FTL will not save us

[Rich Engelhardt]

All the reliable science says (Faster Than Light) travel will not be possible

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.

[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. Source.]

[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.