This is fun and interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory
The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization (as defined by per capita energy consumption) will have a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years (1930-2030). The theory provides a quantitative basis of the transient-pulse theory of modern civilization.
Industrial Civilization is defined in Duncan's paper as the time approximately from when energy production per capita rises from 37% of the peak value to when it falls to below 37% of its peak value (1930-2030) i.e. the peak in energy production per capita is in between these two endpoints and these two endpoints have values of 37% of the peak value.
The Olduvai theory claims that exponential growth of energy production ended in 1979, that energy use per capita will show no growth through 2008, and that after 2008 energy growth will become sharply negative, culminating, after a Malthusian catastrophe, in a world population of 2 billion circa 2050.
The Olduvai Theory divides human history into three phases. The first "pre-industrial" phase stretches over most of human history when simple tools and weak machines limited economic growth. The second "industrial" phase encompasses modern industrial civilization where machines temporarily lift all limits to growth. The final "de-industrial" phase follows where industrial economies decline to a period of equilibrium with renewable resources and the natural environment.
The decline of the industrial phase is broken into three sections:
* The Olduvai slope (1979–1999) - energy per capita 'declined at 0.33%/year'
* The Olduvai slide (2000–2011) - 'begins ... with the escalating warfare in the Middle East... marks the all-time peak of world oil production'.
* The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'
It's an interesting concept and a topical idea to pitch around.
:cn: As for the effect of a reduction in per captia energy consumption. Honestly, even if we DID dig up enough gas and oil, we're still playing a loosing game of Russian Roulette with pandemics and starvation. There's not the infrastructure, research, or natural immunity to prevent that.
Does this take into account speculation of technological Black Swans?
For example, what if we insert Kurtzweil's "Singularity point" into the equation, or perhaps get a grasp on the nuclear weak force?
i thought black swans were impossible to make part of general predictions. That is the entire point of black swans no?
The numerologist in me feels like pointing out the conspicuous 2012 date there. When was this idea first proposed? I cba to click the link atm. As interesting as it sounds, it also reminds me of predictions that we'd run out of oil prior to the 80s, etc.
Quote from: Enki-][ on May 06, 2009, 06:13:58 PM
The numerologist in me feels like pointing out the conspicuous 2012 date there. When was this idea first proposed? I cba to click the link atm. As interesting as it sounds, it also reminds me of predictions that we'd run out of oil prior to the 80s, etc.
1989, its in the first sentence.
Thanks. I feel dumb now :P.
Quote from: Regret on May 06, 2009, 06:12:33 PM
i thought black swans were impossible to make part of general predictions. That is the entire point of black swans no?
Still, keep in mind that the most dramatic changes often come from said black swans. Suddenly having cold fusion at our disposal, for example, could stave off some of the problems, but we'd likely start running short of fissionable materials and cooking the planet with waste heat. (Like Larry Niven put forth.)
The template for my skepticism being a prediction in the late 1800's that we would all die of starvation by 1930 because the rate of food/textile/energy production was kept constant in relation to population growth.
There seem to be myriad rates of growth that need to be taken into account; I was just asking if they had been accounted for.
I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true... in fact, its one of the few reasons that 'Global Warming' still lives in my 'probably, not definately" category. Humans, ever since they've existed have adapted and changed and survived. Even when they had no idea what was going on, like Europe during the mini Ice Age... they realized that they couldn't grow grain anymore and started growing potatoes... well except for the French, but what can you expect?
If humans have advanced notice of any Calamity, it seems like we generally avert it or compensate for it.
Yeah, we suck... but we're damned good at adapting.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 06, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true...
There is also the tautology angle. Though admittedly, we haven't even come nearly as close as expected on any of them.
I like LMNO's take, this isn't addressing all relevant factors. It makes a good point, that the current economic / industrial system DOES eat resources to exhaustion very well, but branching over to Ratatosk's point, doesn't regard people as adaptable.
