Test your theories of population in solar system
from the Malthus-had-a-point dept.
From Australia comes news of an easy, enjoyable way to play out various scenarios of human population growth. David Coutts has designed a game called 6 Billion which enables players to model exponential growth of human population in our solar system. Users can set their own timescales for scientific progress, population growth, and even sociological change. Sounds like a fun method to get a feel for exponential growth of population, which the designer correctly describes as "scary". Here's some background and history on the game. Read more for David's full post. David Coutts writes "I think about the colonisation of space all the time.I believe Kardashev got it right with his 3 levels for space-faring societies: K-1 societies utilize all the resources of their home planet. K-2 societies utilize all the resources of their home solar system, and K-3 societies utilize all the resources of their home galaxy. I designed a boardgame (see URLs below) on our transition from K-1 to K-2 society, from the perspective of exponential population growth. I think it unlikely that we will go from K-1 to K-3, without passing through the K-2 stage. Yet most Science-Fiction goes straight to K-3, without exploring the possibilities for our own backyard, the solar system. It's like trying to go from crawling to running, without learning to walk! For more information on my thinking please read the story of the design and production of 6 Billion, partly inspired by reading Engines Of Creation and also try my article on why I think my game is "realistic": Anyway, here are some thoughts on possible future nanotechnologies which may apply to our K-2 phase: 1. Carl Sagan, before the nature of Venus was known, proposed using microbal life to convert the atmosphere of Venus into an ocean. Using nanotechnology, could we not design a nanite which could do a similar job? The nanite could be far tougher than a microbe, designed to reduce the Venusian atmosphere to a liquid form (intitially still toxic). This would allow us to land – without being crushed by the atmosphere – on the dry bits of land (assuming non-even distribution of the liquid) and begin the process of colonisation. Later nanites could convert the liquid, perhaps with a dozens (hundreds?) of introduced asteroids, into something less toxic. 2. In EOC Eric Drexler discusses the spectre of the grey blob, consuming the world. Well, let's try it. Perhaps on a remote moon, perhaps Mercury (where the Sun's energy would provide a powerful external power source for nanites), or Venus again. Of course, we would want our grey blob to perform specific tasks, for example: a. Remodel the surface of Venus to look like Earth's continents (let's call it New Earth!) b. Carve out underground caverns on Mercury (after all, we ain't living on the surface!) c. Extract the permafrost from Mars, and warm the damn planet up! Kim Stanley Robinson has some fun ideas in his Mars series, but I don't think he thought about what programmable matter could do! 3. Much is made of the human inability to live in space for prolonged periods. Haven't those people read any books on nanotechnology? The stomach is nature's answer to the Meat Machine (or the Xmas Machine). However, in zero-gravity it doesn't seem to be able to stop our bones from losing calcium. Yes, we can use centrifugal force to provide artifical gravity. Or perhaps we could redesign our bodies to work and survive better in zero gravity. We need a better stomach, stronger bones, etc. Perhaps a combination of genetic engineering (which is a form of programming digital information into matter) combined with nanotechnology (which is also a form of programming digital information into matter) could do the job? I realise that these are distant (far-fetched?) technologies, but they will surely get us there quicker than NASA! http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6billion.htm http://www.discovergames.com/gamedesign.html http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6billionAdAstra.htm"
August 27th, 2000 at 11:14 AM
Terraforming is poor use of nanotechnology
Any discussion of the exponential growth of classical "humans" demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what biotechnology and nanotechnology enable. If you have advanced biotech, there are significant questions as to whether you would want to remain a "classical" human. We can probably engineer ourselves to be Mars-compatible, though Venus-compatible would be more difficult. Once you have true nanotech, that enables the exponential growth of nanomachines at a rate far exceeding the exponential growth of human bodies, so the question becomes how would you architect a solar system to provide the optimal habitat(s) for human bodies (or minds)? Because nanotech can reach solar system masses in days (given enough local mass and energy), while human protoplasm would take centuries or millennia, simple terraforming rapidly becomes irrelevant and questions regarding astroengineering become the most important.
As Zubrin points out in Entering Space, there are problems with Sagan's microbial approach to terraforming Venus due to the lack of water. He suggests a sun-shield as the proper solution. Zubrin then discusses various ways of terraforming, but he too clearly does not really understand nanotechnology or what its exponential growth rates allow. In The Case for Mars he almost gets it right when he suggests using planetary material to construct solar power satellites to make more power available on the surface of Mars. You would have to do the same thing if you wanted to use nanobots to rapidly terraform Venus (nanobots need lots of energy). The point Zubrin and Coutts miss is that if this is done using nanotechnology, it enables you to rapidly dismantle entire planets.
I've studied this problem extensively over the last two years, (see my papers related to Matrioshka Brains), and it would appear, the transition time from pre-K-1 to ~K-2 level using nanotech is most likely on the order of weeks to months. The refinement at the K-2 level may take much longer (Kardashev's levels only deal with how much energy you use, not how efficiently you use it!). There is no point to terraforming planets because they are a very poor use of your matter resources (something Dyson has pointed out in a number of sources) and they are at the bottom of gravity wells which is an inherently undesirable location.
