anyone following the story was aware of it. Eric : Brian |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Cite please, UN and future population trends. http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...nnextables.PDF Eric : -- : simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) : interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org : "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." : Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. : Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote: : Yes. Most of the New World is -- by European standards -- very thinly : populated. The bulk of those 6.3G people *are* in the 1492 world. One : can reasonably ask about supplies of certain natural resources, but there : was no significant problem just making folks fit. ...as he posts from Canada. Which has nothing in particular to do with the question you asked, or with my answer. Canada and Australia are 7 and 6 people per sq. mi. population, respectively. Quite misleading numbers in the case of Canada, and probably Australia as well. Much of Canada's land area is borderline uninhabitable; the bulk of Canada's population is in a thin strip along the border. (And something like a quarter of it, if dim memory serves, is in a very thin strip along the north shore of Lake Ontario... which is where I happen to be. There are 7 people within 20ft of me.) Let you go to Singapore where the number of people is 10,000 persons per sq. mi. I suspect that you would change your tune regarding population. The world average density today is 45/km^2; it will be about 66 in 2050. For comparison, the current density in Lichtenstein is over 200, and several of the smaller Western European countries have similar numbers. Even in the US it's about 30. There are going to be real problems with land use in the poor countries, but not with overall packing density. : Look at any reputable set of projections, e.g. the ones discussed in : Cohen, "Human population: the next half century", Science 14 Nov, p. 1172. Based on? See its references, including the US Census Bureau, the World Bank, and the UN Population Division, especially the last. : ...the overall shape of the curve is not : in doubt. It peaks sometime in the mid-late 21st century and then starts : to fall slowly. I still see nothing that rivals the current up trend. You might try opening your eyes, to read some statistics. In 1950 the average woman had 5 children in her lifetime; it's now 2.7. Even the *absolute* annual growth -- the actual number of people added per year -- is now down about 10% from its peak in 1990. (It peaked later than the growth rate, of course, because it's the growth rate *times* the current population.) We're still a long way from the peak, but it is in sight. : The global population growth rate peaked at 2.1% circa 1965 and has been : falling slowly ever since -- it is now 1.2%, just over half the 1965 : figure. Cautious predictions say it will be 0.33% by 2050. The national : growth rate will be negative in most advanced countries by 2050 -- it : already is negative in a few... We'll see... I think you confuse immigration rates with population growth. You think incorrectly. Those are net population growth rates. Many more of the advanced countries would have negative rates already if not for immigration; the average children per woman in those countries is 1.6 now (although that is temporarily low because of Baby-Boom-related timing effects -- it'll be 1.8 or so by 2050, still below replacement levels). -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Human Exploration of Mars
Eric Chomko wrote:
: Bzzzz. Wrong explanation, but thanks for playing. The real reason is : that there are strong stakeholders in the government that find science : funding useful. The rise of science funding came after WW2, when the military : saw how useful a large cadre of scientists could be. Bzzzt, back to you! The current cadre of scientists led by Linus Pauling stated to that same Military Industrial Complex the dangers of the military based upon science of which the latter chose to ignore leaving a wedge between the MIC and the scientfic community that you feel is in their pocket. Hint: nuclear bomb. Eric, are you an idiot, or do you just play one on usenet? The fact that a subset of scientists do not agree with the motivation of these stakeholders does not invalidate that motivation. To get the benefit of this cadre these government stakeholders would only need a substantial number of scientists to be available -- and they would be. Your argument works only if flaming pacifism is nearly universal in the scientific community. : Who are the stakeholders asking for manned spaceflight? NASA, of course, : but who else? Science community. Adventurers. And anti-war types that feel if we are going to spend a ****load of $$$, why do it on war rather than space? The science community as such mostly *doesn't* have an interest in manned spaceflight, since there are far better ways to do science. As for anti-war types... if you're down to that fringe group to justify space, you are truly lost. Stop grasping at straws. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Japan admits its Mars probe is failing | JimO | Policy | 16 | December 6th 03 03:23 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |
Students and Teachers to Explore Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 18th 03 07:18 PM |