David,
Sometimes I wonder if it is biologically possible for humans to survive in the long term on other planets.
I remember learning that when a human is born, the newborn actually breathes in bacteria in the air which are necessary for good digestion. This makes me wonder if there are interconnections between humans and the ecosphere of this planet which are as yet unknown but nonetheless necessary for life. It could be that many, many such interconnections exist but have yet to be discovered.
If this is true - as a practical matter - it may impossible for humans to colonize other planets. Humans may attempt to colonize other planets but fail to thrive for reasons related to the lack of connections to earth’s biosphere which are not yet understood.
@chriskaz – welcome aboard and thanks for the questions!
Can someone tell me what the resources are in space that will keep us all alive?Clearly this not what space is about, today. I would also suggest for sake of discussion that resources can be intangible.
I certainly believe that if we invested as much time, money etc in conservation and technology to decrease consumption and increase conservation of resources instead of space travel, that would go a long way.What makes you feel this way? Among the 50 states, based on their public budgets, they collectively spend upwards of $20,000,000,000.00 a year.[1] It might be the federal government is spending another $20 billion. Taken together, this is just about what the NASA budget is.[2] Up until recently an aerospace engineer might expect $120,000[3] a year in salary and benefits. This is the system we all live in. I don't mean to say this is a good thing or a bad thing. This is what it is. Aerospace employs 1.5 million people, directly and indirectly, or it did. It contributes hundreds of billions to the economy, or it did. [4] Can you answer a few questions for me? My family is planning a relocation into Maine and away from Washington, DC and northern Kentucky. We want our Gen Z members to move with us. How do we convince these younger generations that they should not pursue their own dreams, aerospace engineering or anything else, but rather join us in a rural community on our own land learning to become more self reliant, more apart of our community, more resilient. They have been living with us all their lives. They know what we value and where we see the future. What if young people want to design new solar power systems, not install them? What if aerospace has been funding significant research in this area and there have been lots of jobs? I want to understand and not judge. Not sure how well I am doing.
@ David Turin,
Your point is well taken. How much of that technology is applied to conservation, sustainability or reducing resource use? Is there even an equivalent of NASA for this, and what is their budget? IMO it should be a household name just like NASA. I suppose you could make the same arguments for the military complex which has contributed so much to our world today in terms of technology etc besides keeping us safe. But it seems most people realize we have a problem but I do not see or hear much about funding research into solutions.
Advances in technology can help in many ways, provided there is investment there - which I guess also assumes that there must be profit in it, which is always an issue. Also a ‘coolness factor’ or something else to drive interest like there must be in the aerospace industry. One example learned through the pandemic is that a portion of business can be conducted at home with technology reducing the need for daily commutes and some air travel. We had oil sitting in tankers with no where to go…
Regarding your children and move to a rural area, I don’t view the two as mutually exclusive. They could design solar or satellite systems from home and use their free time to maintain the self-reliance systems like tending to the veggie garden, composting etc. It goes without saying from the topic of the article though that their dreams of continuing our lifestyle of convenience, McMansions, and over consumption will need to change - either by their choice or worse.
I’m fairly sure my ideas are relatively naiive at this point and may be way to little to solve the problem of future overpopulation. But I think we haven’t even scratched the surface of how we can feed everyone sustainably, greatly reduce resource use etc. The downside is it will require massive change to systems that are quite entrenched at this point.
Chris
Soar07,
John Michael Greer has pointed out that there are places on earth which are more suitable for life than Mars but those places remain unsettled due to the severity of the climate.
I just looked up weather conditions to check that out.
For instance, in Esperanza, Antartica (an Argentine research station) the temperatures range from -28 F to 77 F degrees.
On the other hand, at the Martian equator (probably the warmest spot on the planet), the temperatures range from -100 F to 70 F.
Thus, it seems that the Esperanza station has a better climate along with more water and more oxygen than Mars.
But no one attempts to settle there due to climate. And this is despite that fact that are climate refugee and political refugee problems already in process on earth.
I think that there is a second problem. A large scale attempt to settle other worlds would take staggering amounts of natural resources and financial backing. Chris and Adam have effectively argued that we are in a state of rapidly escalating resource depletion. Additionally, many credible financial commentators are arguing that much of the world already appears to be effectively bankrupt. Thus, it appears that neither the resources nor the capital is available to make colonization a possibility.
