PDA

View Full Version : Will it become necessary for some humans to leave Earth and keep intelligence alive?



potoole
2012-Aug-03, 09:08 AM
Maybe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. Will Earth become so ravaged with overpopulation, stupididity and insanity that some people will have to leave this planet and try to live on another planet, or a space colony, no matter how tough it wuld be, so sentience would not perish.

John Jaksich
2012-Aug-03, 01:30 PM
Maybe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. Will Earth become so ravaged with overpopulation, stupididity and insanity that some people will have to leave this planet and try to live on another planet, or a space colony, no matter how tough it wuld be, so sentience would not perish.

I do not really agree with your notion that we are the only sentient beings---even without "solid" proof--->

Humanity will leave the boundaries of our home planet if and when we want to do so---> After we landed on the Moon, it was propitious for us to continue our explorations in space---> but we devoted our monetary resources to other aspects of the our existence-----> putting many scientists and engineers out of work.

If one believes that if history or economics is cyclical---> then we will venture back into the cosmos in earnest.

Of course, as you seem to point out humanity tends to make many mistakes and will ultimately leave this world behind----> I am unsure of what you exactly mean by your own words----> but ultimately there are those humans will argue that it is imperative to "heal" the wounds that we put upon our fellow humans (through "insanity" and "stupidity" --etc) before we leave our planet forever.

I am of the opinion that the majority of humanity will elect to do just that (heal our planet first) and then permanently venture beyond the confines of our planet.-----> it seems to be the pattern that seems more logical from past behaviors.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-03, 01:33 PM
The nature of life is to spread, adapt, and fill new niches. The "don't put all our eggs in one basket" philosophy was and is one of the oldest and most pursuasive arguments for settling space colonies-- if successful, just one self-sustaining off-Earth human gene pool doubles our survival chances as a species. And the more colonies we make, the greater the odds of some humans somewhere surviving.

I don't know if that means it's "necessary" to do so, but it is a very good idea.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-03, 01:36 PM
I am of the opinion that the majority of humanity will elect to do just that (heal our planet first) and then permanently venture beyond the confines of our planet.-----> it seems to be the pattern that seems more logical from past behaviors.

But if a large enough minority does leave the planet (more than 500) then it will have accomlished that goal without taking away from the healing. It isn't either/or, we can do both.


Presently the majority of people are doing neither.

mutleyeng
2012-Aug-03, 03:08 PM
I recall someone, I think it was Freeman Dyson, saying that he thought we should take it upon ourselves to seed the universe with life, as it is quite possible we will never know if there is anything out there or not. He was talking about microbial life.
If we dont find any signs of life in our neighbourhood, then I think that idea has some merit. It would probably require some genetic engineering to toughen it up perhaps.
Sooner or later, living on earth is going to be very difficult, so yes ultimately there will be motivation to establish off world colonies, but i think that will be in the very far future.
Even without AGW, climate change is going to radically effect human civilization. How are we going to structure societies, are we still going to be citizens of nations, and what will be the economics of the future. We may find we dont have the means for grand projects.
Things could turn bad very quickly, so if you dont make hay while the sun shines, you may miss the chance.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-03, 10:59 PM
I had assumed the OP was talking about colonizing before things get bad, but it occurs to me that there's the possibilty of someone trying to flee the Earth during or after a global disaster. That would be a much more difficult proposition.

I suppose it's remotely possible, but to make it practical in the wake of a collapsing civilization would require extreme measures indeed. If the disaster were severe enough, then nuclear-pulse Orion lifters would not be out of the question. If it were some kind of pandemic, the uninfected might be considered justified in getting off the planet-- they might even get cooperation from other survivors.

If the problems that lead to collapse are just extrapolations of the ones happening today, then probably no. People adapt too easily and too quickly to think of "it gets a little worse every year" as a potential world-ender. The few that have the foresight to see otherwise are ignored now, they'll probably be ignored then.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-04, 02:05 AM
Of course, as you seem to point out humanity tends to make many mistakes and will ultimately leave this world behind----> I am unsure of what you exactly mean by your own words----> but ultimately there are those humans will argue that it is imperative to "heal" the wounds that we put upon our fellow humans (through "insanity" and "stupidity" --etc) before we leave our planet forever.Those people are generally called "luddites" or "salt statues" because they keep finding reasons not to move forward.


