FTL will not save us

[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".

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...