Lord Safey

Age has to do with errors that show in the genes due to being copied over and over again. You take out a (or change it in health favorable way) factor the decreases the likely hood of errors to be introduced and then you can age more gracefully. The issues with everyone living several centuries is one of logistics and population management. We are running out of resources (not just talking about oil).The world's infrastructure is severely taxed as it is and the worlds population is running away as it is. Unless we become a lot better at handling these problems, significantly increasing the age we can reach will compound these problems severely.

Never said their was, just didn't people to mistakenly beleive I attend MSU.

For the record I do not attend Mississippi State University nor am I affiliated with them in any manner.

Uploaded and emailed. Tell me when you get it

found it, I think

I remember being grounded when I was 13 and after about year or so they forgot I was grounded. I'm 21 now and they technically never ungrounded me.

my guess is that most animals have more trouble surviving humans then cancer causing radiation.

you would probably be better served by just putting a solar panel on everybody's house. The thing with power things is the less distance you have to transport the energy the better.

Both numbers were given in kilowatt hours. However I seen that same number given the kilowatt hours/year. I think that number is more of an average of how much electricity they use per hour, although to be honest I'm not entirely sure. For the solar panel it said in sunny conditions. As far as other models of solar panels, I would look at others if I was planing on doing a paper on but for proving a point on a forum I beleive it is sufficient.

According to CIA World Fact book the European union uses about 2,906,000,000,000 kwh of electricity. So divide that number by the number of people in the European union (492,387,344) and you find that the average power consumption of a citizen of the European union is about 5901.8576kwh. Note this number isn't the amount of power that they using their homes this is the energy cost of one person on the European unions infrastructure. By multiplying the number of people by 5901.8576 kwh you find out how much energy you need to raise the welfare of everyone on the planet to that of the European unions. That number is 44,263,932,177,753.13 kwh. Now the solar panel I looked up can provide 1kwh of electricity per 1m^2(in sunny weather in your lower latitudes). Due too nights its only going to average 0.5kwh. So to find how many m^2 your going to need you divide 44,263,832,177,753.13kwh by .5kwh and you find you need 88,527,864,355,506.26 m^2 of solar panels. To convert that number into km^2 you divide it by a million and you get 88,527,864.35550626 km^2 is how much area you would need to provide that much power, compare to 148,939,063.133 km^2 (the land area of the earth according to the cia world factbook). So yes my originally number was off that is about 59.438 percent of the land surface you would have to cover with current solar technology. To make solar panels viable you have to increase the amount of energy they harness by several hundred fold. That is far more of a super technology of tomorrow then my Helium-3 fusion reactor.

Dams are bit iffy they can provide a lot of power but creating a lake were their was none puts a lot of stress on the environment, as fish have to relearn out how to get down stream. They do have significant impact on the environment though. There about as many successful dams are their are failures.

I'll confess to being very tired will doing this. I'll look it over a bit more morning. Feel free to tear me a new one until then.

Current solar panel technology isn't even close. A modern solar panel 1 m^2 can put out 1000 watts per hour under ideal conditions. Through out the day it will only be gathering power half the time so lets make that number 500 watts per hour. That is .0005 megawatts. So a km^2 contains 1 million square meters, so a km^2 worth of solar panels will produce, in good weather in sunny climes, 500 megawatts hours of electicty. Divide that into 48,166,856,048 and you find you would need 96333712.096 km^2 of solar panels to provide every person on the planet with the same amount of electricity that your average citizen of the European union. The area of all the continents (even those not very well suited for such) is 149428500 km^2. You would need to cover 155% of the continental land mass with solar panels to power all of that and, you thought going to moon was silly.

Ok if your goal is to decline the earths population to something more manageable is by relying on the trend of 1st nations to have declining populations. I tried to figure out how much power the world currently consumes and how much it would consume if every nation had a level of welfare that its population growth would either flat line or decline. So I took the amount of power the European union consumed (since a lot of its nations declining population). I then divided that number by the number of people in the European union. I next took that number and multiplied by the 7.5 billion people who reside on this world. That comes to about to about 48,166,856,048 MW*h/yr. Current consumption is about at 17,109,665,000 MW*h/yr. I'd like to point that this info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption). So I'm going to ask you, were are you going to get the energy to raise the welfare of every person on earth to the point the Earth's population would decline naturally. Also keep in mind the nations with declining populations still seem to have an increasing demand on resources.

