FTL will not save us

[Tom Bender]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possible. So looking for earthlike planets is academic, it will not solve our population problem. While limited communication is possible, nobody is ever going to go there. We will be surviving ,or not, on just our tiny blue planet forever.

Do you have any solutions?

[Rob Luter]

I guess I don’t see a population problem. In any case I’ll be dead within 30 years and won’t care if one develops.

[Kevin Jenness]

You are clearly overlooking needlecasts, wormholes, warp drives and ansibles.

[glenn bradley]

Don’t stop dreaming.

[mike stenson]

You are clearly overlooking needlecasts, wormholes, warp drives and ansibles.
and using the spice to fold space.

[Rod Sheridan]

and using the spice to fold space.

Particularly timely with the new movie……Rod.

[Rod Sheridan]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possible. So looking for earthlike planets is academic, it will not solve our population problem. While limited communication is possible, nobody is ever going to go there. We will be surviving ,or not, on just our tiny blue planet forever.

Do you have any solutions?

Tom, I think we’re going to solve our own population issues through education, and I am becoming more hopeful that we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a reasonable time frame…..Rod.

[Doug Garson]

Or terraforming Mars.

[Tim Tucker]

Tom, I think we’re going to solve our own population issues through education, and I am becoming more hopeful that we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a reasonable time frame…..Rod.


I'll have what he is smoking......:D

[Mark Hennebury]

People are stupid! They have always been Stupid, and are getting more stupid!

Pfizer could come up with a vaccine for that.... but people are too stupid to take it.

The only hope for our survival is if we could bring back Vlad the impailer, then everyone would behave, seeing as how that probably wont happen, then artificial Intelligence should take over control and manage the planet.
It would make a pleasant change from rich people running the planet by manipulating the stupid masses to do their bidding and keep them in the lap of luxury.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone that this planets economy runs on the understanding that people are stupid, arrogant, egotistical, tribal, childlike, easily manipulated and controlled.
If you have viewed a few threads on the forum and that hasn't convinced you, how about politics, religion, art, fashion, Covid etc..


9. Barnett Newman, Onement V (1952)

Christie’s New York, July 10, 2020

$30,920,000




https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?resize_to=width&src=https%3A%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2F-k-NyeIYjLP8OvGzO9ETiw%252FNewman%2BOnement%2BV.jpg&width=1200&quality=80

Barnett Newman, Onement V, 1952. Courtesy of Christie’s Images Ltd. 2020.

The second-highest result at Christie’s “One” sale was a tie, but the first lot to sell for $30.9 million was one of Barnett Newman’s six “Onement” paintings. Considered to be the artist’s breakthrough series, they are the first works in which he incorporated his signature “zip,” a vertical stripe in a contrasting shade running down the center of the canvas, cutting through the monochromatic pool of pure pigment and giving the impression of color reverberating back and forth. “I realized that I had been emptying space instead of filling it, and that now my line made the whole area come to life,” Newman said of the series. Part of a generation of painters that included Rothko and Jackson Pollock (https://www.artsy.net/artist/jackson-pollock)

, and operating independent of the burden of European aesthetics, Newman firmly believed that American artists could make a fresh start, and paint as if painting had never existed before. It was about proposing an entirely new direction in art, shifting from its obsession with beauty to the search for truth.




Tom, I think we’re going to solve our own population issues through education, and I am becoming more hopeful that we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a reasonable time frame…..Rod.

[Mike Henderson]

My view is that we will continue to have a division between those who have and those who don't - and that it will only get worse as time goes by. Countries with an educated population generally have a birth rate that is below replacement, while those countries that do not have an educated population (think poor countries) have a birth rate that exceeds replacement.

The United States population is growing but primarily by immigration (birthrate of 1.7 which is far below replacement). Japan's population is declining because their birthrate is low (1.36, it's very expensive to raise a child in Japan) and there's not much immigration into the country.

I visited Egypt recently and it's a good example of population growth in a poor country. There are some rich people, but the vast majority are poor and living in housing that is quite crowded - with the problems of trash and crime that usually goes with crowded conditions. Those poor people tend to have more than two children. As life gets worse for those people they will want to immigrate to other, wealthier, countries, and that will cause significant problems. The wealthier countries already have problems with their poor citizens. The homeless population seems to continue to grow and jobs for those without a college degree pay very little and are being replaced by automation.

I suspect that wealthier countries will eventually provide subsistence payments to their poor citizens in order to keep them from revolution. The wealthy will consider it just the cost of being safe, just as we pay for our military to keep us safe from external threats.

There's a lot of talk about "equity" but the major factor in a child's success in life is the success of their parents. Children of well educated, relatively wealthy parents, generally go to better schools, get help when needed, have a decent role model and have contacts for college entrance and jobs through their parents' friends. These things can't be "given" to children of poor families.

Mike

[A few birth rates: (replacement is about 2.2)
England - 1.58
Germany - 1.54
France - 1.87 which reflects the policies in France that support birth mothers
Spain - 1.24
South Korea - 1.00
Egypt - 3.28
Niger - 6.9
Congo - 5.9]

[John K Jordan]

I guess I don’t see a population problem. In any case I’ll be dead within 30 years and won’t care if one develops.

Maybe not today.

From an article by Howard Hendrix in Analog Nov '21, Guest Editorial: Population and Genius

Population in 1 billion increments : date reached : years to reach that population increment:

1 billion : 1803 : estimated several hundred thousand years
2 billion : 1927 : 124 years later
3 billion : 1960 : 33 years
4 billion : 1975 : 15 years
5 billion : 1987 : 12 years
6 billion : 1999 : 12 years
7 billion : 2011 : 12 years
8 billion : 2024 : 13 years estimated

So the rate of increase has slowed a bit. But when will we hit 9 billion? 10 billion?
Looking at this makes me wonder how many billions the planet can feed. And when will that happen?

JKJ

[Jack Frederick]

So many thoughts on this, but to simplify those thoughts, we who live in the Garden of Eden must remember that Mother Earth bats last!

