Talk:Earth Population

This entry is an excerpt from a much longer paper I am writing on future work for NASA. I started work on it because interest in our return to the Moon has been very low (around 4%) and my efforts to do anything about that have not produced results.

The idea is to look at all the clearly defined problems of the 21st century, such as this Population Bomb and Hubbert’s Peak. Look at major strengths, such as Moore’s Law. And, look at the major trends, such as the 21st century the century of biology. Then look at space project that make since in this rather harsh universe.

So far this analysis has produce powerful long-term justification for our return to the Moon, but no short-term ones. Meanwhile, some of the alternatives like Earth science from space show powerful short-term advantages. We are certainly approaching a crossroads.

If anyone here has any ideas on strengthening our return to the Moon argument within the context of this analysis, I would very much like to hear them.

Thanks,

--Jriley 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

A little discussion at last

Well, Tom, you have not gotten much of the controversy that you were seeking up till now, so I want to help you out. I agree that industrial use of Luna will only help in the long term. On many other points I disagree.

You wrote: "what will stop the exponential growth of human population?" It could very well be nothing in the next thousand years. The exponential growth of industry is something that can happen with appropriate resources available. These resources are available in the solar system off Earth.

Your "Figure 1 has three critical parameters: Peak Level, Peak Date, and Sustainable Level." but you do not show how the population bomb is dependent on these things. It seems like a case of garbage in, garbage out.

You wrote that: "Starvation related to climate change crop failure is already present." but all cases of starvation prevalent in a country that I have read about are related to military force preventing people of doing their traditional farming.

You wrote that: "sustainable level of population closer to four billion" but this is just a guess and fails to take into account the possibility of new ways of growing food. Desert areas could be irrigated with salt water to grow salt tolerant crops if there were a market for more food. The problem is not the lack of food but the lack of money to buy it.

You wrote: "[Population] is here assumed to be somewhere between two and six billion people." which is where you agree that the sustainable level number is just a guess.

You wrote that "No significant fraction of Earth’s population will ever physically move off his planet.: [because]...our experiences in building large facilities in space, like the International Space Station, show the project cost is also way too high. You like that argument so much that you repeated it: "...large constructions in space, which our experience with the International Space Station (ISS) demonstrated is difficult and very expensive." but it is false. What our experience with the ISS really shows is that sending human beings into space to work in space suits is not an economic activity and that having insufficiently developed infrastructure in space prevents people from doing cost effective work.

You wrote about [solar power satellites]: First, they require low-cost launch of mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), that is the false argument that has caused many billions to be wasted on hopeless schemes that were imagined to promote low cost access to space. For low cost access to space first a large market is needed which could be provided by life support structures and industry in space first constructed by remote controlled devices with lunar materials. Then there are a number of technical solutions that might work.

You wrote: "there are environmental concerns about the microwave links." but rational study of the numbers does not show serious harm likely to result from space based solar power being transmitted to a rectenna on Earth. The beam is less intense than sunlight on a power per unit area basis. A bird could fly through it without harm, as I recall reading.

You wrote: "Losing it [returning to the Moon] now will cost us our uninterrupted experience of manned space exploration." Actually losing manned space exploration would be the best way to return to the moon with remote controlled devices. Reinventing "the entire technology from the ground up" would be a good way to get rid of the tradition bound errors of manned spaceflight that have been preventing progress in economic space development so far. - Farred 04:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)