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Lord Safey 20 billion in space travel will help us raise the upper limits of how many people we can support overpopulation is not primarily about a shortage of physical space to put people never said it was

For the record their are people seriously considering doing this. As in putting serious money behind and no its not NASA. Of course you make not take him seriously but here he is: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/mining-the-moon and http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html For the most part energy is the issue. It takes energy to make the fertilizer package and ship to the farmer, it takes energy to pump the water to water his crops. It takes energy to harvest those crops and ship them off the factory. Of course it takes energy to package them and ship them of to the store. If you don't have enough energy to power this, very bad things happen. More energy allows you feed, cloth and house more people. As far a helium-3 reactor being speculative. I would put forth any technology the plans on replacing fossil fuels is speculative but stills need to be developed. As to how I how I would have the twenty billion dollars spent. If my sole concern is overpopulation I would spend that 20 billion dollars for developing space travel hands down. 20 billion in space travel will help us raise the upper limits of how many people we can support were as 20 billion to raise the standard of living for poor people, will bring us closer to the upper limit of what can support.

No carbon nanotubes could do it we just aren't very good at making them

Space elevators are nice. All the technology for it exists except one, a material that can be developed in large quantities that could support such a massive structure. A lot people suspect carbon nanotubes could be used for such a endeavor if we could ever produce them with longer strands and in much great quantities. We could figure that out tomorrow, never or somewhere in between. That said I would be ecstatic if we built one. The benefits we could reap from it would be great. However developing your fuel on the moon and putting it in low earth orbit can make the amount of fuel need to get out of earth orbit more manageable.

(2) the will if taxpayers money is used to pay them (4) Evolution those who pass on their genes the most become to most prevelant. Your campaign encourages people not to pass their genes. People who disagree with you are more like to produce offspring then people who do.

1 Their are a lot of nations who despite having a decreasing population have an increasing consumption of resources. 2. A lot of people will still get piss of at enough to cause a lot of civil unrest (possibly wars). You might call them imbred ignorant hicks but these are the people you have to convince of such a plan and this will make them pick up their hunting rifles and sawed off shot guns. 3 It would be political suicide for any politician to try to enforce these measures. 4 Each generation that passes will drastically increase the ratio of people who don't cooperate with you against those who do cooperate with you, in favor of those who don't cooperate with you.

1) Considering at the time most sailing ships stayed in sight of of land it was a remarkable feat. Second considering they they have to spend weeks if not months at sea to make that voyage with limited supplies and disease ridden it was pretty dangerous. I think you underestimate the difficulty of this feat given the circumstances 2&3) The moon formed out the same stuff that the earth is made off. Most geologist think that moon was made when a mars sized planet crashed into the earth and the stuff that didn't come back down formed the earth. So while you wouldn't find fossil fuels but could pretty much find everything else. Specifically Helium-3 which I hear it is potentially a miracle substance when it comes to powering a nuclear reactor. The catch is it is very rare on earth. However helium-3 is deposited in large amounts on the moon because it has no electromagnetic field or atmosphere to deflect the solar wind that carries Helium-3, so it gets embedded in the lunar regolith. The thing is ultimately you wouldn't stop at the moon you have to keep expanding outwards and once you have successfully developed the moon you be a lot more capable of moving to other objects. 4)It wouldn't be done overnight. My understanding is that I would take about 10 years to do the lunar prospecting and about 20 billion dollars. This is however is on par with about how much companies spend to find and develop new oil resources. There are also business men your giving such operations serious consideration. Getting the stuff off the moon is actually the easiest part of this. The moon only has 1/6th the gravity of earth. Their is no atmosphere your vehicle has to fight on its way up. This makes it exponentially cheaper to get off the moon then earth. You make the vehicle take the resources back to earth unmanned and you can greatly expand what you define as a soft landing. Which means you just simply put the stuff in a hard shell with a rocket strapped to the bottom and crash it into an empty field. Once you started mining the ice and turning it into rocket fuel and using it to setup refueling stations rockets will be redesigned and the ensuing competitiveness will cause things to get much more efficient. As far as food Nasa as done lots of experiments with hydroponics and also done some experiments with growing edible algae. So even if the lunar regolith is unsuited for growing food there are other alternatives. I will admit their are major difficulties in setting up these kinda of mining operations on the moon but they are still far easier then convincing society to stop growing.