Now, it is conceivable that a sudden breakthrough in fusion energy technology coupled new rocket propulsion technologies to facilitate asteroid mining could somehow make colonization possible. But at this point, this is speculation and very far from being accomplished science. Space colonization - as it stands now - does not seem to be realistic.
Nothing is sustainable. Entropy rules. It is a fundamental law of the universe. This site was on to the correct approach RESLIENCE. It should stick to that mantra.
I read the “Population Bomb” in 1968. while his predictions have not completely manifested Ehrlich was quite prescient in his thesis.
“Ehrlich has argued that humanity has simply deferred the disaster by the use of more intensive agricultural techniques, such as those introduced during the Green Revolution. Ehrlich claims that increasing populations and affluence are increasingly stressing the global environment, due to such factors as loss of biodiversity, overfishing, global warming, urbanization, chemical pollution and competition for raw materials.[38] He maintains that due to growing global incomes, reducing consumption and human population is critical to protecting the environment and maintaining living standards, and that current rates of growth are still too great for a sustainable future”
I have worked in various parts of the world grappling with the effects of over population. The best (in terms of humaneness) is education. Educating girls is critical to lowering population. Educated women have 2 or less children. Uneducated women have 6 or more. Educated women have more choices and control over their reproductive systems. I do what I can but I am far from optimistic. Large portions of the world do not have a social safety net. There is no Social Security. Social security is large families. Large families also provide manual labor.
Every place I have been the people want to live like Amerikaans and Western Europeans. They want cars, tv’s cell phones, computers, etc. People want to immigrate to the US for economic freedom and the material comforts we take for granted. There is no way in hell 7.8 billion people can live like Amerikaans.
Jared Diamond wrote “Guns Germs and Steel " in response to the question of his guide (I believe in Borneo)who asked “why does the white man have all the goods”
I am amused at people going back to the land and using high tunnel hoop houses, tractors, solar panels, and all the other “stuff” that relies on fossil fuels and think they are being sustainable. I have a friend who has zero plastic in his life, none. He uses mules and horses to work his land. He is a close to “sustainable” as I know.
Then this discussion turns to Eugenics and freedom of choice. Freedom of religion " be fruitful and multiply” or as I like to say “be fruit flies and multiply”. Enter people like Bill Gates who is dedicated to reducing population. People like him have far more power and ability to "do " something than anyone here.
No one here wants to give up their Amerikaan lifestyle. Change will come with catastrophe. It will result in destruction globally. I don’t know exactly what but too many factors are converging. There is no bargaining with the devil. My best guess is 3/4 of the world will be destroyed.
I am reminded of what JHK said in the last podcast about the 11th hour. I suppose it is better late than never but this site is approaching this from the 11th hour or maybe 11:59
How many here have 0 children? How many 1? 2? or more? 4.4 % of the world’s population consuming 25% of the resources?
If the owners wish to really explore this topic i suggest a podcast with Jared Diamond. Ehrlich is 88 and probably not up to it but maybe.
For someone that sounds highly educated, your position comes across as completely absolutist. I doubt most people believe the earth in its current form will exist millions of years into the future. The people who have studied the problem believe certain practices make things MORE sustainable, not 100% sustainable.
You’re blurring the issue, and frankly, that just makes things worse.
The recently released “The Planet of the Humans” documents what a (wishful thinking) fraud high tech sustainability is. Michael Moore, a lefty, was the executive producer. He has gotten a lot of flak from the environmental groups and green energy profiteers for it. YouTube even removed it for a while. He even touched on the “sacred” population bomb. He’s used to it. Remember all the shit that came down on him during the Academy Awards for pointing out all of Junior Bush’s lies in getting us into the Iraq etc etc war? I wonder if they would still boo him off stage 17 years later.
The Limits to Growth study got a similar reaction from the economics community back in the early 70’s. The “mental giant” Jeff Bezos would continue the tradition: “We have the resources to build room for a trillion humans in this solar system, and when we have a trillion humans, we’ll have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts. It will be a way more interesting place to live.”
https://planetofthehumans.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqSTX2yDNc
We have far too many people on the planet. Perhaps why the virus was engineered to get rid of the deadweight primarily. We would need some kind of property grab for the masses in the US to make it happen , there is enough land - but its too expensive or grabbed by the US government. I think more we have to think of agrarian society rather than sustainability first.
