The Day Of Seven Billion

[Quick_Nick]

As far as space for people AND resources, some suggest spreading out vertically. (upwards with tall buildings, or down into the ground) I'm just not sure how efficient this is.
And a good point was made that we need to get crafty enough to live in the harshest areas here before we go to other planets.

 

[Unstung]

There was a Popular Science article a few months ago that suggested stacking energy-efficient small-sized homes on top on each other in major cities. As for the desert, separate buildings that use solar panels, wind power, and air from the ground to provide energy and cool the home. All will recycle their water usage, and so on.

 

[Turbinator]

The thing with populating the desert is, not the fact that we can`t do it. Or that we don`t know how to. It is rather the mere fact that there are other places to go to. We tend to go down the path of least resistance, like lightning during a thunderstorm. Therefore; why populate the desert, when you can make use of other land with barely any effort whatsoever. However, the path of least resistance is not the path of progress. So; can we populate the desert today, yes. Will we populate the desert tomorrow, no.

 

[Suzy]

Looks like 7 billion will be reached around August: World POPClock Projection. Too many - I seriously wish someone would create an infertility virus!

Even if a lot more people can be supported, I sure don't want to live crammed in high-rise apartments - did anyone see the extended opening scenes of Avatar? That's the sort of world we're headed for if growth isn't contained.

As well as the numbers of humans, it's also the waste produced - the oceans are a dumping ground, and millions of tons of plastic rubbish end up in landfill each year due to our wasteful consumer lifestyle.

 

[T.Neo]

I seriously wish someone would create an infertility virus!

I've said all I need to on the subject, in a cogent manner, and I shall not stoop to mudslinging over the destruction of human rights.

That's the sort of world we're headed for if growth isn't contained.

Too late:

I am not scared of a place where people have a proper roof over their head, have access to clean water and reliable power supplies, and can feel safe in their own living room. And who can make their way to work without having to walk through garbage and human waste.

Avatar's hologram-filled future city is sci-fi. But District 9's filthy settlements are sadly very real.

millions of tons of plastic rubbish end up in landfill each year due to our wasteful consumer lifestyle.

I agree that it is a waste, but it isn't the most problematic thing in the world, as long as it does not get free and entangle marine organisms.

On the other hand, I want my plastic back. It could be recycled to make other stuff... it really is wasted as the containers of rancid leftovers that feed millions of seagulls.

 

[Linguofreak]

We have emerging superpowers, mini superpowers maybe... maybe they should be called mesopowers. Brazil, India... there is a lot of change that could happen there, and lead to conflict, but potentially not lead to an actual world war (unless or until the bigger entities get involved).

In the old days before superpowers we just called them "powers".

 

[DanM]

Building efficient homes will only buy humans more time here on Earth. If we want to be serious about making it longer as a species, we need to colonize space. Not just for the extra room, but since we'll be more spread out, if some disaster wipes out a population, the species will still live.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Though in response to Siberian Tiger earlier, anyone who can count can see the value of spaceflight. Particularly the satellite systems that allow the modern world to run. But that unfortunately has nothing to do with human colonisation, at least, not yet. But I don't know how it could matter.

Interesting, although I don't think we already depend on satellites as much as we depend on crop growing & harvesting, steel and heavy industry production, and so on. I think in today's world, satellites are by far more important for army logistics, targeting and intelligence, while the civilian world would by large survive if all satellites get sweeped out of orbits one day. By the way, this is why many military conflicts scenario involve disabling enemy's space potential as part of the doctrine.

Don't discount nuclear weapons. Despite technological development and disarmament efforts, I would not expect them to disappear any times soon... adding to that, the fact that you don't need a lot of nukes to be very destructive (which is by and large their purpose for existence as a weapon). You don't have to fight as envisioned in the cold war- an all-out barrage of nuclear weapons, intended as an approximation of the apocalypse. The threat, of just one nuclear weapon, striking a city such as New York or Moscow... I wouldn't want to think of it.