Branching into cynicism about this also, many people NEVER disinguish between "End of Life" and "End of lifestyle". Also, the ones telling people how fucked they are usually have an agenda or product they are trying to push.
Quote from: Richter on May 06, 2009, 08:57:10 PM
I like LMNO's take, this isn't addressing all relevant factors. It makes a good point, that the current economic / industrial system DOES eat resources to exhaustion very well, but branching over to Ratatosk's point, doesn't regard people as adaptable.
Branching into cynicism about this also, many people NEVER disinguish between "End of Life" and "End of lifestyle". Also, the ones telling people how fucked they are usually have an agenda or product they are trying to push.
Excellent points! It's like all that "Save the Earth" bullshit. The Earth will be fine, Even with Global Warming, the earth and Sun and planets will be fanfuckingtastic. Unless the Daleks destroy it.
However, "Save us from destroying our own habitat like retarded overpopulated rabbits" doesn't really have that Captain Planet feel to it.
Even were a Worst Case scenario to come to fruition, it would just be the next Age of humans. The survivors will survive and start building some new system. Maybe it will be better, maybe it will be worse... but it will probably be just like all other events in Human history.
Barring something like a giant rock smashing into the planet and eradicating all life, oxygen etc.
Even then, the Earth will spin on happily... probably like a cat that's just gotten a flea bath.
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2009, 12:17:28 PM
This is fun and interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory
The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization (as defined by per capita energy consumption) will have a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years (1930-2030). The theory provides a quantitative basis of the transient-pulse theory of modern civilization.
Industrial Civilization is defined in Duncan's paper as the time approximately from when energy production per capita rises from 37% of the peak value to when it falls to below 37% of its peak value (1930-2030) i.e. the peak in energy production per capita is in between these two endpoints and these two endpoints have values of 37% of the peak value.
The Olduvai theory claims that exponential growth of energy production ended in 1979, that energy use per capita will show no growth through 2008, and that after 2008 energy growth will become sharply negative, culminating, after a Malthusian catastrophe, in a world population of 2 billion circa 2050.
The Olduvai Theory divides human history into three phases. The first "pre-industrial" phase stretches over most of human history when simple tools and weak machines limited economic growth. The second "industrial" phase encompasses modern industrial civilization where machines temporarily lift all limits to growth. The final "de-industrial" phase follows where industrial economies decline to a period of equilibrium with renewable resources and the natural environment.
The decline of the industrial phase is broken into three sections:
* The Olduvai slope (1979–1999) - energy per capita 'declined at 0.33%/year'
* The Olduvai slide (2000–2011) - 'begins ... with the escalating warfare in the Middle East... marks the all-time peak of world oil production'.
* The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'
Sounds like the "revolution of lowered expectations".
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 06, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true... in fact, its one of the few reasons that 'Global Warming' still lives in my 'probably, not definately" category. Humans, ever since they've existed have adapted and changed and survived. Even when they had no idea what was going on, like Europe during the mini Ice Age... they realized that they couldn't grow grain anymore and started growing potatoes... well except for the French, but what can you expect?
If humans have advanced notice of any Calamity, it seems like we generally avert it or compensate for it.
Yeah, we suck... but we're damned good at adapting.
Survivorship bias.
Did you read the Black Swan? These kinds of mistakes are one of the many reasons why humans fail so hard at predicting.. anything.
Reminds me of the thanksgiving turkey story, as well (but that's a different kind of bias).
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 06, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true... in fact, its one of the few reasons that 'Global Warming' still lives in my 'probably, not definately" category. Humans, ever since they've existed have adapted and changed and survived. Even when they had no idea what was going on, like Europe during the mini Ice Age... they realized that they couldn't grow grain anymore and started growing potatoes... well except for the French, but what can you expect?
If humans have advanced notice of any Calamity, it seems like we generally avert it or compensate for it.
Yeah, we suck... but we're damned good at adapting.
Survivorship bias.
Did you read the Black Swan? These kinds of mistakes are one of the many reasons why humans fail so hard at predicting.. anything.