[Doug Garson]

I suspect that wealthier countries will eventually provide subsistence payments to their poor citizens in order to keep them from revolution. The wealthy will consider it just the cost of being safe, just as we pay for our military to keep us safe from external threats.
Wouldn't a better approach be to limit the maximum differential between lowest wage rate and highest wage rate in a company? Why should the CEO of a company take home millions if he can't figure out how to pay a living wage to all employees and still make a profit. Through his company's 35-year history, Leonard Lee, founder of Lee Valley Tools, has ensured that the highest-paid worker never makes more than 10 times the wage of the lowest-paid worker. By contrast, that ratio averaged 122-to-one last year at Canada's biggest companies, up from 84-to-one a decade earlier, according to data prepared for The Globe and Mail. The maker and retailer of woodworking and garden tools distributes a quarter of pretax profit to its staff of 850 each year, with the lowest-paid cleaner garnering the same as the CEO. Profit-sharing isn't the only unusual aspect of its corporate culture. The privately-held company has never had layoffs and pays its executives no bonuses. "You get tremendous loyalty from employees if they enjoy their work and they are participating in the income and they have the authority that they need to execute their job," Mr. Lee, 75, said in an interview at his Ottawa headquarters, surrounded by antique wooden tools.(Note this is from an article eight years ago)

[Jim Koepke]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possible. So looking for earthlike planets is academic, it will not solve our population problem. While limited communication is possible, nobody is ever going to go there. We will be surviving ,or not, on just our tiny blue planet forever.

Do you have any solutions?

Many years ago someone predicted the first earth people to travel to another solar system will be greeted by earth people who left for the same solar system after them.


I guess I don’t see a population problem. In any case I’ll be dead within 30 years and won’t care if one develops.

That may be one of the major failing points of humans, to not care about things they feel won't have an impact on them.

Currently we are experiencing a natural event lowering the human population by less than 1%. We do not know if the long term effects of this event will cause a lull in population growth.


9. Barnett Newman, Onement V (1952)

Christie’s New York, July 10, 2020

$30,920,000

Proof that some people have too much money.


[A few birth rates: (replacement is about 2.2)
England - 1.58
Germany - 1.54
France - 1.87 which reflects the policies in France that support birth mothers
Spain - 1.24
South Korea - 1.00
Egypt - 3.28
Niger - 6.9
Congo - 5.9]

Compared to England or Germany how many of those born in Niger or Congo will live to see their 20th birthday? How about 30th or 40th?

is the replacement rate the same for every country rich or poor?

jtk

[Rich Engelhardt]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possibleBear in mind - those "in the know" at one time said a train could never exceed 25 miles per hour because that would cause all the air to be sucked out and kill everyone inside.
IIRC, they also claim bees can't fly.

[Rob Luter]

That may be one of the major failing points of humans, to not care about things they feel won't have an impact on them.

jtk

My point was that I don't see population as a problem currently. It's another manufactured crisis. All I hear about is what "could" or "might" happen if any number of speculative events take place. They usually don't. I'm old enough to have historical perspective. In my lifetime the fear mongers have tried to whip us into a frenzy over claims of global cooling, global warming, certain death from pollution, birds dying off from DDT, Y2K Cyber disaster, Comets, Sunspots, Magnetic field reversal, Overpopulation, Under Population, Famine, and countless other claims intended to get the right people paid for "Studies" and other research that never proves a thing. It's because there's nothing to prove. I don't feel they will have no impact on me. Experience has shown me they will absolutely have no impact on me. The icing on the cake is my mortality.

[Tom Bender]

Like pretty much any form of life, people are genetically programmed to increase our population. Nature has always found a way to limit each so she will with man. What might our fate be?

More significant pandemics

Strife

Hunger and thirst

Environmental change

Depleted resources

[George Yetka]

Miniaturization. Thats the future for humanity :)

If we came up with free power that has no downside or cost to the environment, figured out to recycle 100%, limit 2 kids then sterilize we may have a fighting chance.

[Frederick Skelly]

I think that given time, science is likely to find a way between the stars.
What worries me is that we could destroy ourselves before then. Nuclear war, etc.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Good thread so far. Let's be careful since we are treading on the edge of politics.

[Mike Henderson]

Compared to England or Germany how many of those born in Niger or Congo will live to see their 20th birthday? How about 30th or 40th?

is the replacement rate the same for every country rich or poor?

jtk

Good points. I don't know the answer to your first question but medical advances and vaccinations, I'm sure, have increased the survival rate. In general, the population of countries with high birth rates is growing. Niger's population is growing at an annual rate of about 3.8% a year, for example, and I doubt if immigration is a major factor. Population growth in the United States is less than a half percent a year.

China's population growth rate is a bit smaller than the US, but still growing, and the base is quite large, so the number of births is large in absolute terms. China has a bunch of population problems right now: a large elderly population and a mismatch between males and females of childbearing age. Many female fetuses were aborted during the time when Chinese families could only have one child because a male child had a duty to take care of his parents. Having a male child was "social security". But now, many, many men cannot get married because there aren't enough women.

The replacement rate is not the same for every country, rich or poor. Birth rate is computed as the average number of children a woman will have during her childbearing years (15-49), given the present day fertility rate. The reason it is greater than 2 is to account for the fact that more males are born than females, but more importantly, the childhood mortality of females prior to reaching childbearing age, and mortality of females during the childbearing years (not living to bear multiple children - for example, death in childbirth delivering the first child.

Those countries with lower female mortality rates will have a lower replacement rate.

Mike

[Prior to modern medicine and vaccinations, approximately 40 to 50% of children did not survive to their 15th birthday. Approximately 25% died in the first year of life. Just think about the mothers, knowing that they would bury about half of their children. Source. (https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past) Source (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-all-time-child-mortality-rate/).]

[Mike Henderson]

Wouldn't a better approach be to limit the maximum differential between lowest wage rate and highest wage rate in a company? Why should the CEO of a company take home millions if he can't figure out how to pay a living wage to all employees and still make a profit. Through his company's 35-year history, Leonard Lee, founder of Lee Valley Tools, has ensured that the highest-paid worker never makes more than 10 times the wage of the lowest-paid worker. By contrast, that ratio averaged 122-to-one last year at Canada's biggest companies, up from 84-to-one a decade earlier, according to data prepared for The Globe and Mail. The maker and retailer of woodworking and garden tools distributes a quarter of pretax profit to its staff of 850 each year, with the lowest-paid cleaner garnering the same as the CEO. Profit-sharing isn't the only unusual aspect of its corporate culture. The privately-held company has never had layoffs and pays its executives no bonuses. "You get tremendous loyalty from employees if they enjoy their work and they are participating in the income and they have the authority that they need to execute their job," Mr. Lee, 75, said in an interview at his Ottawa headquarters, surrounded by antique wooden tools.(Note this is from an article eight years ago)

There are several problems with trying to put limits as you suggest. At the highest corporate levels there's a competition for those people who can perform the jobs well. Companies will find ways to compensate those people beyond the limits specified in law. For example, suppose an executive was given stock options as part of his/her compensation package and the company (and the stock) just exploded in value. That person could then have compensation many, many times the lowest paid person.

