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.
We need a new frontier. All of the good land has been either taken or is priced beyond the means of ordinary folks. The earth is getting worn out from people's over-use. Exploding populations are unsustainable. In order to avert a food shortage, water shortage, and energy shortage - or even worse - a population decline, some people and even wildlife could be moved to a safe, fresh new territory.
Where to go? The moon or Mars might be good prospects, but I think another, larger international space station could be put into orbit right above the earth. In fact, multiple space stations could be put into use. We certainly have the technology. Food could be grown with aquaponics, providing both vegetables and fish for protein. Water can be 100% recycled, thus permanently preventing drought. All nutrients would be recycled, preventing waste. Energy would be provided by abundant sunshine on built-in solar panels; never any cloud cover. A fresh medical team would also be sent with every space mission.
Supplies could be restocked in much the same way that we provide for the current space station, via periodic space missions from Earth. Thus, no money need change hands, and nothing financial would be required. Volunteer flight crews would have the option to return at any time. In fact, they should be paid for their service, with automatic deposits into their retirement accounts.
How many trillion dollars would it take to put more than a handful of people out there?
I do agree that there's a world population issue.
With the exception of solar, a lot of what you mentioned could also occur at the bottom of the ocean (but then you could use currents for electrical generation).
How many trillion dollars would it take to put more than a handful of people out there?
I do agree that there's a world population issue.
With the exception of solar, a lot of what you mentioned could also occur at the bottom of the ocean (but then you could use currents for electrical generation).
Once you replicate the first one, the cost begins to go down. Meanwhile, lots of people would be employed in the building and set-up of the systems. Might help alleviate some employment problems here on earth.
I like the idea of the bottom of the oceans. Seems, though, it's as expensive to get people down there as it would be to get them up in space. Possibilities are endless, with 70% of the planet just water....
While terraforming the moon or mars would be cool, practically, we already farm the oceans, but working at depth means building for massive pressure while maintaining a watertight sealed environment, which would be vunerable from any tectonic activity.
I would probably go for settlements on a planet vs orbiting stations as you could easily expand, and wouldn't be subject to a lot of the debris floating around up there, plus, you could have shelters built planetside for protection from events like solar storms that the station could be vunerable to.
It would be easier to make a commuter transport carrying people and cargo to a spaceport on a low gravity planet than making a complete floating city, keeping it up, (remember skylab?) and it would be safer on a planet.
A station wouldn't have any gravity and you would need to generate artificial gravity of some kind for raising fruits and vegetables that have evolved using gravity to fruit and reproduce. The moon doesn't have a lot of gravity, but it does have some so this would be less of an issue.
Still, I would love to see any of the options put in place. That would be very cool
Still, I would love to see any of the options put in place. That would be very cool
I think so too.
Perhaps it could start with just several thousand people, which wouldn't even make a dent here. But as it gained infrastructure and media attention, more people might get interested in trying it. Eventually, if we could transfer just 1/20th of the population, it would produce noticeable results. We have been exploring space since the 1960s, and it looks like it is now going into private hands. If I were still a young man, I know I'd be interested in being a pioneer with this!
Let'sassume that all these events take place. People would still be breeding on this planet so the problem would be the same in a very few years.
The only solution is to increase mortality rates. In 1900 the world had a total population of about one billion. Now look at it. Suppose that it increases sevenfold in the next hundred years.
We need something like a big asteroid to do the right job.
We need a new frontier. All of the good land has been either taken or is priced beyond the means of ordinary folks. The earth is getting worn out from people's over-use. Exploding populations are unsustainable. In order to avert a food shortage, water shortage, and energy shortage - or even worse - a population decline, some people and even wildlife could be moved to a safe, fresh new territory.
Where to go? The moon or Mars might be good prospects, but I think another, larger international space station could be put into orbit right above the earth. In fact, multiple space stations could be put into use. We certainly have the technology. Food could be grown with aquaponics, providing both vegetables and fish for protein. Water can be 100% recycled, thus permanently preventing drought. All nutrients would be recycled, preventing waste. Energy would be provided by abundant sunshine on built-in solar panels; never any cloud cover. A fresh medical team would also be sent with every space mission.
Supplies could be restocked in much the same way that we provide for the current space station, via periodic space missions from Earth. Thus, no money need change hands, and nothing financial would be required. Volunteer flight crews would have the option to return at any time. In fact, they should be paid for their service, with automatic deposits into their retirement accounts.
Any ideas to add to such a program?
I think population is the key.
What we really need is a global initiative on education and some level of empowerment for women. There are some pretty compelling studies out there that show when women are given access to the education equivalent of 3rd or 4th year level high school they will typically have 2-3 children and this causes a population cliff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