Reminds me of the thanksgiving turkey story, as well (but that's a different kind of bias).
I could see it as Suvivorship bias if I said "Americans' will survive, or more specifically *insert specific subset of humans* will survive. I suppose we could argue that there have been entire species that have failed, but (at least based on my knowledge) those species didn't tend to adapt as well as humans and their predecessors.
Certianly we could be wiped out by a Black Swan event. Asteroid, all the volcanoes on the planet suddenly erupting, a Dalek invasion etc. But, that's not what I was talking about "If humans have advanced notice of any Calamity, it seems like we generally avert it or compensate for it."
The IF bit is key and by definition would exclude Black Swan events.
Otherwise, hell yeah, past performance doesn't guarantee future results ;-)
Well, if any of the predicted catastrophes had come true, if everyone was wiped out there would be no one to complain about it, and if most people were wiped out there would be far fewer of us to complain about it. Until we come across many very detailed records of fully eradicated cultures on our level of advanced-ness, we are highly unlikely to be able to predict accurately what is likely to kill us, and once we have compensated that won't help either because the situation will have changed. Our own past certainly can't help us, aside from the fact that near misses will generally progress in the direction of far misses.
(To Rat, also basically what Enki said)
No, that's not survivorship bias. Or if it is, I mean a very different kind of bias.
I wasnt talking about Black Swan events (whatever it is you mean by that), but about the sorts of bias that preclude humans (in particular) from making any sort of reliable predictions in certain (maybe all) situations. Which is described in the book Black Swan, which is why I asked. it talks about a whole lot more things than just "Black Swan Events" as "rare, highly unpredictable events with a very large impact that appear very easy to explain in hindsight" (emphasized the last bit which everybody always seems to conveniently forget, ruling out Dalek invasion and possibly global volcanic catastrophe too).
anyway my point was not about Black Swans but a different one.
the fact that mankind has survived up until now, is no fact that you can infer any conclusion from, because if it wasn't true, you wouldnt be there to infer anything.
that may sound funny to you, but I'm being serious.
it's an important result of Bayesian statistics:
i) The probability that mankind has survived up until now, given that you are able to make the statement "I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true..." (any statement actually), is 100%
ii) The probability of an event A (in your case, mankind continuing to NOT die out given we have advance notice), given an event B with 100% probability, is exactly equal to the probability of event A itself.
iii) Hence, mankind surviving up until now (given advance notice etc or not), is no argument to base anything upon.
This is subtly, but fundamentally different from the problem of inference ("past performance doesn't guarantee future results"), because even if you somehow get around the problem of inference, Bayesian statistics remain.
Our monkey brains aren't quite evolved to wrap our heads around this, though.
Up until now, I have never died. Therefore, I will never die, or the chance of it happening is extremely unlikely.
That was kind of what I was going for. It doesn't mean that it can't happen, or is unlikely to happen -- it just means that we cannot predict how likely it is to happen, and if it happens it would basically prevent knowing anything about the aftermath outside of conjecture. And if it would have happened and we avoided it, it didn't happen, and we can only guess whether or not it would have happened had we not avoided it, and so we are back at square one. Armageddon is elusive because we have no hard facts to support anythiing about it in any way, and can't.
Hrmmm, I wonder if there's some miscommunication here... My point wasn't that there is no way we can all die... only that, given the historical data available, previous "OMG We're All Gonna Die" events have been adapted to rather well by humans.
QuoteUp until now, I have never died. Therefore, I will never die, or the chance of it happening is extremely unlikely.
Rather "Up till now, I have always overcome predicted fatal situations through ingenuity. Therefore, another predicted fatal situation seems likely survivable. I may die, but there's a lot of evidence that indicates I may well survive"
Does that make more sense? Rather than "We aren't dead yet, therefore we're immortal" I was thinking more along the lines of "We have a good track record of adaptation, therefore it seems reasonable to think we'll likely adapt'.
