Why it may be impossible to live forever

[xouper]

Sundog: So we can ruin and overpopulate another planet?

xouper: Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

sundog: Of course not, we'd never do that TWICE, would we? My money says we'd just muck up the new planet too.

OK, back up here. Since I am not proposing we go ruin another planet, it's ridiculous to imply I said such a thing. that's what I meant by "don't be ridiculous" - I meant don't put words in my mouth.

And I don't accept your assertion that we have ruined this one.

Sundog: Understood, but now you've simply limited yourself to the resources of the NEW planet. TANSTAAFL.

Who said I was limiting future habitats and resources to planets? Come on, don't be so limited in your thinking. We have a long way to go before the resources of our solar system are used up. And beyond that, there's a whole galaxy out there. I see no reason to believe that our solar system cannot support a reasonable growth rate for a long long time.

Yup. From a fellow named Malthus. Unpleasant fellow, but ignore him at your peril.

Which specific doctrine of Malthus are you referring to? And what's your opinion of the refutations of Malthus?

 

[Sundog]

OK, back up here. Since I am not proposing we go ruin another planet, it's ridiculous to imply I said such a thing. that's what I meant by "don't be ridiculous" - I meant don't put words in my mouth.

Slow down, Xoup. I never implied you said anything. That's simply my own opinion.

And I don't accept your assertion that we have ruined this one.

Okay. I find your optimism refreshing.

Who said I was limiting future habitats and resources to planets? Come on, don't be so limited in your thinking. We have a long way to go before the resources of our solar system are used up. And beyond that, there's a whole galaxy out there. I see no reason to believe that our solar system cannot support a reasonable growth rate for a long long time.

Where do you intend to get the materials to sustain a civilization, if not from the planets? Asteroid mining? Impossibly uneconomical.

It just seems to me you're relying on some technological deus ex machina to allow unlimited growth. There's no reason to believe one will appear.

Which specific doctrine of Malthus are you referring to?

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

 

[BillyJoe]

You have it wrong. It's the fundies that don't think sex is fun for the sake of sex. The problem with them is they try to have kids until they're dead.

They feel that it's a sin to have sex without trying to infest the world with non stop little fundies that they can brainwash.

Yea as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

Well OK except for:
Fun sex
A kiss
Art
Music
Intellectual pursuits
A walk on the beach
A day as a family
Reading a book
Watching a movie
Seeing a Play
Visiting a museum
Science
Sitting by a lake
Hiking
Climbing
Learning
And everything else

Sorry but your statement makes no sense to anyone but possibly a blind creationist.

PS I thought this was a science section. Not the fundy section.

Hey, ntech......

.....ah.....er.....well....ah.....pull your head in, man.

ntech

 

[ntech]

Hey, ntech......

.....ah.....er.....well....ah.....pull your head in, man.

ntech

Ouch, Yeah right BJ

I'm from NY. There is not much you could do to me to make me feel bad. Sorry!!!

 

[xouper]

Sundog: Slow down, Xoup. I never implied you said anything. That's simply my own opinion.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I mistook it for something else.

Where do you intend to get the materials to sustain a civilization, if not from the planets? Asteroid mining? Impossibly uneconomical.

Apparently I shall have to defer to your expertise in the future economics of asteroid mining.

It just seems to me you're relying on some technological deus ex machina to allow unlimited growth. There's no reason to believe one will appear.

I didn't say "unlimited growth". I was trying to say that if we expand off the planet, we won't have to settle for zero growth so soon.

As for reasons to believe in any future deus ex machina I offer examples from history. Consider the simple tractor (and its descendents). Another example, if not for the phone company's deus ex machina, our current phone network would require the employment of every person on the planet as operators. There is plenty of reason to suspect that future technologies will enable sustained growth rates.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

OK, that. I thought as much. I think history has sufficiently refuted his point that food production cannot keep up with population growth. I guess he assumed there wouldn't be any deus ex machina.

 

[rwald]

The phrase you're looking for, xouper, is "necessity is the mother of invention." Coined by Boserup, who believed that the increased population pressure would result in advanced technology to deal with said pressure. And, as you just pointed out, in some historical cases it has.

 

[Sundog]

The phrase you're looking for, xouper, is "necessity is the mother of invention." Coined by Boserup, who believed that the increased population pressure would result in advanced technology to deal with said pressure. And, as you just pointed out, in some historical cases it has.

Malthus did indeed overlook the technological aids to food raising. But these advances don't overcome the basic problem (which I'm trying to remember correctly after many years, excuse me if I screw it up) that population grows exponentially while food production increases in a linear fashion.

