Will we find another planet or run out of space? (Iraq, Israel)

[rugrats2001]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There is no conceivable way we could move enough people off planet to make a difference here. It might be nice for those who move to a new subdivision, at least for a while.

Exactly. Even with a completely fictional "faster than light" drive starship, the cost in resources to move even a million people off world would be staggering.

[Pub-911]

It's best not to pre-judge future technology in either direction.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There is no conceivable way...

Perhaps.
There was once no conceivable way to :
__ have more radio channels, due to interference
__ live comfortably in hot / humid climates
__ travel faster than the speed of sound
__ exist outside of the atmosphere
__ build billions and billions of computers
__ store and transfer vast amounts of data
__ and so on.
: : :
Running out?
Based on geometric human population growth and the finite resources of the solar system, it may take a few thousand years before we exhaust them.

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html#why

“The key advantage of space settlements is the ability to build new land, rather than take it from someone else. This allows a huge expansion of humanity without war or destruction of Earth's biosphere. The asteroids alone provide enough material to make new orbital land hundreds of times greater than the surface of the Earth, divided into millions of colonies. This land can easily support trillions of people.”

Once humanity has mastered the construction and operation of autonomous, self sufficient orbital vivariums, we can colonize nearby star systems, utilizing their resources to construct ever more habitat for humanity.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by HighSpeed

Currently the world population is about 10billion and increasing exponentially. This means that in a piece of real estate with a limited size room will run out I'm a few more hundred generations. It could also mean that considering the fact that we have already began to locate livable planets we might get to one of them before those doomsdaysame approach us.

Please share your thoughts...from the most skeptical to the most optimisticommon, and everything in between:-)

The world population is not increasing exponentially. The UN and others promote that nonsense, but a country by country analysis does not support the idea.
In fact there are only about 4 countries where the population is increasing at all. It has increased rapidly in the past, but that no longer is the case.

We'll be fine. No planets will ever be settled.

Read the view of those who believe we have about peaked. They make a good case, although their view does not attract as many grants nor sell as many magazines and the "exponential growth" nonsense.
World population may actually start declining, not exploding.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

The world population is not increasing exponentially. The UN and others promote that nonsense, but a country by country analysis does not support the idea.

This refutes your conclusion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_birth_rate

Top Three:
Niger, Mali, and Uganda, which have a 45-46%
Niger : 46.12% . . . ranked #1. . . 16 yr doubling rate
(Rich) Kuwait : 20.26% . . . . ranked: 84th
(Poor) India : 19.89% . . . . ranked : 86th. . 36 yr doubling rate
(Poor) Mexico : 19.02% . . . . ranked: 91st . . 38 yr doubling rate
(Rich) Saudi Arabia : 18.78% . . . ranked: 96th
World Average : 19.4% . . . . . . . . 37 yr doubling rate
USA: 13.42% . . . . ranked: 150th . . . 53 yr doubling rate
United Kingdom : 12.22% . . . ranked: 160th
Sweden: 11.92% . . . ranked: 167th . . . 60 yr doubling rate
Russia: 11.87% . . . ranked:168th
(Happy) Denmark : 10.22% . . . ranked: 190th
(Poor) Cuba : 9.90% . . . ranked :195th
Bottom Three (nations):
Germany: 8.42% . . . ranked: 219th 85yr doubling rate
South Korea: 8.26% . . . ranked: 220th
Japan: 8.07% . . . ranked: 222th

One may note that, in general, socialist nations are suffering the greatest depopulation, regardless of relative wealth and development.
It may well be that socialism fails when it "runs out of other people's money" -and- "other people's children" to tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing_of_Europe

The ageing of Europe, also known as the greying of Europe, is a demographic phenomenon in Europe characterized by a decrease in fertility, a decrease in mortality rate, and a higher life expectancy among European populations.

. . . .
While socialist nations depopulate, Muslim nations are procreating prodigiously.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2054.html
COUNTRY . . . . . . . BIRTH RATE(BIRTHS/1,000 POPULATION)
Afghanistan . . . . . . . 38.57 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Australia . . . . . . . . . 12.15 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . 9.41 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Germany . . . . . . . . . . 8.47 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.74 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Switzerland. . . . . . . . 10.5 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Saudi Arabia . . . . . . .18.4 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 18.78 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . .19.6 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
United States . . . . . . .12.49 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)
West Bank . . . . . . . . 22.99 births/1,000 population (2015 est.)

[Listener2307]

It takes a birth rate of about 2.0 to increase a population. Few countries are at that rate now. India, for instance has decreased from 6.0 to 2.5.
I could not see any data in your list that helped me understand whether the numbers provided showed a growth in population or a decrease.

And this substantiates my view..

[double6's]

the earth won't last forever. We'll either find new planets to habitate or die along with the earth.

[eok]

It hardly seems likely the human race will survive very long. How long will it be before terrorists have nuclear weapons? The same philosophy that motivates suicide bombers can motivate nuclear annihilation of the human race. Unless a nuclear war between countries does the job first. Such as Iran vs Israel. The fallout from a nuclear war between them could easily wipe out the entire human race. Even if some people survive in fallout shelters, they're going to have to eventually exit those shelters and face the fallout and other consequences of it. How likely is it the planet will support human life at that point?

Worrying about colonizing other planets is like worrying about what you're going to do with all your money when you win the billion dollar Powerball lottery.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by HighSpeed

Currently the world population is about 10billion and increasing exponentially.

The flaws in your argument are that the World's population is not 10 Billion; is not increasing exponentially; and will eventually stabilize to near Zero-Growth.

[southwest88]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

...

We'll be fine. No planets will ever be settled.

Read the view of those who believe we have about peaked. They make a good case, although their view does not attract as many grants nor sell as many magazines and the "exponential growth" nonsense.
World population may actually start declining, not exploding.

We'll likely settle on Mars & any other solar system planets or moons or asteroids that have resources to offer - water, metals, some other commodity we want or need. But I don't think it will be to move overpopulation off Earth. The energy costs are high, only high-value cargo is going to leave the planet. Unless we manage to build a Skyhook or something similar - also called a Space Elevator. But even with cheap energy & a (relatively) low-cost boost to LEO, it will still take a lot of critical infrastructure & transportation & engineering & attention to protocols to keep a sizable population alive in space or an inhospitable planetary environment.

Yah, we need to get our population growth down to something sustainable - there's only so much potable water, agricultural land, seafood to harvest. We'll soon have to distribute food better, cut back on meat (vegetarian takes less water - far less), & figure out synthetics - maybe tofu-based? Soya, in any event.