The Olduvai Cliff theory seems to think that we will somehow not be able to get energy from another source, once we realize we're in the Olduvai slide. Yet, it appears to me that we humans are implementing several other ways of getting energy besides fossil fuels. Based on wind technology, new solar tech, nuclear tech etc it seems that we may have weaned ourselves off of a great deal of oil in the next 100 years, if we determined that Oil was gonna dry up long before then, it seems reasonable to conclude we would invest more time and treasure into those options.
Certainly Extinction level events are possible. One would have thought the people of Pompeii would have said "Oi! That mountain is spitting smoke, maybe now is a good time for a trip to the mainland." In hindsight, its easy to see. If there is a end of the World scenario, i think its likely to have come from a scenario like that, rather than something predicted 50 years before it happens....
...assuming the republicans aren't in charge of course :wink:
Well, now that we know about this, we can try to adapt to it. That changes the game entirely. Predicting apocalypse has the tendency to prevent it.
EVERYTHING falls apart...one way or another.......
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 06, 2009, 09:07:46 PM
Quote from: Richter on May 06, 2009, 08:57:10 PM
I like LMNO's take, this isn't addressing all relevant factors. It makes a good point, that the current economic / industrial system DOES eat resources to exhaustion very well, but branching over to Ratatosk's point, doesn't regard people as adaptable.
Branching into cynicism about this also, many people NEVER disinguish between "End of Life" and "End of lifestyle". Also, the ones telling people how fucked they are usually have an agenda or product they are trying to push.
Excellent points! It's like all that "Save the Earth" bullshit. The Earth will be fine, Even with Global Warming, the earth and Sun and planets will be fanfuckingtastic. ...
Even then, the Earth will spin on happily... probably like a cat that's just gotten a flea bath.
I agree wholeheartedly!
Fanfuckingtastic! & here is where I go off on a personal tangent – please
skip to last line if
that is not your cup o' tea.
Went out on a blind date a few years ago. This very nice lady I worked with at the time (a molecular biologist & very sweet & well-meaning) set me up with her somehow vaguely related friend. Well & what happened? you might be wondering & why does that particular phrase bring to mind that godforsaken date? or maybe not. Anywaay, I was sitting there making small talk & shit like that which I can sometimes do, nervously drawing things on the table & in myhead & THEN – something in me just snapped into two or three pieces - I proceeded to go off on some sorta mini-rant 'bout this very same thing – sheeeeesh & I was really on a roll there for a bit (whew) – talkin' my buuuuullshit 'bout how the Earth will still be here & the stars planets suns et cetera & ad nauseam & even about the DINOSAURS to be a tad specific here. Well, the next day, this very nice lady asked me how it went & all. All I could bluster up at the time was to embarrassedly tell her something or other 'bout the dinosaurs. She was :? & I was very :oops:
Needless to say – never heard from or saw that guy again & he was off & married in the span of three or four months. Wish them both well too 'cuz he
was a nice guy even if he
was a bit goyish.
& now? Immediately after this glorious what-have-you I made the mistake (big time) of tellin' my friend Suz all the gory details & even NOW (to this very friggin' day) she goes
on & on & is always warning me when I'm going out with someone new, "Just don't bring up the dinosaurs, OKAY?" Like it's supposed to be some sorta mantra? I tell her I'll try but they just slip out sometimes & I think y'know what I mean? Dammitt – why can't I ever learn? Appropriate? hah!
The last line:As for this notion? This notion is "eerie and ominous" but doesn't strike me as one that accounts for all the variables, however interesting. :)
Fuck that, Honey. Bring up the Dinosaurs every single time. When you meet someone who jumps up and cheers you on, you know you've got a keeper.
Quote from: LMNO on May 08, 2009, 01:23:57 PM
Fuck that, Honey. Bring up the Dinosaurs every single time. When you meet someone who jumps up and cheers you on, you know you've got a keeper.
This is the correct Extinction Level Event Motorcycle.