I agree though that a USSR-USA standoff is unlikely to repeat, but for other reasons (namely the root cause). Here we have the US and the EU as allies, China as a communist-in-name-only world factory, and then Russia... I'm struggling to see why the US and Russia would want to go to war. But with changing geopolitics over what? 20? 30? 50 years? I'm not sure.

The USA has a military that is far more than nukes, they have the largest military expenditure on the planet... there are a lot of things it cannot do (and fails at doing rather spectacularly), but that does not mean it is wholly worthless.

We have emerging superpowers, mini superpowers maybe... maybe they should be called mesopowers. Brazil, India... there is a lot of change that could happen there, and lead to conflict, but potentially not lead to an actual world war (unless or until the bigger entities get involved).

Conventional war can be pretty damn destructive, and WWII proved that. That is not necessarily something any sane person would wish for.

There are opinions of some well informed people that the century 21 shall see escalation of violence and struggle of various powers to challenge virtually present US dominance in the world. For instance, this is what George Friedman, cheif editor of STRATFOR geopolitical website, tells in his book The Next 100 years.

Here's few of his public speeches:

In essense, he views the world as a rich playground and challenge set for US political and military power, and he does not believe that in century 21 there's a chance for them to get bored of having nothing to do.

He may not be the official ideology designer for every next inhabitant of the White House, but surely there is a grain of ideology in his forecasts. And governmental strategic analysts of different countries should be aware of possibility for affairs to develop according to his scenarios.

 

[Unstung]

The thing with populating the desert is, not the fact that we can`t do it. Or that we don`t know how to. It is rather the mere fact that there are other places to go to. We tend to go down the path of least resistance, like lightning during a thunderstorm. Therefore; why populate the desert, when you can make use of other land with barely any effort whatsoever. However, the path of least resistance is not the path of progress. So; can we populate the desert today, yes. Will we populate the desert tomorrow, no.

I live in a desert, actually. Some miles away from here, the land is barren. We get much of our water from the Hoover Dam, IIRC, which is not as filled as it used to be. Reusing water eases on the water supply. Of course, it's also very hot here in the summer; electricity is cut down on if the hot air is channeled through the ground becoming cooled. This solution Popular Science is not as complicated as stacking homes in New York City or Paris which use more advanced technology.
There are multiple cities in this area and growing significantly ever since interior cooling became available. One hundred years ago, it wasn't this way.

 

[T.Neo]

Building efficient homes will only buy humans more time here on Earth. If we want to be serious about making it longer as a species, we need to colonize space. Not just for the extra room, but since we'll be more spread out, if some disaster wipes out a population, the species will still live.

Well... yes. But the problem is: what is the social and political motivation for it? If there is no motivation for it, how can it be created?

Redundancy in population distribution is important, but I do not see any forseeable disaster that could destroy humanity wholesale. A supervolcano eruption would be pretty bad and a K/T scale bolide impact would probably kill billions, but even then...

Interesting, although I don't think we already depend on satellites as much as we depend on crop growing & harvesting, steel and heavy industry production, and so on. I think in today's world, satellites are by far more important for army logistics, targeting and intelligence, while the civilian world would by large survive if all satellites get sweeped out of orbits one day. By the way, this is why many military conflicts scenario involve disabling enemy's space potential as part of the doctrine.

I don't know... survive, yes, but the results would not be good, and they could cause bad instability socially or geopolitically.

Intercontinental communications? Internet? What about it's use for trade and business? And weather forecasts? Could be made more problematic as well... you lose hurricane tracking data, for example. And civillian applications do make use of GPS, for surveying, and also for air and sea transport... if not essential to such transport, GPS is at least a good redundancy that encourages extra safety.

Knocking out the enemy's space capability during war would be helpful, but I think that wiping out satellites on a large scale could amount to shooting oneself in the foot if the resulting debris compromise friendly satellites.

In essense, he views the world as a rich playground and challenge set for US political and military power, and he does not believe that in century 21 there's a chance for them to get bored of having nothing to do.

So... countries are going to go to war because they will get bored?