Then, look at the bottom end. As the compensation of executives increased, the compensation of the lowest paid person would increase. But there's a lot more lower paid people in a company so the cost to the company could become prohibitive. The company will then use techniques, such as automation and outsourcing, to limit their cost.

France is a good example of some of these problems. France has a lot of worker protections for employees. It's very hard and costly to lay off an employee in France. So the companies in France use a lot more "temporary" employees rather than hiring "employees". There has been a lot of student protest because university graduates can't find permanent jobs in France.

Such policies could limit the number of lower paid jobs in the United States, leading to a black market in workers. Workers would be willing to work for less and be paid in cash (under the table), leading to a bunch more issues and problems. We already have this in construction jobs and policies like you suggest would make this much worse.

Mike

[Lee Valley is a family owned business and the family members are probably the senior employees. Almost certainly they own a part of the business so, while they may not get a big salary, their net worth is increasing as the company grows. I expect they have a way for older family members to cash out their ownership. Look at Elon Musk - he doesn't take a salary so there's no comparison between his "salary" and the lowest paid person. But he's the richest person on earth.

But suppose Lee Valley had to hire a senior person from the outside, such as a corporate attorney. If they want a good person, they're going to have to pay for that person. Otherwise, when a better, higher paying, job comes along (and that person will get calls from headhunters) they'll quit and move to another company.

During WWII, wages were frozen, but workers were scarce because many men were in the military. The companies resorted to "fringe benefits", such as a pension, health benefits, and whatever else they could think of to attract workers. Companies find a way to do what they have to do.]

[Bill Dufour]

I remember someone saying in the 1070s? that even at light speed the human population was growing so fast that there were not enough earth type planets to absorb all the new people assuming the new planets followed the same growth rate as earth was at that time.
Bill D
To me the big question is if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into. In other words what is outside the universe. Does nothing exist until the universe expands into that space?

[Mike Nolan]

"Bear in mind - those "in the know" at one time said a train could never exceed 25 miles per hour because that would cause all the air to be sucked out and kill everyone inside.
IIRC, they also claim bees can't fly."

Speaking as an engineer, there is a difference between an engineer saying something can’t be done and a physicist saying it can't be done. When an engineer says it can’t be done he usually means I can't see how to do it. Physics can be wrong too but that’s not the way to bet.

[Michael Weber]

The universe is a strange place. Einstein’s most famous equation states in order to travel at light speed requires infinite energy. An impossibility. Likewise as an objects speed increases so does it’s mass. Theoretically at light speed your mass (relative to only the object moving, not bystanders) becomes infinite so you would be simultaneously everywhere at once. No need for warp drives🥴. Time dilation also becomes a factor at light or near light speed. My guess is we will never leave our own solar system except in science fiction. Photons (light) supposedly have no mass. All theory and math and doesn’t explain why gravity seems to be exempt to light speed or why the universe expanded and still is expanding faster than light. My “Physics for Idiots” information sources give me headaches trying to grasp the complexity of almost everything. I may be totally wrong about my above statements. I’m a bear of very little brain. I do look forward to and wish desperately for a successful James Webb Telescope launch and deployment starting in December. There’s a lot to learn.

[Kev Williams]

Best explanation I've ever heard why speed-of-light travel isn't possible, is because even in the outerest of outer space, there's always stray atoms of whatever cosmic dust floating around; outer space isn't really "empty"...

I read years ago in a boating magazine no less, that water takes on the density of concrete at around 55 mph (the boating reference was an answer to the question 'how is barefoot skiing possible?) ...

So, similar to water at 55mph, a spaceship traveling 186,000 miles per second might as well be trying to move thru solid steel...

Spice to fold space, not holding my breath ;)

[Mike Henderson]

Bill D
To me the big question is if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into. In other words what is outside the universe. Does nothing exist until the universe expands into that space?

There's a joke about that. [William James} After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.

"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.

"And what is that, madam?" inquired James politely.

"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle."

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"

"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it's this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."

"But what does this second turtle stand on?" persisted James patiently.

To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,

"It's no use, Mr. James—it's turtles all the way down."

Mike

[Lee DeRaud]

"It's no use, Mr. James—it's turtles all the way down."
The Pratchett Cosmology stops at the first turtle*, who simply swims through space in search of a mate.

Of course, in that universe, the Big Bang occurs at the end, not the beginning.

*There are some elephants involved as well, either four or five, depending on your reading of the math.)

[mike stenson]

Like pretty much any form of life, people are genetically programmed to increase our population. Nature has always found a way to limit each so she will with man. What might our fate be?

More significant pandemics

Strife

Hunger and thirst

Environmental change

Depleted resources

Yep. All of these. Probably without recourse. In any case, I'm not sure I can say that we left this place better off for my children (who are all adults at this point). Which, really, should have been the goal in the first place.

[Kev Williams]

Many years ago I read a book that the then-Hansen Planetarium sold called 'Black Holes and Warped Space Time'. I read a few other such books back then but I believe this books author explained how the big-bang happened from a singular point, that our 'current' universe is still expanding because of the last big bang, that sometime in distant future so many years from now it's well beyond our comprehension, the universe will finally expand to the point where it can no longer expand outward due to the gravity from all the mass of the universe 'in front' of it, at which point all that gravity will begin to pull the universe back inwards towards the singular point for countless eons, until all of the mass of the universe has collapsed into that single point-- and then BANG-- it all starts over again...

The freaky part is, so the book explains, is that this complete process has already happened a near infinite amount of times, and will happen an infinite number MORE times...

"Insignificant" comes to mind ;)

As George Carlin said, "Save the PLANET? The planet isn't going anywhere... WE are!"

[Edwin Santos]

Yep. All of these. Probably without recourse. In any case, I'm not sure I can say that we left this place better off for my children (who are all adults at this point). Which, really, should have been the goal in the first place.

These days I feel a new sympathy for Millennials and even more for Gen Z.
Between the cost of education and buy-in price of a first home - in relation to wages... they are facing a much more challenging economic future than my generation faced. And I'm not even including factors like the national debt situation, the cost of healthcare and the environment. A fortunate small % of them will inherit money from their parents and that will put those lucky ones on a better footing, but most will not.
Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to judge young people.