I am of the opinion that the majority of humanity will elect to do just that (heal our planet first) and then permanently venture beyond the confines of our planet.-----> it seems to be the pattern that seems more logical from past behaviors.Logical as in something you want to change or logical as in you think it's normal -- which it most certainly isn't.

danscope
2012-Aug-04, 02:17 AM
So...... you favor living in a bubble orbiting some place in our solar system rather than space ship Earth?
And you can't stand living in school for more than 7 hours without screaming ? Hmmm.... That I have to see.
Science fiction is fun to read. You should try living it for real sometime. :)

John Jaksich
2012-Aug-04, 04:06 AM
So...... you favor living in a bubble orbiting some place in our solar system rather than space ship Earth?
And you can't stand living in school for more than 7 hours without screaming ? Hmmm.... That I have to see.
Science fiction is fun to read. You should try living it for real sometime. :)


I don't quite understand what you are driving at? I don't believe I currently have any chance of living anywhere but the Earth? and I am currently caring for an elderly parent?

John Jaksich
2012-Aug-04, 04:37 AM
Those people are generally called "luddites" or "salt statues" because they keep finding reasons not to move forward.

Logical as in something you want to change or logical as in you think it's normal -- which it most certainly isn't.

I am unsure why this post has gone into sociology---> however, when someone mistakenly "hurts" another ---is it not common for (or the law) to correct it or apologize or pay some form of restitution.

Although the topic is not quite mainstream ----> there appeared in the journal Science --a few weeks back--a general topic on Human Conflict--Although I will state that I am not an expert on Human psychology, have we not evolved to a point where we are more than single individuals only satisfying our needs?

Maybe I am wrong? But, if I am not mistaken, there is the case of bonobos--the close relative to chimpanzees--as well as humans---one major difference chimpanzees and bonobos is that the chimpanzee tend to be more violent when settling a conflict while bonobos are much more empathic and pro-social.

Although the correlations are weak (to say the least)--humans are possibly more closely related to the bonobo than the chimpanzee---how much I don't know and unfortunately for me that is pure speculation. However, IMO, it is a "night-and-day" qualitative comparison when one characterizes the general behavior of chimpanzees and humans.

Pardon any grammatical errors?

John Jaksich
2012-Aug-04, 04:49 AM
Maybe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. Will Earth become so ravaged with overpopulation, stupididity and insanity that some people will have to leave this planet and try to live on another planet, or a space colony, no matter how tough it wuld be, so sentience would not perish.

I am sorry if I came across too harsh in any previous post----but I agree in one part of the post---> our sentient life will probably not perish as long as we extend ourselves and not give in to violent tendencies---I am much more idealistic in my beliefs that we will have to leave any aggressive tendencies behind us to a point where some mistakes can not be afford to be made outside the confines of a highly regimented environment.

danscope
2012-Aug-04, 05:33 PM
Understanding human dualism is leading to know and govern our emotions and boost our own responsibility and self reliance.
The closer the family and comunity, the more we remember and consider our relations with those around us. This remains true no matter where you hang your hat and toothbrush. It's all in learning to see .

Noclevername
2012-Aug-04, 09:07 PM
The closer the family and comunity, the more we remember and consider our relations with those around us.

For most of human existence, people by necessity lived in extremely tight-knit family and tribal units, and in some places still do. Yet they still fought with other tribes, sometimes to the point of genocide.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-04, 11:57 PM
I am unsure why this post has gone into sociology---> however, when someone mistakenly "hurts" another ---is it not common for (or the law) to correct it or apologize or pay some form of restitution.That's the problem, you're looking at the world as if there is some over-arching law or social group. There isn't. Most people subscribe to the International Relations theory of Realism, where states are unitary actors, which also coincides with an emphasis on power politics, and that is very different from concepts and structures of International Legalism.