He may not be the official ideology designer for every next inhabitant of the White House, but surely there is a grain of ideology in his forecasts. And governmental strategic analysts of different countries should be aware of possibility for affairs to develop according to his scenarios.

I see no reason for emerging powers to engage in a violent war with the US or any other superpower for that matter. A mesopower- say, Brazil maybe, taking on the US would only lead to defeat, especially if other nations allied to the US became involved. In addition, the strong ideological differences that occured between the US and the USSR are not present except with the PRC, and even then it has amicable relations with the US.

The introduction of a superpower other than the USA onto the scene could lead to tension, but that more of the sort of displays of male ego than actual armed conflict. Of course, having a more than two superpower scenario changes things as well...

 

[JEL]

We get much of our water from the Hoover Dam, IIRC, which is not as filled as it used to be.

There's been what is classified as a drought for the past 5 years or so. The 3rd one since Hoover Dam was completed in the 1930s:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LakeMead/

Water Supply Crisis

The San Diego region is experiencing an unprecedented water supply crisis. There are environmental stresses, including the ongoing drought in the Colorado River basin and reduced snow pack and runoff in Northern California. In addition to these environmental stresses, court-ordered pumping restrictions on the State Water Project have continued to reduce the amount of water that can be delivered to our region. San Diego's water wholesalers have already announced that they will reduce their water deliveries to the area. Since San Diego imports 85-90 percent of its water, these conditions put considerable stress on the City's water system.

Due to these circumstances, and the threat of further limitations on our water supplies, the City of San Diego has declared a Level 2 – Drought Alert. All customers now have restrictions on how they can use water.

http://www.sandiego.gov/water/conservation/drought/

According to the government there's no reason to worry though (unless you can't afford the water rate increase perhaps) :

What is Drought?

Drought is a normal part of natural climate variations. There is nothing unusual about the occurrence of a drought, which should not be confused with aridity. Droughts are merely temporary abnormalities determined by deficient precipitation and depend on the area in question. In one area of the world a drought may be a week without rain, while in drier parts of world like the American Southwest, it might be an annual rainfall deficit of less than four inches.

A drought is also defined by its effect on the intended use of the water. Often, the the impacts of a drought are exacerbated because of increasing demands on a limited supply of water. Recent well documented droughts around the world have resulted in significant economic and environmental impacts.

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/feature/drought.html

 

[Ghostrider]

And the only significant development in our entire species was in the last 500 years. There was a boom in the classical period 3000 years ago, however all of that died off at around 2010 years ago, until the Renaissance. And of those 500 years of progress, the most significant was the last 100.

Wrong. Written language is way older than 500 years and that was the key technology that allowed progress to exist in the first place: no way to record knowledge, no progress. And by the way, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on how much modern society and thinking is based on the much-maligned Middle Ages.

Progress is not some external, independent force that pushes forward all the time, no matter what: it is closely tied to the needs of the social environment. RisingFury's comment on the "intellectural vacuum" of the Middle Ages is forgivable given the widespread ignorance of history in modern teaching, but is less so when confronted with the facts: the Middle Ages saw great progress in metallurgy, economics (say what you want about the feudal system, it did allow for far more efficient resource management given the available means) and power generation (water mills anyone?).

Why didn't they do more? Because they didn't need it. We've had reaction engines and steam engines and automatic doors since Heron of Alexandria, if not before, and we sat on it. Ignorance? Superstition? No, it simply wasn't needed. Plenty of human and animal power available, and way cheaper. We've had portable computing machines for centuries and yet they became a part of everyday's life only in the last decades for the simple reason that nobody needed to store and process vast amount of data until recently. Every human progress happens when there is a demand for it: usually it's because of dire emergencies such as war (forget most of modern tech without WW1 & WW2) or because the economy changes so dramatically that it needs it. The Home Computer Revolution owes far more to VisiCalc and mass chip production than it does to hobbyist.

So you can put your troubled mind at rest: you wouldn't be celebrating New Year's Eve on the Moon even if they had built the ENIAC in 1000AD: if we go back to the Moon or anywhere else it will be because of a need for it, and nothing else.