Hey Thanks! :D
& I didn't mean to misrepresent my friend Suz either. We've known each other since high school & she really wants to meet someone & dates way more than I do. I listen to her when her heart breaks & she listens to my crazy ass notions even when I start to wax rhapsodic (or moronic). Honestly I think I make her dizzy at times.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 06, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
I have yet to see any of the historical "We're all gonna run out of * and DIE" come true... in fact, its one of the few reasons that 'Global Warming' still lives in my 'probably, not definately" category. Humans, ever since they've existed have adapted and changed and survived. Even when they had no idea what was going on, like Europe during the mini Ice Age... they realized that they couldn't grow grain anymore and started growing potatoes... well except for the French, but what can you expect?
If humans have advanced notice of any Calamity, it seems like we generally avert it or compensate for it.
Yeah, we suck... but we're damned good at adapting.
Survivorship bias.
Did you read the Black Swan? These kinds of mistakes are one of the many reasons why humans fail so hard at predicting.. anything.
Reminds me of the thanksgiving turkey story, as well (but that's a different kind of bias).
To build upon that, people denied the happening of regular extinction of types (ie species) for hundreds of years, because they couldn't conceive that what god would create in perfection he would allow to be destroyed (outside of Noah's flood). This leads to thinking that the present species are the pinacal of existence, where a better way to look at it is that they exist simply because their lineage's made it to this point for whatever environmental ecological reasons, some of them quite random. The same goes for humans; we're obligate tool users with a big frontal lobe but that doesn't exclude us from the normal happenstance extinction events that have been going on for the last 3.5 billion years.
Strike that. You'all already covered it. :oops:
Quote from: Kai on May 10, 2009, 12:48:43 AMThis leads to thinking that the present species are the pinacal of existence, where a better way to look at it is that they exist simply because their lineage's made it to this point for whatever environmental ecological reasons, some of them quite random. The same goes for humans; we're obligate tool users with a big frontal lobe but that doesn't exclude us from the normal happenstance extinction events that have been going on for the last 3.5 billion years.
:aww:
hm it's probably / mostly because it's my own species then, that I (like Rat) sort of hope we can be [Dr Who] Brilliant [/Dr Who], and survive indefinitely?
although, IMO, we would have to get our collective arses off this planet some day, though.
if we would, what then? this is an area regular biology doesnt cover right?
although I'm not that optimistic to say that before we reach an age of space colonies and stuff, we might get thrown back into the stone age (or similar) one or more times. And yes, there's a good possibilty we might not survive one of those hits.
Fuck, there's me babbling about space colonies..
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 10, 2009, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 10, 2009, 12:48:43 AMThis leads to thinking that the present species are the pinacal of existence, where a better way to look at it is that they exist simply because their lineage's made it to this point for whatever environmental ecological reasons, some of them quite random. The same goes for humans; we're obligate tool users with a big frontal lobe but that doesn't exclude us from the normal happenstance extinction events that have been going on for the last 3.5 billion years.
:aww:
hm it's probably / mostly because it's my own species then, that I (like Rat) sort of hope we can be [Dr Who] Brilliant [/Dr Who], and survive indefinitely?
although, IMO, we would have to get our collective arses off this planet some day, though.
if we would, what then? this is an area regular biology doesnt cover right?
although I'm not that optimistic to say that before we reach an age of space colonies and stuff, we might get thrown back into the stone age (or similar) one or more times. And yes, there's a good possibilty we might not survive one of those hits.
Fuck, there's me babbling about space colonies..
I don't think that intelligence is the ultimate in survival adaptations. Its just another thing that seems to work somewhat, but no more superior or sucessful than any other tactic of a surviving lineage.
I also really really
really hope space colonies aren't the solution to survival. Hell, we can barely get humans to the moon alive and back, much less actually living out there. We think we've got it hard down here, but we've got all this comfy atmosphere, with myriad supporting life forms, lots of water, good temperatures and protection from cosmic radiation, and we want to get off this "rock" to some even more desolate rock without all the wonderful amenities we now take for granted? I mean, a person thinks they have it bad now, but just wait till you're living without all this.
If we have to live on extraterrestrial colonies, its gonna fucking SUCK.