[Frederick Skelly]

These days I feel a new sympathy for Millennials and even more for Gen Z.
Between the cost of education and buy-in price of a first home - in relation to wages... they are facing a much more challenging economic future than my generation faced. And I'm not even including factors like the national debt situation, the cost of healthcare and the environment. A fortunate small % of them will inherit money from their parents that will put them on a better footing, but most will not.
Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to judge young people.

Good points Edwin!

[Doug Garson]

Something to consider, the poor countries with the highest birthrates are likely the counties with the lowest consumption rates. If the whole world consumed at the rate we here in N America and the EU consume at, the crisis with overpopulation would already be here. On the other hand, if the world consumed at the rate of the poorest countries, the world would be far from over population. I don't think the population numbers are the issue, the combination of high population and high consumption is the problem. Given that the poor countries strive to achieve the consumption levels of N America and the EU, it is incumbent on us to solve this. It would be immoral of us to continue consuming at our current rates and criticize poor countries for not controlling population growth.

[Mike Henderson]

Something to consider, the poor countries with the highest birthrates are likely the counties with the lowest consumption rates. If the whole world consumed at the rate we here in N America and the EU consume at, the crisis with overpopulation would already be here. On the other hand, if the world consumed at the rate of the poorest countries, the world would be far from over population. I don't think the population numbers are the issue, the combination of high population and high consumption is the problem. Given that the poor countries strive to achieve the consumption levels of N America and the EU, it is incumbent on us to solve this. It would be immoral of us to continue consuming at our current rates and criticize poor countries for not controlling population growth.

The way to slow population growth is through education, especially education of women, and availability of birth control. The reason most advanced countries have birthrates that are below replacement is that women can control whether they get pregnant. Look at the birth rate over time for any advanced country and you'll see how it declined as the country advanced.

The reason most families limit the number of their children is that it's very expensive to raise a child in an advanced country.

Also, advocating that all countries consume at the rate of poor countries is to condemn everyone to poverty and subsistence living. That would be a tough sell.

Mike

[Doug Garson]

The way to slow population growth is through education, especially education of women, and availability of birth control. The reason most advanced countries have birthrates that are below replacement is that women can control whether they get pregnant. Look at the birth rate over time for any advanced country and you'll see how it declined as the country advanced.

The reason most families limit the number of their children is that it's very expensive to raise a child in an advanced country.

Also, advocating that all countries consume at the rate of poor countries is to condemn everyone to poverty and subsistence living. That would be a tough sell.

Mike
As I said, I don't think population growth, by itself, is the problem. I'm not suggesting the solution is to condemn everyone to poverty and subsistence living but to use our superior education to solve the problem of over consumption of the earth's finite resources.

[Anuj Prateek]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possible. So looking for earthlike planets is academic, it will not solve our population problem. While limited communication is possible, nobody is ever going to go there. We will be surviving ,or not, on just our tiny blue planet forever.

Do you have any solutions?

There are observations and theories to explain them. Newtons explanations held for 200 years before Einstein came along. With time science will make progress and even better theories will come along. Science is living and changes. Current state is not the end state. One day we will have means to break current limits.

Coming back to population question.

Education in current form is not adequate to address population problem. Social & Moral Sciences (including population control) have to be taught as equally important subject to kids. And then jobs have to be generated to support advanced studies in the area.

Problem in short term has to be addressed at country level as well. Incentives for less kids and penalties for more has to be in place.

In absence of both, a poor farmer who is not educated may very well see more kids = more hands in fields. As bad as it sounds have seen many such cases.

[William Fretwell]

If we do achieve faster than light travel at least no one will see us coming!

[John K Jordan]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but as an extrapolation of the concepts in Edwin Abott's book "Flatland", where a 3-dimentional object could "magically" enter the Flatland world anywhere (from above or below) without traveling through the Flatland space (a 3D sphere appearing to Flatlanders as the points on a circumference of a circle), a object in a 4th dimension might "magically" enter our 3-dimensional space at any point without traveling through it. This does imply a 4D object still has to move within it's own space but who can imagine what the physical rules are there.

So contact "someone" in the 4th dimension and ask for a lift.

JKJ

[Stan Calow]

I never thought FTL was a concept seriously intended to "save" mankind. Just a fun movie plot device.
Last serious article on population growth I read said that the most likely projection was a flattening of the growth curve and a stabilization at a max population level. I just don't remember what that number was. But I think there is no consensus that, there is a problem, or that people collectively need to take active measures to solve it. Heck we cant solve many of the big problems of today because of contrariness. The majority of people are just trying to survive, let alone think for the future. Maybe the next pandemic or two will be harsher and create some space.

[Lee DeRaud]

Last serious article on population growth I read said that the most likely projection was a flattening of the growth curve and a stabilization at a max population level. I just don't remember what that number was. But I think there is no consensus that, there is a problem, or that people collectively need to take active measures to solve it. Heck we cant solve many of the big problems of today because of contrariness. The majority of people are just trying to survive, let alone think for the future. Maybe the next pandemic or two will be harsher and create some space.There is clearly no doubt that population will achieve some sort of equilibrium state, the real question is, will that number allow conditions anyone will consider desirable or even livable?

When people say there's no population problem, their rationale usually devolves to some form of "I'm all right, Jack!":
1. "My nearest neighbor is X miles away, what's the problem?"
2. "Science will come up with ways to feed all the starving people in <insert third-world country name>."
3. "Screw 'em, I'll be long dead before that happens."
4... you get the idea.

And that's now, at 8 billion. Anybody want to hang around for double/triple/quadruple that? Or the alternative complete-collapse state where whatever percentage is left goes back into hunter-gatherer mode?

I'll pass. Oh wait, that's already on the list as #3. :)

[Edwin Santos]

There is clearly no doubt that population will achieve some sort of equilibrium state, the real question is, will that number allow conditions anyone will consider desirable or even livable?



And that's now, at 8 billion. Anybody want to hang around for double/triple/quadruple that? Or the alternative complete-collapse state where whatever percentage is left goes back into hunter-gatherer mode?



Another aspect of what you're saying is the climate change models that predict populated areas of the globe becoming uninhabitable. So that would mean a growing population and a smaller land mass to accommodate it.

Although the counter argument is that technology will create cities of the future that will be insulated from weather extremes, even cities in the ocean areas. I heard Google was working on a futuristic mini-city in the Toronto area as an experiment but they pulled the plug on the project for some reason. There was also talk that Bill Gates personally made a massive land purchase outside Phoenix with the intention of creating a futuristic city intended to adapt to climate change.