I met my wife on a ClubMed vacation 33 years ago. We never even discussed having kids because it was obvious to us that the world already had too many killer apes…
With respect to Jared Diamond, I have enjoyed his books but found him to be a pompous ass when listening in person to his presentation at a local university. I can say the same about Gates. The sustainable amount of kids to have is one or none. Gates has three and should know better.
Our concern at the moment is insects. Our organic/permaculture garden in Spokane has been inundated by insects that threaten to severely diminish production this year…
This is my third effort to post this comment.
In another superb but deeply sobering post, JMG extrapolates a millennial evolutionary progression for this our island home in which adaptive Corvids ultimately inherit the scant remains of the earth. Human dominion of the planet during what Greer has called the Cthulhucene becomes a forgotten moment of wanton destruction in the vast annals of geological time. Do not read if you feel gloomy.
http://archdruidmirror.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-next-ten-billion-years.html
But while we’re still here and determined to make even a small difference, let’s give more credence to population policy and its effective outreach (education, contraception, health care) as a key tool to improve global ecology and human health, and to reduce overconsumption and waste. The demographics of countries where couples cannot plan their families correlate to poverty, famine, disease and squandered potential. If we left Mars to the Martians and empowered women instead, could we save our world?
https://populationmatters.org/news/2019/09/12/world-and-un-must-reduce-population-growth
Finally, any sudden effort to shrink national populations risks inverting the economic grid from stable pyramid (many young people working to support few elders) to unsustainable kite (few younger workers trying to shoulder the burden of many very old seniors); e.g., Japan’s demographic time bomb. No easy answers.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/TopPageData/PopPyramid2017_E.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/japan-rural-decline/537375/
Best wishes.
I am making things worse???
Uh okay.
I am sure you have data to back that up. And btw just what is it I am making worse?
Just what is it you are doing to make it better?
Is more sustainable like a little pregnant?
Let’s see you liked Diamond’s books but found him “pompous”
. Okay. I believe that is an ad hom which has no bearing on the discussion. Do you find his ideas valid?
Gates has three kids and should know better. Okay. I believe one of the owners of this site has three kids. Should he know better and is that relevant?
As for the insects you mention I am quite sure they are grateful for providing such a wonderful buffet.
Other than those minor points I agree with you completely
Regarding your children and move to a rural area, I don't view the two as mutually exclusive. They could design solar or satellite systems from home and use their free time to maintain the self-reliance systems like tending to the veggie garden,Agreed, @ChrisKaz -- before COVID-19 we talked about their living and opening their own businesses in Portland. They'd be near enough to support us and us them.
but I’m going to respond…
Obviously if I like Diamond’s books, I like his ideas – perhaps they might even be valid. However, I am not a fan of those who use their fame to marry someone much younger and procreate.
Should he know better and is that relevant?It may or may not be relevant. Depends on the scenario described above. I have to admit that I was privileged to travel widely in the US during my career. It was being exposed to the insanity of suburban sprawl -- and being an INTJ/P -- that shaped my perspective that there were too many folks and too many crappy environments. (BTW, the one time that I met Kunstler in person, he was a pompous ass, but I have found him to be quite gracious in email correspondence through the years -- and I like his books... Maybe there is some hope for Diamond -- but I still have more respect for Kunstler because he didn't use his fame to procreate.) I'm okay with the insects getting their share but they have been off the charts this year. Perhaps it is because the average temp in Feb of last year was 20 degrees and this year it was 37 degrees. Don't expect a response. Got to keep the 10 comments per year record intact. Call me pompous. : ) Sort of like an "ad hom" against moi.
Yes, Adam, while reading your article I was immediately thinking of all the counter arguments. Population control is a very controversial and emotionally charged subject.
I’m so cynical that when I hear a broadly accepted mainstream (msm) narrative, by BS meter is on high alert, and I like math. So when you calculate how many animals across the globe are being raised for food and when you calculate all the food production that goes into feeding these animals and compare that food production to using that same food production to feed humans directly, what you get is plenty of food for people.
World wide over 70 billion land animals are killed each year globally for food. See here: https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/
Land animals are pretty big and eat way more than humans do. I know that chickens are big part of that slaughter, but if you include the food production to feed seafood, there is plenty of food to feed the world population sans the animal slaughter industry.
Please don’t worry yourselves with the fear of protein deficiency. There were 9 cases of protein deficiency found in children in the US over a 9 year period. Protein deficiencies are really only possible if you are starving to death because every food you eat has amino acids, which are the building blocks of all proteins. Search for the term kwashiorcor - that’s the official name for protein deficiency. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/478323
The “Gold Standard” on the effects of animal protein on the body is The China Study. Instead of winning some serious global award, the poor author got de-funded and ostracized but has hung in there because he has tenure. An interesting study caught his attention and he was able to repeat it for 20 years. The China Study is based on the longest running human/animal study of it’s kind in history.