Besides, I wasn't referring to all of humanity leaving Earth but only a very small subset, a splinter group. It's called a splinter group because it's only a splinter of the main beam. A small splinter is not going to heal the whole tree, but it might be able to take root elsewhere and grow into a whole, healthy tree.

Or to use a simpler analogy, if you're house is on fire and its too large to use an extinguisher on, you get out. Eventually, you'll find or build a new one.


Although the topic is not quite mainstream ----> there appeared in the journal Science --a few weeks back--a general topic on Human Conflict--Although I will state that I am not an expert on Human psychology, have we not evolved to a point where we are more than single individuals only satisfying our needs? That, actually, is the source of the problem. As we become more interdependent we feel that we can make demands on others and force our will upon them to meet our needs.

ZunarJ5
2012-Aug-05, 05:18 AM
What I think is even more interesting is what would happen to our species after a diaspora (if something like that were to occur).

Natural selection could possibly split our species up into as many different variations as there were worlds to be colonized. What about direct genetic manipulation in order to proactively adapt to not so ideallic environments?

And what would happen to the gene pool here on Earth? It seems logical that colonists would be at least healthy, intelligent, and driven if not ambitious. Our world would lose some of its best genes with every ship to leave... Earth would get a progressively shallower and shallower gene pool while the colonies would get fresh starts with quality material.

Intelligence here could dwindle the more we spread it to the stars.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-05, 06:22 AM
And what would happen to the gene pool here on Earth? It seems logical that colonists would be at least healthy, intelligent, and driven if not ambitious. Our world would lose some of its best genes with every ship to leave... Earth would get a progressively shallower and shallower gene pool while the colonies would get fresh starts with quality material.

Intelligence here could dwindle the more we spread it to the stars.

It's highly doubtful that enough of Earth's best and brightest will leave to affect the Earthside gene pool that drastically. Even if space travel ever becomes cheap and plentiful enough to allow mass migrations (which would not be for quite some time, probably requiring several large space elevators, Lofstrom loops or the equivalent), there just aren't going to be enough great minds interested in leaving to affect the balance-- Most of them will have vested interests here on Earth.

eburacum45
2012-Aug-05, 06:48 PM
The concept of 'gene pools' will be obsolete quite shortly. Thanks to the efforts of geneticists, all the genes in a population will be recorded and expressed at will. There won't be any diminution in the human gene pool or that of any other species, so long as the digitised gene banks are preserved.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-05, 08:22 PM
The concept of 'gene pools' will be obsolete quite shortly. Thanks to the efforts of geneticists, all the genes in a population will be recorded and expressed at will. There won't be any diminution in the human gene pool or that of any other species, so long as the digitised gene banks are preserved.

There was a project several years ago to record genes from various rare or dwindling ethnic groups; the vast majority of them refused to contribute. Others even today (individuals and groups) refuse to give DNA samples on religious or philosophical grounds. So unless DNA donation is made mandatory worldwide, I can still see some of the population relying on old-fashioned methods.

neilzero
2012-Aug-06, 07:53 PM
Perhaps 70 million humans = 0.1% are formally educated excluding quite a few who went though the process but some how missed the desired attitudes, compassion and logical reasoning and about that many more are well gifted with common scence, and/or largely self taught. That number would likely drop several percent per year, in a serious melt down of human society, which could begin without prior notice of even minutes. Off Earth habitats are not a present option, and would be expensive, crowded, dangerous and uncomfortble in 2050 even if we start large scale funding in 2013. Possibly there are already secret communities to continue sentience, but they will likely be terorized by desparate surviors of the meltdown. Neil

Noclevername
2012-Aug-06, 08:39 PM
Off Earth habitats are not a present option, and would be expensive, crowded, dangerous and uncomfortble in 2050 even if we start large scale funding in 2013.

Crowded is an easy fix-- don't send crowds. Send a small crew and a sperm bank. As for expensive, dangerous and uncomfortable, they beat being dead. Especially if the Earth becomes as crowded, dangerous and uncomfortable as you describe.

danscope
2012-Aug-06, 09:51 PM
A ship on the ocean has a many many thousand fold advantage over any device in space. No question.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-06, 10:50 PM
A ship on the ocean has a many many thousand fold advantage over any device in space. No question.