From what I have read on the topic, it would take decades, if not centuries of terraforming, to get the best suited yet not immediately habitable worlds into shape.
Quote from: Cain on May 11, 2009, 09:14:52 AM
From what I have read on the topic, it would take decades, if not centuries of terraforming, to get the best suited yet not immediately habitable worlds into shape.
Thats what ND Tyson points out. He couldn't even give any predictions, simply saying it was so far off that we'd be better off thinking about other things and not get distracted by fantasy.
It just seems to me to be infinitely easier to save our asses here than it would be to move elsewhere.
Well, terraforming planets is hard, sure. Why bother? Just work on getting spacestations spinning fast enough to simulate 1g along the outer rim.
i didnt mean to say we HAVE to live on space colonies, especially not as an excuse to fuck up the current one. I just meant that if we manages to spread our species over more than one planet, we can cut the risks of suddenly dying out somewhat. One planet gets hit by an asteroid or whatever, the human race still survives on the others. Basically my idea was that if we live on multiple planets our species will have made a jump in survival chance unparalleled so far (as we know) by any other living species.
The usefulness of colonies as a 'plan b' kind of fails if the colonies are tethered politically or economically to earth, which, knowing current politics, is pretty likely. Best case is we give all the anarchists the tech to shoot themselves off into space (or sell it to the rich ones) and manage to get a bunch of politically unaffiliated independent space cultures going, maybe with a promise of like 50 or 100 years of cease fire between themselves and between them and earth, just to try to optimize the likelyhood that they won't fizzle out before taking root.
so basically, you think the survival of the human race depends on creating an IRL Whedonverse?
:lulz:
ECH,
not laughing with you
I haven't kept up with anything from Joss Whedon since Buffy, but I assume you are implying that what I described is similar to Firefly. Since I haven't seen Firefly, I can't say either way. What I suggested was what Tim Leary suggested, aside from the cease-fire (Tim seemed to be under the impression that as soon as we attain free-fall conditions we become pacifists forever) and the explicit political and economic break (which I'm suggesting because the political situation found in, say, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where a space-based colony is politically controlled through economic control seems quite likely and would make the colonies useless without earth being functional).
so in other words, yes, you think the future of humanity should be based mostly on bad out-of-date fiction.
:lulz:
Enki, did you totally blow by Kai's post at the top of this page, or something?
also, :lol: at the idea that if there were space colonies, they'd somehow be completely paralyzed without input from earth.
because, you know, the type of people who would chose or be chosen to inhabit a fucking SPACE COLONY wouldn't be, you know, independent-minded or have any sort of pioneer spirit.
after all, we humans are known and noted for our inability to do anything without direct orders from our superiors. Thank god Lewis and Clark had their iPhone with them or we'd be nearly surrounded by French Canadiens by now.
Quote from: LMNO on May 12, 2009, 01:12:25 PM
Enki, did you totally blow by Kai's post at the top of this page, or something?
No. I don't think there's any benefit to terraforming planets. I am suggesting space colonies, not planetary colonies.
and the advantage to that would be what? the decreased ability to grow crops? the potential for even the slightest mechanical failure to mean instant and fatal catastrophe? the slow but inevitable deterioration of muscle-mass and likely organ failure due to long-term habitation of low or zero-G environments?
That theory sounds kind of unreasonable, 'cos it revolves around 2012 a conspiracy.
Quote from: Enki-][ on May 12, 2009, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 12, 2009, 01:12:25 PM
Enki, did you totally blow by Kai's post at the top of this page, or something?
No. I don't think there's any benefit to terraforming planets. I am suggesting space colonies, not planetary colonies.
Well, thank god you've got decent reading comprehension skills.
Oh, wait...
Quote from: KaiI also really really really hope space colonies aren't the solution to survival. Hell, we can barely get humans to the moon alive and back, much less actually living out there. We think we've got it hard down here, but we've got all this comfy atmosphere, with myriad supporting life forms, lots of water, good temperatures and protection from cosmic radiation, and we want to get off this "rock" to some even more desolate rock without all the wonderful amenities we now take for granted? I mean, a person thinks they have it bad now, but just wait till you're living without all this.