 

[T.Neo]

if we go back to the Moon or anywhere else it will be because of a need for it, and nothing else.

I hate this. I absolutely hate it. I want to go to the Moon NOW and I'm annoyed that my ancestors from 1500 CE didn't have steam engines or automatic doors. :dry:

 

[Ghostrider]

I hate this. I absolutely hate it. I want to go to the Moon NOW and I'm annoyed that my ancestors from 1500 CE didn't have steam engines or automatic doors. :dry:

You talk to me, I'm annoyed I cannot have a TARDIS.

 

[deltawing777]

I've heard that this upcoming year will bring in the day of seven billion. It's getting kind of crowded here. It looks like mankind has two options: Spread out or have less kids. The first one is inevitable if we want to survive as a species. You just can't have so many people crammed into one place and expect to make it that long.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well I'd say the obvious choice is Collonizing other planets.I doubt it will happen in my lifetime but after having read each post related to this thread I haven't seen anything thing on the dangers of this. I mean I am ALL FOR going to other worlds. But there's one little problem I forsee in doing this. Well we all know that bacteria, viruses can survive in extreme enviroments. So who is to say going to other planets and bringing somthing back to earth, whether it is incubated inside of a human on its clothes,tools,ship,etc...mutates and could wipe out the whole human species as we know it. It would be a very easy thing to happen seeing as how we would not have ANY immunity to it. And with 7 billion humans on this planet as compaired to how many there was in the dark ages, could make "The Plague" seem like nothing in comparison in terms of deaths and the speed at which it infects. In my opinion it goes without saying exercising the utmost extreme caution here should be priority. Just my 2 cents

 

[Ghostrider]

And with 7 billion humans on this planet as compaired to how many there was in the dark ages, could make "The Plague" seem like nothing in comparison in terms or deaths and the speed at which it infects.

It's not the number of humans, but the faster way it can spread. With air travel now common, your Plague can be spread all over the world in about 24 hours. However, I think we have more to fear from another Spanish Flu-like outbreak than anything coming from Out There. Virii and bacteria evolved on Earth have had time and chances to adapt to mammal physiology to either pester or kill us (bad bug, bad bug), while alien bugs have not.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yea, if we hadn't gone through the intelectual vacuum known as the Dark Ages, you'd be enjoying your Christmas and New Year on the Moon. Burning people alive sure didn't help...

You mean the 19th century in imperial Europe? When the term "Dark Ages" had been invented by people who got their academic degrees by feudal relationships?

Otherwise, there had never been anything that can be called Dark Ages. Some innovations had maybe been more boring than others, and some places decided to focus on soft skills instead of hard technology, but you NEVER had stagnation or decline in knowledge.

 

[Wishbone]

Well, Urwumpe, am afraid decline in knowledge can occur. Not on a global scale, and not in explicit knowledge stored in books that are constantly re-read, but in the know-how, tacit part of knowledge that's disseminated through hands-on experience. Unfortunately, in my country I see it all too often...

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, Urwumpe, am afraid decline in knowledge can occur. Not on a global scale, and not in explicit knowledge stored in books that are constantly re-read, but in the know-how, tacit part of knowledge that's disseminated through hands-on experience. Unfortunately, in my country I see it all too often...

I am not sure though, how to define a decline properly. Are we less advanced because we don't know how to build a bow? Or fail to speak the Lingua franca of 500 AD?

How to measure advancement? In 800 AD, the military technology of Europe was still as it was left by the Romans and roads deteriorated, but at the same time, political systems improved a lot in effectivity, agriculture made great leaps forward and architecture learned new tricks. Astrology/Astronomy was improved a lot between 600 AD and 1000 AD in Europe.

People ALWAYS want to make their life easier and develop new technologies. They are just sometimes hard to be appreciated if you only know modern technology.

 

[Izack]

I am not sure though, how to define a decline properly. Are we less advanced because we don't know how to build a bow? Or fail to speak the Lingua franca of 500 AD?

Most people know no more about the cars they drive and computers they use than they do about bows or Latin, though. That I think is the big failure.