During calm seas, sure, no question. It's harder to engineer against high pressure and high acceleration and frequent high kinetic impact events than against low pressure low acceleration and low kinetic impact events.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-07, 12:06 AM
A ship on the ocean has a many many thousand fold advantage over any device in space. No question.

In peacetime. A ship facing a missile or torpedo has fewer charms.

The main advantage of space is distance. The best way to avoid an attack is to not be there when it hits. And collapsing civilizations, such as the one that this thread is about, often have such violent complications to deal with.

danscope
2012-Aug-07, 01:11 AM
Missiles and torpedoes are very expensive commodities indeed, and are only used on targets of merit for various and nefarious purposes. Would you use a $150,000 torpedo on a rowboat? The question is moot.
Life is still much easier on Earth than it could ever be in space. No getting around that.
By the way, I used to make my living firing torpedoes, as well as load them. Gotta be careful with those.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-07, 01:15 AM
Life is still much easier on Earth than it could ever be in space. No getting around that.

And you're still missing the point. The OP asks if life becomes threatened on Earth, will some be foresighted enough to see space prefereable? Clearly, the answer is yes, as there are already be individuals who foresee that.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-07, 01:26 AM
Missiles and torpedoes are very expensive commodities indeed, and are only used on targets of merit for various and nefarious purposes. Would you use a $150,000 torpedo on a rowboat? The question is moot.

Do you honestly expect such rational bean-counting during a global collapse? There are fanatics and terrorists right now who use antiaircraft and antitank missiles to shoot busses full of schoolchildren. Try to picture what would happen during the chaos of worldwide failures of communication and order-- there would be no more chain-of-command, no reliable news, and every target a potential enemy. In those circumstances it's not hard to picture someone torpedoing a rowboat that happens to get too close-- ask the sailors aboard the USS Cole if a small craft can't be a threat.

Jens
2012-Aug-07, 01:26 AM
And what would happen to the gene pool here on Earth? It seems logical that colonists would be at least healthy, intelligent, and driven if not ambitious. Our world would lose some of its best genes with every ship to leave... Earth would get a progressively shallower and shallower gene pool while the colonies would get fresh starts with quality material.

A lot of bright people left Germany and other places to go to the United States, but I don't think there has been any notable effect on intelligence there. For one thing, genetics is not so clear that way. I think there is a concept called "return to the mean," which means that exceptionally intelligent people will tend to have children that are less intelligent than they are, whereas people who are exceptionally unintelligent will tend to have children that are smarter than they are.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-07, 01:50 AM
Life is still much easier on Earth than it could ever be in space. No getting around that.

"Still" meaning Right Now it is.

Maybe we are the only sentient beings in the universe. Will Earth become so ravaged with overpopulation, stupididity and insanity that some people will have to leave this planet and try to live on another planet, or a space colony, no matter how tough it w[o]uld be, so sentience would not perish.

This implies that at a future time, the human race on Earth will be in danger of extinction. Which may very well happen, humans being what we are.

If the risks of staying become greater than the risks of going, we'd be fools not to make the effort.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-07, 04:55 AM
Missiles and torpedoes are very expensive commodities indeed, and are only used on targets of merit for various and nefarious purposes. Would you use a $150,000 torpedo on a rowboat? The question is moot.
Life is still much easier on Earth than it could ever be in space. No getting around that.
By the way, I used to make my living firing torpedoes, as well as load them. Gotta be careful with those.

Depends on who is in the rowboat. We've spent large sums of money to get just one person.

ravens_cry
2012-Aug-07, 08:15 AM
I hope we do. I'd hate to have humanity die off, for our kind of mind to end so soon.

Gomar
2012-Aug-09, 04:51 PM
I dont see humans living on other planets for hundreds of years yet. Perhaps in 500 years first colonists will settle Mars, or some other planet.
But, with present tech and problems, nope. As for reaching a star; not for 10,000 years.
Why not resolve problems on Earth instead? Polution, water, food, wars, etc. have to be addressed. In India people dont touch nor eat cows, yet, millions are starving. North Korea is a failed state; as is Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.