[Kevin Jenness]

C. M. Kornbluth came up with a solution back in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

[Mike Henderson]

C. M. Kornbluth came up with a solution back in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

The premise of his story - that intelligent people have fewer children than less intelligent people, leading to a decrease in intelligence in the general population - was discussed in the book "The Bell Curve (https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1L2YBLANPQZ4R&keywords=the+bell+curve+book&qid=1636648773&sprefix=the+bell+curve%2Caps%2C211&sr=8-1)".

Mike

[Lee DeRaud]

There was also talk that Bill Gates personally made a massive land purchase outside Phoenix with the intention of creating a futuristic city intended to adapt to climate change.Probably not the location I would have picked, given that its habitability is already marginal... :)

[Alex Zeller]

I'm not sure why people assume we will always live on a planet. Once you move past that mindset you realize there's a lot of room for population growth. Right now the limiting factor is getting objects into space. Like almost everything as the need arises people will focus on solving the problem. Then it'll just be those with the means will be the first to move leaving those who can't afford to behind. Think about all the advancements made in your lifetime. Most happened recently because the speed of advancements is increasing.

[Lee DeRaud]

I'm not sure why people assume we will always live on a planet. Once you move past that mindset you realize there's a lot of room for population growth. Right now the limiting factor is getting objects into space. Like almost everything as the need arises people will focus on solving the problem. Then it'll just be those with the means will be the first to move leaving those who can't afford to behind. Think about all the advancements made in your lifetime. Most happened recently because the speed of advancements is increasing.
SkyNet power-up in 5...4...3...

[Kevin Jenness]

I'm not sure why people assume we will always live on a planet. Once you move past that mindset you realize there's a lot of room for population growth. Right now the limiting factor is getting objects into space. Like almost everything as the need arises people will focus on solving the problem. Then it'll just be those with the means will be the first to move leaving those who can't afford to behind. Think about all the advancements made in your lifetime. Most happened recently because the speed of advancements is increasing.

You're so right. It won't be long before we advanced people discard our meatsacks for transhuman digital existence and leave the indigenous indigents on this outmoded used-up dirtball.

[Lee DeRaud]

You're so right. It won't be long before we advanced people discard our meatsacks for transhuman digital existence and leave the indigenous indigents on this outmoded used-up dirtball.
Some of us are ahead of that particular curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dd_qiuWxPs

[Kevin Jenness]

It's happening right here in the People's Republic of VT. https://terasemmovementfoundation.com/

[Kev Williams]

I'm not sure why people assume we will always live on a planet. Once you move past that mindset you realize there's a lot of room for population growth. Right now the limiting factor is getting objects into space.

"They" say we'll soon be putting people on Mars. Myself, I see a few bigger hurdles than actually getting there, like those pesky necessities such as oxygen and water, and last time I checked, we still haven't perfected the water thing HERE yet... ;)

[Alex Zeller]

"They" say we'll soon be putting people on Mars. Myself, I see a few bigger hurdles than actually getting there, like those pesky necessities such as oxygen and water, and last time I checked, we still haven't perfected the water thing HERE yet... ;)

Assuming we are living on a space station of some sort solar power will be plentiful. That means processes that turn waste water back into clean water that don't make sense now can be viable. The same with oxygen. So it'll be more on how to recover resources than where to get new resources. We really haven't dedicated a lot of research into living in space en masse. A number of issues need to be worked out, like growing plants, raising animals, and gravity but if we move that direction problems will be solved. In about 8 years we went from JFK's moon speech to actually landing on the moon. Just think, the computer used for guidance on that first rocket weighed 70 lbs and had 64k of memory running at 43 khz. A new smart phone has something like 2 trillion times more power. Yet they did it in less than a decade. If we try 20 years from now who knows what we would accomplish.

[Tom Bender]

So " technology will save us" doesn't work for me. Living in space is extremely inconvenient if it is possible at all. Consider living forever in the space station. Sure it could be upgraded but if a significant population could be accommodated it would be really inconvenient. Remember that everything would need to be extracted and lifted form our tiny blue planet, at least for the foreseeable future. The earthbound simulations have not given hope.

[Ron Citerone]

When are you gonna come down?
When are you going to land?
I should have stayed on the farm
I should have listened to my old man…
EJ

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

faster than light travel already occurs. Velocity is all relative. A star hurdling through the cosmos at the half the speed of light is going the speed of light to a star going the opposite direction at half the speed of light. Whether we will ever achieve the speed of light in relation to Earth assumes that the traveler is moving away from earth and the earth is standing still. what if each are moving away from each other at half the speed of light? A star or meteor could be coming at us faster than the speed of light, and of course, we would never see it coming. Which brings up another question, if something is moving at exactly the speed of light, does the light it sends out in the direction of travel get compressed into some super concentrated light?

[Doug Garson]

Or would that meteor moving at the speed of light away from you be invisible? What about one degree off moving right away?

[Rick Potter]

Sorry to be simplistic, but population will be controlled the way it always has been.


War.

I remember reading in a very famous book, "there will always be wars and rumors of war" as well as "the poor will always be with us".

[Mark Hennebury]

Humans are opportunistic predators by nature.

It seems to me that the pyramid is the basis of civilization.

It is human nature to build pyramids, not just stone ones, but civilization itself is a pyramid construction.

It is not just the super rich that are the problem, it is human nature in general.
We are all exploiters by nature, with the desire to get ahead, to own stuff, to prove our value and show others that we are special.
and dependant on what level in pyramid you are will probably dictate your opinion of the system.

Every business is a pyramid.

Make something, sell it, make some more, sell them, hire some help make some, keep repeating, now you have your own pyramid started.
Business operates this way, so do governments and religions; Ever increasing population at the bottom is required to sustain the ever increasing profits at the top, religion managed this by banning contraception, and brainwashing minds , countries depend on continued population growth, through births and immigration, to cover the pensions and social security payments etc..
Nobody wants this to stop. It would destroy the system. The system requires masses of desperately poor, to fill the factories and work for pennies, it requires the middle class to have enough money to buy all the stuff made by the poor, so all of those at the top can buy mega-yachts.

It has always been this way. You have to keep the poor, poor, so that they are desperate enough to work in the sweat-shops, to make all of the latest fashionable crap that we don’t need, but will continue buying.