The argument I was making or trying to make was that space travel would be a lot easier and potentially profitable if infrastructure was established on the moon and in earth orbit. Establishing that infrastructure will in turn make traveling to even more distance world easier and also teach us how to live and extract resources there. What I suggested that could be done the moon however could be done with current technology.

Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet Fourth, space travel will never be a solution to overpopulation. There are, what, three births for each death every second now? That's a surplus of 86 400 people each day. Thus, to solve this [censored] with space travel, we'd have to send as many people each day to Moon, Alpha Centauri, or whatever. Yeah, right. Building a single ship for that many people would require more resources than a new nuclear reactor. Furthermore, all those resources would be effectively lost, and not usable to us earthlings anymore, as they're conveniently shot somewhere else. Even then, Earth at its worst is better for human life than any other object in our solar system at its best. Making Moon or Mars livable for large enough populations for it to matter would require so much energy expenditure it wouldn't even be funny. Sending people to America or Australia worked because those places had livable conditions and natural resources of their own to supply the colonies. Moon, Mars, and so on, do not. We might as well send those 86 400 people to Sahara or Antarctis, to die. Expect that would be vastly more feasible, as those places are still on Earth, and logistics to move people there would be much easier to arrange. Shooting people in the head will always be more effective method of population control than shooting them to space. Possibly more humane, even. I think you underestimate the potential of space travel. 1. I like to point out that those who came to Americas and to austrila didn't do it one boat. They did on a bunch of boats. To assume we would do the same is kinda of silly. 2. The reason traveling to the moon is so damn expensive is that almost everyone thinks you need to take everything your going to need to the moon. For this reason people have been trying to find and extract resources. Some people (http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/mining-the-moon) are already trying to figure this out. Example large amounts of water (the current amount I heard of is enough to fill the great lakes). Water can be broken down in too what you would need to breath and rocket fuel. The do this on nuclear subs so they only have to come up for food and not air. So if I only need enough rocket fuel to get there, then this significantly decreases the amount of fuel one needs to get there. 3. It takes significantly less fuel to get off the moon and go to earth then it is to do the reverse. So if you took the ice water broke it down into rocket fuel and the shot into low earth orbit so people only need enough to get into orbit, it would meant you need less fuel to power smaller rockets, which would further drive down the costs. 4. You don't need to send 86,000 people there a day. You just send enough people to extract enough resources to offset earths depleting resources. 5. I agree with others here government enforced birth control would not go over well. However the wars and civil wars that they would most likely start would. Now that you think I'm a complete loony feel free to ignore me.

I would like to point out that earth has a finite amount of resources. So no matter how energy efficient we make our technology, how environmentally friendly we become, or creative in extracting and recycling resources we get, their will come a point were if we continue to grow the earth can will not be able to sustain us.

The beholder explodes into a million pieces, it is no more. The two Ogres like creatures hesitate as the whistle screeches through the air. For a brief moment terror can been seen in their eyes, but then something clicks and they start raging once more. One then charges forward with no sense of self preservation. The other with a broken jaw picks up a sizable tombstone and hurls it with startling speed at the black clad rider. ----------------------Farmer's hut----------------------- Seeing the approaching flames, the brute decides its time to move. He picks up his master and heads down the road in the direction that the two people ran. ----------------------Village------------------------------ Running past an alley way two people running , while doing their best cover their shame, in to the village, frantically yelling "Help, help some moster broke into our house he almost killed us"