Advanced civilization and population

Whereisup

Member
Jul 28, 2013
172
12
16
If China, the United States, and other major nations were to enter into a partnership to create an advanced civilization, medical technology would become able to cure all medical problems and extend lifetimes indefinitely, except for accidents.

That would produce a population problem that would need to be resolved by moving large numbers of people into orbital space communities. This could be done but would require international cooperation.

Since hull area rises more slowly than internal volume, it would be most efficient to build large space community vehicles. Thus, such orbital vehicles could have an internal volume of tens of cubic miles, which would provide plenty of room for large parks, golf courses, small yards, etc. Ceiling could have moving images of sky and clouds. It would produce less strain on the vehicle to maintain gravity low, but medical science could develop drugs to keep muscles strong, and so forth. Dance in low gravity would be quite exciting, and so forth.

The asteroids have millions of cubic miles of iron ore, plus large amounts of other ores, so there are adequate natural resources to build all the orbital space communities we would want.

To handle the cost, it would be necessary to grow the world economy. Since a higher standard of living reduces birth rates, that itself would help somewhat with the population problem.

China already has experience with producing economic growth by about ten percent per year, and research could increase our skill in that area. Let us then plan for an increase in the world economy (using alternative energy) of ten percent per year. At that rate, the world economy would double in just under eight years. The Gross World Product is now about 60 trillion dollars per year. So ten percent growth would give us a world economy (in constant dollars) of 120 trillion in 2022, 240 trillion in 2030, 480 trillion in 2038, 960 trillion in 2046, 1920 trillion in 2052, and 3840 trillion dollars in 2060.

Let us assume that we won't develop anything like anti-gravity, which would make lifting mass from earth to orbit cheap. At the moment, the new space corporations are estimating a ticket to and from earth orbit would be 100 million dollars. Technology can usually bring down costs at least some, so let us estimate that it would require 10 million dollars to lift each person to orbit. Once people were to reach orbit, further travel in space would be quite inexpensive.

If we needed to move 50 million people into space each year, that would therefore cost about 500 trillion dollars per year. But that would only be about an eighth of the above 3840 trillion dollars per year world economy.

Once basic equipment were lifted into space, a self-sustaining mining and manufacturing economy could be established which could function at costs about the same as costs on earth. Therefore, it would be much less expensive to build space community vehicles for 50 million new people per year than it would be to lift them into orbit.

Therefore, this can be done.

Would most people think that this would be better than just continuing to have wars until humanity is an exhausted and reduced remnant?

Would the wealthy think this would be better than just continuing to have wars?

If people did decide that becoming an advanced civilization and moving into space would be better, then a treaty arrangement wouldn't be all that hard to bring about.

China, the United States, etc. could agree to cease wars and instead, move in partnership to create an advanced civilization.

Jim
 
We could build a giant toob that would ring the earth for people to live in.

by having it's own spin, it would create it's own type of gravity.

We don't have the technology to do something that large.

From your negative comment, I assume that you want to have a war with China. Do you have reasons you want another world war?

Jim
 
We could build a giant toob that would ring the earth for people to live in.

by having it's own spin, it would create it's own type of gravity.

We don't have the technology to do something that large.

From your negative comment, I assume that you want to have a war with China. Do you have reasons you want another world war?

Jim

from ":lol::lmao::rofl::lmao::lol: OP of the year"

you took that to mean I want war with china?

:lol::cuckoo::smiliehug::cuckoo::lol:
 
aside from that, if we have the means to cure death, we most certainly could build a ring around the earth

:lol:

I mean, if we a pulling insane ideas out of our asses, I'll be the funny one.



uhm

The funny (on purpose) one.
 
aside from that, if we have the means to cure death, we most certainly could build a ring around the earth

:lol:

I mean, if we a pulling insane ideas out of our asses, I'll be the funny one.



uhm

The funny (on purpose) one.

OK, your background in science isn't very good, but of course, that is OK. Different people naturally have different interests and that is not a bad thing.

There are many medical researchers working on curing aging and death, and they think they can do it. It's really only a matter of discovering the right bio-chemicals.

That is quite different from a ring around the earth. I will leave it to you to calculate how much metal that would require. In addition, it would especially stress such a large structure near earth to produce the extra gravity, or reduce the gravity, to the extent wanted.

Then it would be dangerous. A single asteroid hit could cause it to crash to the ground. With many smaller space colony vehicles, if one were hit by an asteroid, the others would still be safe. There would also be a good chance of being able to move the orbital vehicle out of the way if an asteroid were coming.

Sometimes I am surprised when people don't understand something simple I have said. I don't know if you can or can't understand the above. If not, don't sweat it. I'm sure that in the areas you are interested in, you know more than I do.

Jim
 
You would do yourself a big favor by keeping quiet until you're a little older, kid.
 
You would do yourself a big favor by keeping quiet until you're a little older, kid.

Most people don't like new ideas, and this seems to be something people are born with, so it's natural.

As examples:

Columbus had great difficulty finding a nation that would fund his sailing to the West, and no doubt, a lot of people thought he was crazy. After all, many people believed he would sail off the end of the earth, or encounter monsters. But those people were, I am sure, sincere in what they thought.

When it was discovered that phlogiston did not exist, the members of the French Academy wouldn't accept that, and continued to believe in phlogison the rest of their lives. Only students and a few young scientists accepted the discovery. But again, I'm sure the members of the French Academy were sincere.

So this is natural for humans, and in that sense is OK.

If you want to keep on believing what you believe, that is OK with me.

If you want to go a step further, you can tell me with evidence and logic why you think the idea of creating an advanced civilization as a partnership between China and the United States, which would also prevent war- why you think the idea is wrong.

But it's up to you. You don't have to give reasons.

Jim
 
Columbus had great difficulty finding a nation that would fund his sailing to the West, and no doubt, a lot of people thought he was crazy. After all, many people believed he would sail off the end of the earth



No they didn't.
 
You would do yourself a big favor by keeping quiet until you're a little older, kid.

Most people don't like new ideas, and this seems to be something people are born with, so it's natural.

Ignorance and stupidity aren't "new" kid.

Of course not, but I look at it with the medical model perspective.

One major problem with ignorance is that, by the very nature of ignorance, people don't know that there is something they don't know. So if they don't know they are ignorant in an area, how can they think to look for the knowledge they are missing?

So people can be excellent people, but still ignorant because ignorance itself keeps them from knowing that they don't know something.

Jim
 
You should take the first piece of advice I gave you, kid.

I make it a point to try to not consider myself in my thinking, though of course, I only partly succeed. Therefore, personal advice isn't relevant, although of course you must have the freedom to give any advice you want.

What I am interested in is data and logical analysis of it. If you want to give me some of that, we could have some excellent discussions, and together, we might even discover something important.

Jim
 

Forum List

Back
Top