Sending a few people into space wont address any problems. In time, the colonists will split into nations, and go to war against each other
anyway just as on Earth.

primummobile
2012-Aug-09, 05:54 PM
Perhaps 70 million humans = 0.1% are formally educated excluding quite a few who went though the process but some how missed the desired attitudes, compassion and logical reasoning and about that many more are well gifted with common scence, and/or largely self taught. That number would likely drop several percent per year, in a serious melt down of human society, which could begin without prior notice of even minutes. Off Earth habitats are not a present option, and would be expensive, crowded, dangerous and uncomfortble in 2050 even if we start large scale funding in 2013. Possibly there are already secret communities to continue sentience, but they will likely be terorized by desparate surviors of the meltdown. Neil

You mean 1% ?

Noclevername
2012-Aug-09, 06:38 PM
Why not resolve problems on Earth instead?
Why assume that they're mutually exclusive?


Sending a few people into space wont address any problems. In time, the colonists will split into nations, and go to war against each other
anyway just as on Earth.

Missing the point of the OP. The scenario presented was if life on Earth becomes threatened. The idea is not to address human problems but to avoid dying.

danscope
2012-Aug-09, 07:14 PM
I think Gomar got it right.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-09, 07:25 PM
He's saying that a ship shouldn't have lifeboats because "we're only going to go sink another ship."

primummobile
2012-Aug-09, 07:35 PM
He's saying that a ship shouldn't have lifeboats because "we're only going to go sink another ship."

Besides that, I wouldn't take it as a given that space colonies would go to war with one another. We go to war on Earth because it is easy. And most of our wars are over territory or resources. It wouldn't be easy for colonists on Mars to go to war with a colony around Jupiter, nor would it be cost effective to try to take resources from one another.

In a billion years, the Earth will be uninhabitable and all our surface water will be gone. If we don't leave sometime before then humanity will die.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-09, 07:41 PM
I think Gomar got it right.

If you mean in his attempt to agree with you, then yes.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-09, 08:10 PM
Sending a few people into space wont address any problems. In time, the colonists will split into nations, and go to war against each other
anyway just as on Earth.

At presnt we have one "ship", with zero lifeboats. Humanity would not survive even one "sinking".

If we build a fleet of ships, even smaller ones, at least some people could survive any single ship sinking, whenther caused by a war or other human activities, or natural disaster. We'd have redundancy for our species.

Jens
2012-Aug-10, 01:47 AM
In India people dont touch nor eat cows, yet, millions are starving.

Do you really think the religious taboo is the cause of starvation?

MaDeR
2012-Aug-12, 02:42 PM
Why not resolve problems on Earth instead?
Yes, sure, rotting here forever will solve every problem.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-12, 03:19 PM
I'm all for trying to solve problems on Earth. It's still the home of 7 billion people, including my family. But we need a plan B, because fixing Earth's problems will involve a much bigger effort than building a viable off-Earth independent community, and even then might not succeed. If we try and fail to live in space, we can try again later with more knowledge. If we try and fail to avoid destroying ourselves, there is no second chance.

Colonizing space will cost about as much as a fair-sized war. Fixing Earth would take, as of last estimate, the collective will of the entire human race. Which is easier to achieve?

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-12, 06:08 PM
I'm all for trying to solve problems on Earth. It's still the home of 7 billion people, including my family. But we need a plan B, because fixing Earth's problems will involve a much bigger effort than building a viable off-Earth independent community, and even then might not succeed. If we try and fail to live in space, we can try again later with more knowledge. If we try and fail to avoid destroying ourselves, there is no second chance.

Colonizing space will cost about as much as a fair-sized war. Fixing Earth would take, as of last estimate, the collective will of the entire human race. Which is easier to achieve?

More importantly, colonizing space has the potential to fix Earth too.

Sticks
2012-Aug-12, 06:23 PM
Do you really think the religious taboo is the cause of starvation?

Jens and Gomar you are sailing close to the wind on the no religion rule

Original Content:

Why not resolve problems on Earth instead?
Yes, sure, rotting here forever will solve every problem.

MaDeR you are sailing close to the wind on the civility front

So people can calm down, this thread is closed pending moderator discussion