(http://catherinemarler.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/fail.jpg)
Bah. If the earth is heading downhill, it's good to have something off the earth as a plan 'b'. I don't suggest trying to terraform a planet that is very much unlike earth -- terraforming mars would take a very long time, and is the easiest to terraform as-is. Space stations are designed for human habitation, and can be built to simulate gravity along the outer edge. Granted, we as humans will have issues with low gravity, which is why I figure it'd be of the utmost importance to try to get it as close to 1g as possible without the whole thing ripping apart or moving out of the appropriate orbit.
Given sunlight, artificial gravity, water, and an air supply, plants can be grown. I have no idea what the ratio is between humans and plants in terms of how much vegetation there needs to be in order to convert the CO2 of one human back into oxygen, but given that current space stations don't have many plants and probably depend very much on auxiliary oxygen-nitrogen tanks, plants will probably ease the load and over time a bigger infrastructure can be built that will allow closer to 1-to-1 correlation between CO2-producing and CO2-breathing organisms. The fact that plants are used to soaking up light from above and in the system described light would be coming from below could be a problem, though not an unsolvable one. Maybe mirrors can be used to redirect light from the center of a wheel-type space station, or maybe it might be useful to have the outer rim be transparent or translucent and keep tanks of photosynthesizing algae there.
I don't claim to know anything about space travel. In fact, it's one of the things I have unnaturally little interest in. But if we must go out into space (or if we have the ability and people are willing) I think it's probably an all-around better idea to start with space stations rather than with terraforming planets. Even if we made a sealed environment on another planet, there's no way we could change the gravity level, so a lot of the health problems involved in living in lower gravity will be unavoidable except by some proactive mechanism that to my knowledge has not yet been discovered. At the very least, in a space station that is wheel-shaped, you can in theory speed the thing up.
Without reading the actual papers, the main problem with the theory (disregarding the fact that its predictions haven't turned out to be too accurate) seems to be that it assumes that energy consumption per capita will not decrease. If it did, a shrinking energy production might not be a problem. Of course, energy consumption seems to be increasing monotonically, so that's a big maybe. In any case, these broad, long term predictions are probably mostly popular because they're hard to disprove immediately, and when they turn out to be false, enough people have already bought the books.
I'm all for space stations --- as someone (RAW?) said, why climb all the way out of a gravity well just to get trapped in another? :D Seriously though, terraforming e.g. mars won't give us another earth, since the incoming sunlight is much weaker. Basically wherever we go, we're not likely to find a planet that exactly matches earths climate, which probably means pretty harsh conditions anyway. On the other hand, by that time it might be trivial for us to genetically alter ourselves to fit almost any environment, including space. But now we're really getting into the long term prediction game...
The question could become relevant sooner than we think, considering that we might already be unterraforming earth.
Quote from: nurbldoff on June 05, 2009, 12:39:10 AM
Without reading the actual papers, the main problem with the theory (disregarding the fact that its predictions haven't turned out to be too accurate) seems to be that it assumes that energy consumption per capita will not decrease. If it did, a shrinking energy production might not be a problem. Of course, energy consumption seems to be increasing monotonically, so that's a big maybe. In any case, these broad, long term predictions are probably mostly popular because they're hard to disprove immediately, and when they turn out to be false, enough people have already bought the books.
I'm all for space stations --- as someone (RAW?) said, why climb all the way out of a gravity well just to get trapped in another? :D Seriously though, terraforming e.g. mars won't give us another earth, since the incoming sunlight is much weaker. Basically wherever we go, we're not likely to find a planet that exactly matches earths climate, which probably means pretty harsh conditions anyway. On the other hand, by that time it might be trivial for us to genetically alter ourselves to fit almost any environment, including space. But now we're really getting into the long term prediction game...
The question could become relevant sooner than we think, considering that we might already be unterraforming earth.