The most important question is whether or not mind uploading is possible. If uploading is possible, and people are allowed endless self-copies or mated-copies, then we do develop a population explosion and rapidly hit the limits of a solar system sized Dyson shell supercomputer. In our system, that capacity is of the order of 100 trillion trillion (10^26) human minds (give or take several orders of magnitude). There are significant questions as to whether there is any point to expanding to K-3 societies because the speed-of-light interstellar propagation delays impose a huge penalty on interstellar thought, collaborations, etc. Intelligent super-entitites (K-2 civilizations) do not want to grow bigger, they want to grow smaller.
There has been a fairly extensive discussion of Matrioshka Brains and the possible advantages for the people who upload first in the Extropy Mailing List, which can be reviewed in the archives (though searching them is sometimes problematic). See also If Uploads Come First by Robin Hanson.
When thinking about the problem of population growth, expansion, how would you engineer better humans, etc. one thing I've found useful is to consider that Feynman almost got it right. There isn't just "plenty of room at the bottom", there is more room at the bottom!
December 18th, 2000 at 2:42 PM
Why terraform Venus?
I have the nanotech posited in order to terraform Venus then the question immediately arises as to why I would want to? With the same technology I can mine the asteroids and sundry planets to build whatever space habitats I could want/need that are not at the bottom of a planet-sized gravity well. All of the mineral wealth of a planet like Venus and more is available in nuch-easier to process asteroid form. It is also unlikely in the extreme that given NT we would elect to send billions of human bodied sentiences (or even millions) into space. Assuming that uploading or fully sentient AI comes to pass there are simply much more convenient forms of physical body for such adventures.
January 27th, 2001 at 10:39 PM
Re:Why terraform Venus?
Hi Samantha, Whilst I agree that various advances might provide more suitable forms (than human bodies)for adventures such as terraforming Venus, that doesn't rule out the possibility that we could use nanotechnology to do just that. Plus, there is no question of sending billions or millions of humans into space. Exponential growth on just 1 million, at a modest 2% growth rate, would allow your 1 million (sent into space) to double 10 times in 350 years making a population of 1024 million (just over 1 billion). So, by the time 350 years had passed your the entire 1024 million would have been born in space. This does not require AI or nanotechnology, but both could help realise this possible future a lot sooner than 350 years. I agree with you, as I have elsewhere on Nanodot.org, that in those 350 years (and probably much sooner), humanity could create advanced lifeforms (and could even become an advanced life-form). However, nothing is certain. Richard Dawkins calls life a "replication bomb", and hopes it might advance from the Earth to our solar system and then beyond. Humanity has a role to play in making that happen. We may create life-forms that take on that role from us, or we may re-engineer ourselves and continue the job. Nanotechnology is the key to both futures (along with AI, genetics etc). It is humanity that can that key. Regards, David (http://www.bnbg.au/~bnbgames/6billionAdAstra.htm)
September 10th, 2001 at 11:20 PM
Nanotech, population and terraforming
Lots of interesting stuff in this string. I think you may all be on to different parts of what may actually happen. I suspect that the virtually indefinite life spans permitted by a fully developed nanotech could lead to a massive increase in population either organic or cybernetic. At the same time the technology should lead to virtually perfect birth control meaning that 'accidents' even happy ones should be virtually eliminated. This, along with long life leading to less of a desire to procreate, might lead to a slower rate of population growth. Also, even a cybernetic AI or upload mind might choose to experience part of the world thru organic senses, 'teleoperating' an organic body, either alone or as only one of a huge number and variety of effector devices scattered all over the solar system or beyond. If it is possible and even a tiny percentage of a huge immortal population wants to do it, the numbers of organic bodies needing habitats could really add up. Which leads to terraforming. I suspect we may terraform at least one planet (Mars perhaps) as an experiment and to prove we can do it. The same goes for building large space habitats or reforming moons and asteroids. The organic body as a minority taste again. Designer ecologies for fun and profit. What a hobby. As for Venus, my own favorite is the idea of 'cyberforming' it. Use nanomachines and an infusion of materials to convert most of the carbon in the atmosphere into nanotube circuitry. Keep enough atmosphere to act as a meteor screen. Combine the liberated O2 with imported hydrogen to make water and pump it from the day side to night side for cooling. Build high bandwith transmitters all over the surface to tie it into the Solar System wide Internet. Presto, a planet sized supercomputer. Anyone for simulating a few billion planets all in perfect detail and all only a future mouse click equivalent away. We may not colonize the galaxy, we may just upload it onto a faster, more accessible platform.
July 8th, 2005 at 7:51 PM
What I like about the notion of terraforming planets is that, if done properly, they can be stable and entirely self-sustaining for billions of years (like Earth), whereas I’m not sure we could say the same about smaller artificial space habitats.
This means life could survive on them long-term, even if the local civilization should collapse.
Terraformed planets + space habitats = not putting all our biological eggs in one basket.
My own thoughts on possible gross mechanisms for terraforming Venus:
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5126&st=60