The only problem with pyramid schemes is when you run out of people, if you cant continue to fill the ever increasing base required to sustain the structure and it will grind to a halt and collapse. The problem with our system is not a lack of population, it’s a lack of natural resources to maintain the population that maintains the system; We don’t have an ever expanding planet and resources to maintain this system, we have worked this horse to death. The planet cannot cope with the demands placed on it by us. This pyramid scheme ( as they all are) always was unsustainable, and it will collapse.

The banks have worked hard at taking money from people and keeping the poor, poor.
They invented the “Credit Score”
Wealthy pay the least amount for borrowing money and poor people pay the most, which makes it even harder for those who are struggling; not exactly a level playing field is it. But desperate people will agree to anything, and the poor will continue to pay outrageous interest to the money lenders.
We have minimum wage in some countries, we need that because if we didn’t have it, employers would pay you even less!

The system has worked since the beginning of time, but the current population growth rate, the mass production output, the stripping of natural resources and the waste is so totally out of balance with the nature of this planet, and you would have to change the system to fix it, and I don’t see how humans will do that, because the ones that have the power to make the changes are the ones at the top of the pyramid…… and they really, really want to stay there. It would require a more balanced system which requires a change in human nature, a more compassionate system, more sharing and helping rather than exploiting. It would require us to stop buying tons of new crap and fix, maintain and recycle. It requires us to act like a good family that looks out for and after each other, and not act like the competitive opportunistic assholes that we are.

I think that Artificial intelligence is our best hope. Put a computer in charge. This could develop a balanced sustainable system, devoid of the human greed, arrogance and indifference. We need a system to manage the planet, fairly and without prejudice, religion and politics, and humans just aren’t up to it.

The thing is humans are incredible smart, and incredibly stupid, why? What is the reason for the stupidity? how is that good for our survival as a species? It’s great to support the system, but the system is destroying our home, and enslaving a large proportion of society. Many live lives of poverty and deprivation, others deal with better living conditions, but still cope with constant stress of struggling to survive. At the extremes we have this;

Wherever we go, there we will be.
If we don’t fix human stupidity it comes with us everywhere we go.
We may travel at the speed of light but we will never outrun human stupidity.
The planet and its finite resources is not the problem, our infinite stupidity is.
People have a lot of negative traits ...and they use them all.
This is the world that we have created.

Owner: Robert Knok
Price: $4.8 Billion
Solid. Gold. At $4.8 billion, the History Supreme, owned by Robert Knok, is the world’s most expensive, largest superyacht in the whole world. At 100 feet in length, History Supreme took three years to build, using 10,000 kilograms of solid gold and platinum, both of which adorn the dining area, deck, rails, staircases, and anchor. If that weren’t luxurious enough, the master suite features a meteorite rock wall, a statue made of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones, a 68 kg 24-carat gold Aquavista Panoramic Wall Aquarium, and a liquor bottle adorned with a rare 18.5-carat diamond.

468091468093468096468098

[Kevin Jenness]

Mark, I agree with much of what you have said, especially We may travel at the speed of light but we will never outrun human stupidity.


I take issue with you on a couple of points.

1)It has always been this way.

2) I think that Artificial intelligence is our best hope. Put a computer in charge.

There have been societies that are not pyramidal and grossly exploitive of their part of the planet. Maybe going forward we can learn from them.

Until the Renaissance in western Europe economies were directed by either tradition or command. Due to a unique confluence of historical factors capitalism evolved, an economic system that allowed for the development of productive resources such that the vast masses were not dependent on hunting and gathering and society was able to provide food and shelter (and eventually even leisure) for a growing population ad infinitum- so far. Capitalism works through minimally directed market activity that allocates resources to the most demanded occupations through the profit motive (Smith's "invisible hand"), far more efficiently than a planned economy. Capitalism has taken over almost the entire world, even the former communist regimes, although in most cases it is modified and regulated by varying degrees of government control.

Unfortunately, capitalism does a far better job of producing wealth than distributing it fairly (a debatable term) and without significant regulation externalities such as pollution and climate change are not considered part of the cost of doing business. And profitable activities are not necessarily socially desirable. The AI you posit is as likely to reflect the values of Faceberg as Lao Tzu. We need somehow to arrive at a system that has the productive power of capitalism to provide for human needs without destroying the ecology of the planet that sustains us.

How is this to happen? I wish I knew. I do not believe that population growth driven by less developed societies will slacken until their economies have grown to the point that it makes sense for families to voluntarily limit their numbers, as has happened in our "advanced" countries (although coercion as in China may accomplish that in some areas). Getting to that point without overwhelming the earth's carrying capacity will be difficult. We do have an immense capacity for technological innovation including resource substitution and renewable energy that may get us through this period. That same ability has put us in a position to reduce the world to an ash heap through nuclear war, and to spread hitherto obscure plagues throughout the globe. Mere accident may accomplish the population reduction that some think is required.

I suspect the fantasy of spreading our blighted race throughout the universe is as likely to resemble the genocide of The Marching Morons as anything. Until we figure out how to live sustainably on this fragile green globe it would be folly to export our problems.

[Mark Hennebury]

Kevin

We are very smart and have incredible abilities to make changes, but we seem held back tremendously from our potential, by the negative side of human nature, and our inability to see what is in front of us.

In a struggle to understand the basis of our stupidity, and in keeping with the topic of the thread I came up with this;

The Starship Enterprise.


Picture if you will, your head is the bridge of the Starship enterprise.
The windows are your eyes
The crew observe and record data as it appears in front of the window.
You are captain Kirk.
On this bridge you don’t get to look out the window, your chair faces a monitor on the back wall.
Kirk relies on the video stream on his monitor to get his information and make decisions.
The crew are the history of you, your experiences and interpretations of them, your hopes, fears, ambitions and biases, everything that is you.
The crew discuss and interpret incoming data and make a video to send to the Captains monitor and the Captain, believes, trusts and acts upon it.

The crew have no concept of right or wrong, they just take the information, interpret it through their own perspective, make a video to pass along, if there is missing information, they just make it up, so that they have a complete video.

So we don’t actually see what is in front of our eyes, we see a made up version of it.
We rarely get to see things as they are, unfiltered, without our own unique interpretation, for that we would have to turn around and bypass the crew to look directly out of the window ourselves.

To truly see things as they are without seeing through our own preconceived view is hard…. not impossible, but hard.

Trust no one…. Least of all yourself.

Warp Speed ahead

I should add that this is my argument for the world run by a computer.