My point in bringing up Malthus is the very obvious one that a civilization is limited by the resources available to it. Xouper talks as if all we have to do is get up there and we'll find the vast resources of the Solar System instantly available to us.

It ain't that simple. Someone will still have to dig for iron, aluminum, uranium, etc; someone will have to prospect for ice; etc., etc., etc. Far from removing limits on growth, population growth will decline in such a resource-poor environment.

 

[xouper]

Sundog: Malthus did indeed overlook the technological aids to food raising. But these advances don't overcome the basic problem (which I'm trying to remember correctly after many years, excuse me if I screw it up) that population grows exponentially while food production increases in a linear fashion.

Yes, that's essentially what he said. However, history hasn't validated his premise.

My point in bringing up Malthus is the very obvious one that a civilization is limited by the resources available to it.

OK, if that is your point, I agree.

Xouper talks as if all we have to do is get up there and we'll find the vast resources of the Solar System instantly available to us.

Well, dang. If that is the impression you got of my point, then I didn't express myself well enough.

It ain't that simple. Someone will still have to dig for iron, aluminum, uranium, etc; someone will have to prospect for ice; etc., etc., etc.

Of course.

The point I was trying to make is not that resources "out there" are free. I was making the point that by expanding humanity's habitat beyond the Earth, humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth.

 

[BillyJoe]

ntech,

Ouch, Yeah right BJ

I'm from NY. There is not much you could do to me to make me feel bad.

Yeah, I'm pretty thick-skinned too.
That's why I decided to make light of your mischaracterization of my post.

Sorry!!!

Apologies accepted.

BJ

 

[Sundog]

The point I was trying to make is not that resources "out there" are free. I was making the point that by expanding humanity's habitat beyond the Earth, humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth.

I understand. I think, though, that these resources will be much more difficult to extract, produce and deliver than Earthly resources (imagine the shipping charges alone!) and this will present a "bottleneck" in the size of a society that can be supported. In other words, the resources won't be able to be delivered at a rate that could support unlimited expansion.

I want space colonization as much as anyone. I just see problems in the way.

 

[xouper]

Sundog: I think, though, that these resources will be much more difficult to extract, produce and deliver than Earthly resources (imagine the shipping charges alone!) and this will present a "bottleneck" in the size of a society that can be supported.

Well, again, I must defer to your apparent expertise in the future economics of extraterrestrial resources.

In other words, the resources won't be able to be delivered at a rate that could support unlimited expansion.

Again, I didn't use the word "unlimited", so your comment doesn't apply to any opinion I offered.

 

[Sundog]

Well, again, I must defer to your apparent expertise in the future economics of extraterrestrial resources.

I take it you disagree, but surely some things can be extrapolated from what we know, even though we're not there yet. If space-based economics works like Earth-based economics, there will be limitations. If not, that is a deux ex machina in itself, to believe that space-based economies won't be bound by the same rules as Earth-based economies. But certainly this is just my opinion, based on nothing but what I think I understand about how the world works.

Again, I didn't use the word "unlimited", so your comment doesn't apply to any opinion I offered.

You said:

"humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth."

I meant "unlimited" in the sense that you meant "limited".

 

[xouper]

Sundog: You said: "humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth."

I meant "unlimited" in the sense that you meant "limited".

I am not familiar with that use of the word "unlimited". To me, "unlimited growth" is synonymous with "growth without limit", and that certainly is not what I said.

Let me clarify what I meant.

Humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth, but rather it will be limited by the resources of the Solar System. And even though that is a much bigger limit, it is still a limit. I don't know why you keep quibbling about this. Do you disagree with my premise that if humanity expands its habitat beyond Earth it will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth?

 

[BillyJoe]

DOES THIS HELP?

NOT LIMITED: this is used in a relative sense (eg not limited by the resources of Earth)

UNLIMITED: this is used in an absolute sense (not limited by anything)

 

[Underemployed]

ntech:

We know of a fundy family from our old town that had 12 kids who each had 8 to 10 kids etc.

Exactly why I want to have 12 kids who I can raise as skeptics. We must rise to the challenge! Sadly my wife has yet to come round to the obviousness of my solution, but I have hope.

On living forever, I recall somebody once did a statistical analysis showing that if we did not die of old age, the average lifetime would be about 800 years due to the near certainty of death by accident at some point - mechanical failure of your hover-boots, falling meteorites, vengeful husbands (see above), and so on and so forth.