Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby
^ Exactly. It wouldn’t be the first time “science” has created new problems (through unforeseen/unintended consequences).
The only effective way to control the heating up of the Earth is to start putting a limit on the number of humans, which is now 8 billion and still growing. (Compare with 1.8 billion just a hundred years ago.) The planet cannot support a limitless human population without a major collapse of the eco-system.
|
I disagree. It's not the number of human beings, but the energy consumption per capita (and resulting waste heat).
Cutting energy consumption is more pleasant than culling humans, IMHO.
As to the alarmist threat of collapse, that's based on an assumption that humans are a problem, and not the solution.
Consider that if the goal of life is more abundant life, then thickening the life bearing volume of the finite surface area is needed.
Mother nature is quite limited in that regard. Beaver dams and trees are about the extent of it. Humans are capable of engineering the surface of the Earth to support far more habitat, both human and wildlife.
To illustrate, imagine a 100 story building wrapped in a helical ramp, that is left open to the elements, and supporting soil, plants, trees, etc. There, wildlife habitat could be established, segregated from human contact, yet visible from within - a "nature show" 24/7.
Imagine the roof deck, supporting soil, and available to farm.
For boosting wildlife habitat even more, reserve 10% of the building's internal volume for that purpose... zoological gardens, vivariums, aquariums, etc.
For every unit of surface taken out by the foundation, 10x is added, for wildlife, and 90x is added, for human habitat.
Imagine a megacity where the highrise vistas are verdant habitats, instead of sterile glass and steel facades. Might even have bridges to link the helical ramps, providing migratory pathways away from the dangers of roads and vehicles.
Oh, and remember, the ambient temperature is a function of insolation per unit area. It's why the polar regions are colder than the Equator. And why rainforests are cooler than deserts at the same latitude. Heat input spread over more surface area = lower temperature.
Guess what happens when humans vastly INCREASE the surface area exposed to incoming sunlight?
Temperature DROPS.
But the LONG TERM solution to a human population doubling every 50 - 60 years is colonization of outer space, via giant autonomous orbital habitats and vivariums. (See Gerard K O'Neill's concept).
Using robotic factories seeded on asteroids, moons, etc, endlessly churning out shells, tanks, hulls, and infrastructure, the rate of increase can outstrip the growth in population, providing plenty of expansion space for humanity.
Once the bulk of humanity is outside of the gravity well of Earth, our own solar system's resources can support geometric growth for another 2000 - 3000 years. Then we'll need to start colonizing adjacent star systems, using the same paradigm - autonomous habitats, built by robotic factories. It won't matter if there are habitable planets - just a star and raw materials. Send robot factory scouts, and 50 to 100 years later, start sending transport colonies to link up with the prebuilt infrastructure, ready for commissioning. (At 1/10 lightspeed, a transport may take 40 plus years to cross the void, which should have plenty of expansion room, for the trip. And upon arrival, plenty of empties for starting up new colonies.)
After a few generations, repeat the process, and keep expanding to new star systems.
We should be able to reach the farthest points of our galaxy in half a billion years, give or take a million. That destiny is far better than a static (and dying) population.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Skyhook?