Mark, I agree with much of what you have said, especially We may travel at the speed of light but we will never outrun human stupidity.


I take issue with you on a couple of points.

1)It has always been this way.

2) I think that Artificial intelligence is our best hope. Put a computer in charge.

There have been societies that are not pyramidal and grossly exploitive of their part of the planet. Maybe going forward we can learn from them.

Until the Renaissance in western Europe economies were directed by either tradition or command. Due to a unique confluence of historical factors capitalism evolved, an economic system that allowed for the development of productive resources such that the vast masses were not dependent on hunting and gathering and society was able to provide food and shelter (and eventually even leisure) for a growing population ad infinitum- so far. Capitalism works through minimally directed market activity that allocates resources to the most demanded occupations through the profit motive (Smith's "invisible hand"), far more efficiently than a planned economy. Capitalism has taken over almost the entire world, even the former communist regimes, although in most cases it is modified and regulated by varying degrees of government control.

Unfortunately, capitalism does a far better job of producing wealth than distributing it fairly (a debatable term) and without significant regulation externalities such as pollution and climate change are not considered part of the cost of doing business. And profitable activities are not necessarily socially desirable. The AI you posit is as likely to reflect the values of Faceberg as Lao Tzu. We need somehow to arrive at a system that has the productive power of capitalism to provide for human needs without destroying the ecology of the planet that sustains us.

How is this to happen? I wish I knew. I do not believe that population growth driven by less developed societies will slacken until their economies have grown to the point that it makes sense for families to voluntarily limit their numbers, as has happened in our "advanced" countries (although coercion as in China may accomplish that in some areas). Getting to that point without overwhelming the earth's carrying capacity will be difficult. We do have an immense capacity for technological innovation including resource substitution and renewable energy that may get us through this period. That same ability has put us in a position to reduce the world to an ash heap through nuclear war, and to spread hitherto obscure plagues throughout the globe. Mere accident may accomplish the population reduction that some think is required.

I suspect the fantasy of spreading our blighted race throughout the universe is as likely to resemble the genocide of The Marching Morons as anything. Until we figure out how to live sustainably on this fragile green globe it would be folly to export our problems.

[Doug Garson]

Kevin

We are very smart and have incredible abilities to make changes, but we seem held back tremendously from our potential, by the negative side of human nature, and our inability to see what is in front of us.

In a struggle to understand the basis of our stupidity, and in keeping with the topic of the thread I came up with this;

The Starship Enterprise.


Picture if you will, your head is the bridge of the Starship enterprise.
The windows are your eyes
The crew observe and record data as it appears in front of the window.
You are captain Kirk.
On this bridge you don’t get to look out the window, your chair faces a monitor on the back wall.
Kirk relies on the video stream on his monitor to get his information and make decisions.
The crew are the history of you, your experiences and interpretations of them, your hopes, fears, ambitions and biases, everything that is you.
The crew discuss and interpret incoming data and make a video to send to the Captains monitor and the Captain, believes, trusts and acts upon it.

The crew have no concept of right or wrong, they just take the information, interpret it through their own perspective, make a video to pass along, if there is missing information, they just make it up, so that they have a complete video.

So we don’t actually see what is in front of our eyes, we see a made up version of it.
We rarely get to see things as they are, unfiltered, without our own unique interpretation, for that we would have to turn around and bypass the crew to look directly out of the window ourselves.

To truly see things as they are without seeing through our own preconceived view is hard…. not impossible, but hard.

Trust no one…. Least of all yourself.

Warp Speed ahead

I should add that this is my argument for the world run by a computer.
Sounds more like an argument against a world run by computers:confused:.
Agree we all see the world thru a set of filters, some don't realize it, they think their version is reality when often it's not.

[Mark Hennebury]

I am just thinking that it might be easier to program a computer then reprogram humans.
I think that a computer could make decisions based on an accepted concept of reality rather then our personal distorted ones.
And a computer wouldn't have all of the emotional baggage that we all do.
So it would make more rational decisions, based on what was best for the community, rather then the way we make decisions, which is complicated and often misguided and very often for personal gain.
It would also be quite refreshing not to have to listen to all of the lies and BS from politicians every night.

Sounds more like an argument against a world run by computers:confused:.
Agree we all see the world thru a set of filters, some don't realize it, they think their version is reality when often it's not.

[Kev Williams]

I look at the Starship Enterprise much more simplistically, and have to ask: Who, how and where did they build the thing?
;)

[Doug Garson]

I am just thinking that it might be easier to program a computer then reprogram humans.
I think that a computer could make decisions based on an accepted concept of reality rather then our personal distorted ones.
And a computer wouldn't have all of the emotional baggage that we all do.
So it would make more rational decisions, based on what was best for the community, rather then the way we make decisions, which is complicated and often misguided and very often for personal gain.
It would also be quite refreshing not to have to listen to all of the lies and BS from politicians every night.
Yeah but how do you eliminate the distorted view of reality of the person(s) programming the computer?

[Lee DeRaud]

You guys might want to consider the universe as depicted in Ian M. Banks' "Culture" novels. The AIs are self-programmed in, shall we say, interesting ways, but there are a whole bunch of them, so if you don't like the one running your particular environment, there's probably one more suited to your tastes. ("State of the Art" has a section detailing some of the socioeconomic and technological underpinnings.)

Its only real problem is that it (rather conveniently) skips over the interval between "here's the mess we started with" and "Hey, check it out, ain't it cool?"

[Lee DeRaud]

I look at the Starship Enterprise much more simplistically, and have to ask: Who, how and where did they build the thing?
;)
You need one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Fleet-Technical-Manual/dp/0345340744

[Kevin Jenness]

The AIs are self-programmed in, shall we say, interesting ways, but there are a whole bunch of them, so if you don't like the one running your particular environment, there's probably one more suited to your tastes.

Well, if I could choose the AI running the show then perhaps the world would go as I wish -it's all these other people who think they ought to have an equal vote that screw things up.

[Mark Hennebury]

Maybe Ai could just make an evaluation itself based on managing the planets inhabitant and resources.

[Perry Hilbert Jr]

[QUOTE=Mark Hennebury;3154869]Kevin

We are very smart and have incredible abilities to make changes, but we seem held back tremendously from our potential, by the negative side of human nature, and our inability to see what is in front of us.

