Does it reflect or trap heat? Essentially if this is the case, then slowly removing the cloud structure around the planet, or at least making it less toxic and heat absorbent becomes the goal. Again, this was just one of many proposals that I've seen. It is clear that the planet would have to be considerably worked on before it became habitable.
Is Negative Population Growth Bad?
- Thread starter L.Y.S.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- population issues
Does it reflect or trap heat? Essentially if this is the case, then slowly removing the cloud structure around the planet, or at least making it less toxic and heat absorbent becomes the goal. Again, this was just one of many proposals that I've seen. It is clear that the planet would have to be considerably worked on before it became habitable.
Every problem facing mankind ties directly into birth rate.
Long term, anything that reduces birth rate without killing people, is good.
Short term, it leads to population age group imbalance. Too many oldsters, not enough youngsters. Us grumpies, crumblies and wrinklies need to keep working longer. No bad thing, IMO.
Delayed onset of reproduction may also lead, eventually, to longer lifespans, in that people prone to genetic ailments will die without reproducing and the surviving population will, on average, live longer. That would take a few thousand generations to have much effect though. One would hope medical science can do better.
Long term, anything that reduces birth rate without killing people, is good.
Short term, it leads to population age group imbalance. Too many oldsters, not enough youngsters. Us grumpies, crumblies and wrinklies need to keep working longer. No bad thing, IMO.
Delayed onset of reproduction may also lead, eventually, to longer lifespans, in that people prone to genetic ailments will die without reproducing and the surviving population will, on average, live longer. That would take a few thousand generations to have much effect though. One would hope medical science can do better.
Dang it, if only we didn't have to wait 90,000 years to see any reasonable change that result from mating habits that'd be awesome. I agree with the reduction in birthrate, but should we strive for a birthrate which nullifies the death rate, or just go for a declining birthrate?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I'm sorry, but if you don't know the meaning of a planet's albedo number, then it's obvious that you haven't even done the very basic research to even begin to understand what you're talking about.
Albedo refers to the portion of solar radiation reflected away from teh planet back into space. Yes, the cloud cover keeps in heat that radiates from the planet, but the heat that radiates from the planet comes only from the planet itself and the 35% of solar radiation that isn't reflected.
Thus, a space shield of any sort is only going to remove that 35% of incoming solar radiation. It's not going to have much effect. Terraforming Venus, at our current technology level or even with any technologies foreseeable within the next few hundred years, is a pipe dream.
I don't claim to have expansive knowledge of the subject, so I'm not ashamed to admit that my knowledge in certain areas is lacking. Yes, I get that trying to cool venus using our current technology is a pipe dream, but this does not reflect the future. If humans 100 years ago predicted the technology we'd have today they would've been dumb founded. I'd say the same is true with the next several hundred years.