If we have the technology to terraform Mars... then surely we'll have the technology to fix Earth. conditions in space or on Mars will probably be worse than conditions on Earth... I think.
Well maybe, but Mars has the advantage that it doesnt have all these people living on it, so if you make a mistake the first time around, or if terraforming turns out to be a rough ride, better to do it with an uninhabited planet, I'd say.
also, how's that coming along btw? last thing I heard about terraforming Mars was that, even if we managed, the oxygen would slowly evaporate into space anyway, or something.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 05, 2009, 08:57:43 PM
Well maybe, but Mars has the advantage that it doesnt have all these people living on it, so if you make a mistake the first time around, or if terraforming turns out to be a rough ride, better to do it with an uninhabited planet, I'd say.
also, how's that coming along btw? last thing I heard about terraforming Mars was that, even if we managed, the oxygen would slowly evaporate into space anyway, or something.
Sounds plausible. Nitrogen and oxygen are both lighter gases than CO2. Even if we replaced the atmosphere with a nitrogen-oxygen mix, it wouldn't have any more pressure than it already does.
Now this is bugging me, so I'm going to do some "research"...
Wikipedia sez that Mars has about 15% of Earth's volume and 11% of Earth's mass, and that it also lacks a magnetosphere. I don't think there's any hope of covering the planet with a breathable atmosphere. We'd probably have to live in biodomes or something.
Earth isn't actually big enough to hold its atmosphere either. What makes mars's so thin is the lack of volcanic activity. No volcanoes means no new gasses bubbling up from the core, whats lost doesn't get replaced.
Quote from: Cainad on June 05, 2009, 09:11:49 PM
We'd probably have to live in biodomes or something.
Global Warming or stuck in a BioDome with Pauley Shore...
I'll grow gills, thanks.
Quote from: Requia on June 05, 2009, 09:18:44 PM
Earth isn't actually big enough to hold its atmosphere either. What makes mars's so thin is the lack of volcanic activity. No volcanoes means no new gasses bubbling up from the core, whats lost doesn't get replaced.
That's news to me. Is there a name for this effect or something that I could look up?
Not that I'm aware of. I only went over this tangentially in thermodynamics (one of the assignments was figuring out the rate at which the atmosphere is evaporating).
muhaha
Fortuna will provide, heathen!
your dire predictions have always failed in the past, and therefore will always fail in the future!
Quote from: nurbldoff on June 05, 2009, 12:39:10 AM...we're not likely to find a planet that exactly matches earth's climate[/u]...
Which one?
Humans will survive. We're too good at fucking and keeping warm to go extinct due to a population crash. We can survive in any climate, find food in almost any habitat, cultivate our own food, create medicines to eliminate diseases, and develop tools to take on just about any problem.
However. A whole bunch of people are going to bite the dust in the process. Assuming it happens. Peak oil certainly has, so unless we suddenly convert to sun powered (wind and solar), gravity powered (hydroelectric and tidal) and geothermal, it's pretty clear our industrial society will collapse to a mere shadow of it's former self. Our entire transportation system responsible for the success of the last 100 years is based around the products of petroleum refining, not just gasoline, but all the other organic chemicals that are used to make rubbers, asphalt and plastics.
Quote from: ϗ on December 28, 2010, 11:48:20 PM
Humans will survive. We're too good at fucking and keeping warm to go extinct due to a population crash. We can survive in any climate, find food in almost any habitat, cultivate our own food, create medicines to eliminate diseases, and develop tools to take on just about any problem.
However. A whole bunch of people are going to bite the dust in the process. Assuming it happens. Peak oil certainly has, so unless we suddenly convert to sun powered (wind and solar), gravity powered (hydroelectric and tidal) and geothermal, it's pretty clear our industrial society will collapse to a mere shadow of it's former self. Our entire transportation system responsible for the success of the last 100 years is based around the products of petroleum refining, not just gasoline, but all the other organic chemicals that are used to make rubbers, asphalt and plastics.
IAWTC!