Nope. Some of us are extremely intelligent in our own little subject. Some have a broad basis of knowledge. Too many of mankind are just plain stupid and hold the population back. Let me explain. as an attorney I helped lots of people with child support cases. I charged a much reduced fee for that service and word got around town. There were times when I represented the parent with custody and got child support started after 4 or 5 years of getting nothing. Those cases made me feel good. There were times when Fathers got railroaded into paying exorbitant amounts because of some fluke in the earnings and I was able to correct those errors. And then there were the times that the initial interview was just amazing.

Me: How many children are involved?
Her: 2, aged 3 and 2 months.
Me. What is his occupation?
Her: He doesn't work, except under the table some times.
Me. How far did he get in school?
Her: I think he graduated
Me; How far did you get in school?
Her: I don't know
Me: How can you not know what grade you completed?
Her: Well I last went to school in 6th grade and then I was homeschooled for a couple years and I quit that.
Me: What jobs have you done?
Her: I have never worked. I shouldn't have to, He should pay support for all three of us.
Me: Are there any other children?
Her: Oh Yeah, he has a 5 yr old and he doesn't ever pay support for that brat either.
(Me: in my mind: What made YOU think you were so special that he would stick around or pay support for your kids if he doesn't pay for one he already had?)

or then there was the child support conference at which my client swore that he could not have been the father because the mother was in Florida for the summer when the baby was concieved. So I asked for a Paternity test. Suddenly the mother bursts into tears. Just sobbing terribly. The conference officer and I just look at each other. Like what the... She asks the mother what is wrong. By this time the sobbing is attracting attention of people in the hallway and other offices. Between sobs the mother at nearly the top of her voice screams: "He knows I was in special ed and can't pass a test!"

[Dave Zellers]

Now I get the point of this thread. If this poor woman could transport to another planet many light years away where they pay all the bills of people like her, her problems would disappear. But most likely only until too many people transport there and break their system.

So no, I don't see any solution. FTL will not save us, we need to save ourselves.

[Keith Outten]

I look at the Starship Enterprise much more simplistically, and have to ask: Who, how and where did they build the thing?
;)


All of the Star Ships were built here in Newport News Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company. The same place we built the original Enterprise :)
468164 468173 We build the largest warships in the world, refuel them and de-commission them for over 136 years :)

[Malcolm McLeod]

All of the Star Ships were built here in Newport News Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company. The same place we built the original Enterprise :)
468164 468173 We build the largest warships in the world, refuel them and de-commission them for over 136 years :)

Sounds like you live around some smart people. I am fortunate to be in the same boat (no pun intended): I find lots of smart, caring, giving people around me in all the countries I've worked. I wish we could all be so fortunate.

As for FTL travel, let's suspend any limiting factors imposed by energy requirements & strength of materials. A quick visit to Calculator Soup, with t = (v-u)/a, (where v=final velocity; u=initial velocity; a= acceleration; t=time), and some rough approximations & assumptions (light speed = 186000 mi/sec x 3600 sec/hr = 669,600,000 mph; a = 2Xgravity = 64ft/sec/sec; u = 0 mph), yields t=4262 hrs.

So, a (possibly?) tolerable 2Gs for ~6mos could get you close to light speed. Or, to replicate the Star Ship Enterprise - and my crude estimate of ~3sec for moviedom to reach warp speed - Calculator says you need ~10,000,000Gs (a=320,000,000 ft/sec/sec) to reach light speed.

I am NOT a doctor, but I'm guessing the physiology of either of these - no matter if 6mo @ 2Gs, or 3sec @ 10,000,000Gs - is going to hurt. A lot.:eek: YMMV

Note: I did not do a units check on the web math, so please feel free to peer-review my reported results.:confused:

Above is not quite the conceptualized ion-drive spacecraft that would accelerate for the 1st half of the journey to the stars, then decel for the 2nd half - with the trip lasting hundreds of years. I can't remember the details, but I recall they estimated a max of 10% of light speed. With a=0.0032ft/sec/sec, Calculator says "~973 yrs to reach 10% of light. (....lot of SWAG here - DIY at your own risk.);)

[Ed Mitchell]

Sounds like you live around some smart people. I am fortunate to be in the same boat (no pun intended): I find lots of smart, caring, giving people around me in all the countries I've worked. I wish we could all be so fortunate.

As for FTL travel, let's suspend any limiting factors imposed by energy requirements & strength of materials. A quick visit to Calculator Soup, with t = (v-u)/a, (where v=final velocity; u=initial velocity; a= acceleration; t=time), and some rough approximations & assumptions (light speed = 186000 mi/sec x 3600 sec/hr = 669,600,000 mph; a = 2Xgravity = 64ft/sec/sec; u = 0 mph), yields t=4262 hrs.

So, a (possibly?) tolerable 2Gs for ~6mos could get you close to light speed. Or, to replicate the Star Ship Enterprise - and my crude estimate of ~3sec for moviedom to reach warp speed - Calculator says you need ~10,000,000Gs (a=320,000,000 ft/sec/sec) to reach light speed.

I am NOT a doctor, but I'm guessing the physiology of either of these - no matter if 6mo @ 2Gs, or 3sec @ 10,000,000Gs - is going to hurt. A lot.:eek: YMMV

Note: I did not do a units check on the web math, so please feel free to peer-review my reported results.:confused:

Above is not quite the conceptualized ion-drive spacecraft that would accelerate for the 1st half of the journey to the stars, then decel for the 2nd half - with the trip lasting hundreds of years. I can't remember the details, but I recall they estimated a max of 10% of light speed. With a=0.0032ft/sec/sec, Calculator says "~973 yrs to reach 10% of light. (....lot of SWAG here - DIY at your own risk.);)


Yeah, I think your arithmetic is close enough

Once in space, at only 1G constant acceleration, you'll be at light speed in around a year
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/840/how-fast-will-1g-get-you-there

Even 1/10 light speed will get you to the rocky planets of nearby stars in well under a human lifetime, but relativity says that time is from an external observer's POV, the travelers themselves should not perceive that much time elapsed, so it should be less of a problem for them.

No matter what we might think of such a trip, we have no choice but to make it. Becoming space nomads is our only hope of survival.

Our sun will make this planet too hot to survive in around 500 million years, and it will burn out in a couple billion years. Plenty of time, but there is an expiration date. Even after we make it to the next star and the next and the next, we'll have to keep running to survive, but eventually we'll have nowhere left to run -- even at light speed we can't make it out of our local galactic group before the heat death of the universe, so we're SOL unless we invent some pretty sci-fi stuff