In addition to being a mis-allocation of resources, the animal slaughter industry is The Number Two Energy Sucking Activity on the Planet. Stop animal slaughter and save some energy.
The Number One Energy Sucking Thing on the Planet are buildings. Just look at all the buildings on the planet! If our buildings were built in a passive solar design, guess what? No one would need another heater or air conditioner in almost any climate. And these buildings can be built to be very beautiful and awe inspiring.
Counterintuitively, transportation is The Number Three Energy Consuming Activity on the planet. Developing local food sources and local goods/services production will mitigate some. Trade will continue. Long before the steam engine, there was trade.
One outcome to expect would be… drum roll… building things to last, again. I think fine workmanship and long lasting durable goods will become sought after again.
Mismanagement is the problem, not population.
Adam’s article reminded me eerily of the Georgia Stones, only instead of a half billion people to usher in Planet Utopia, TPTB have calculated maybe another 250 million would OK.
I don’t think so.
Snow cover is disappearing, sea ice is melting and fires, including possible ‘zombie’ blazes, are raging.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/22/siberia-heat-wave/Well procreation IS one of the three functions of life. The other 2 being eating and shitting.
Beyond that what else is there?
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keDL5_lrY3A&t=0s[/embed]
I’ll not trigger anyone with Guy McPherson’s “predicament”, that is to say the McPherson Paradox. But living the life you choose is now or never and not for very much longer, it seems.
What about water?
Space travel / colonization is one of the most widespread and destructive fantasies afflicting our collective psyche. There has been lots of analysis of the stages people go through with cognitive dissonance and having your core beliefs challenged. Space colonization is the denial mechanism people use to avoid coming to terms with our overpopulation and inevitable collapse. It doesn’t help that scammers like Musk and Bozo play it up so much, wasting precious resources, time, hopes, and money (money they didn’t even really have since neither of their companies can turn a profit, yet they are somehow some of the world’s top businessmen? WTF? But I digress…)
Firstly, the problem. IT’S A FREAKING VACUUM. We’d die instantly there. The only other rocky planet that isn’t a vacuum is HOT ENOUGH TO MELT LEAD.
“We’ll terraform new atmospheres.” Lol what??? Using what process? I get a kick out of the sci fi stories with these huge factories spewing out massive amounts of gases to create an atmosphere. Ummm, okaaaayyyy… Where is the gas coming from? Rocks? Rocks don’t have gas. What is the chemistry behind turning rocks to gas? What special process do people bring to the rocks that wouldn’t happen naturally? How much energy does it take? Where does the energy come from?
“We’ll use fusion”. Lol and how does this fusion reactor work? How are you converting the heat it generates into useful energy? How does the reactor get built and maintained when YOU ARE IN A FREAKING VACUUM? And there are ZERO manufacturing facilities on this fantastic new world to make the parts needed for the reactor? You can’t just bodge a nuclear reactor together with bits and pieces left behind from your spaceship. They require extremely high precision and competent operators. Without it, they blow up.
“We’ll build enclosed societies then to avoid the vacuum”. Using what resources? You can’t send the resources from Earth because it’s way to energetically expensive and I thought we were colonizing Mars because Earth is running out of resources?
“We’ll mine the resources on Mars then”. Lol do these people have any clue what’s involved in mining ore and turning it into pure metal? Its staggeringly complex when you consider the entire process and all the global engineering that goes into suplliying the equipment needed to do it, and incredibly energy intensive. And it relies on water based processes, which don’t work when YOU’RE IN A FREAKING VACUUM.
Where does the replacement solenoid, bolt, breaker come from when it breaks, which happens constantly in mining since it is so hard on equipment? There are no factories making these thing on Mars and it is too intensive to send them from Earth.
Finally, our supposed expansion beyond the constraints of Earth is actually completely dependent on Earth. Rocket fuel pretty much comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels come from algae living millions of years ago. We could not possibly be more dependent on Earth’s ecology. The hyped imminent grand age of space travel (haven’t we been constantly fed this propaganda ever since supposedly walking on the moon 50 years ago? Why has it never materialized?) will forever end once fossil fuels “run out”, or become too scarce.