The Cassandra Prophecy: population problem
from the billions-of-billions dept.
David Coutts writes "I enjoyed reading the recent CNN article about Stephen Hawkings' predictions for the human colonisation of our solar system in the next 100 years. In particular, he narrows it all down to 2 possibilities: (1) either we destroy ourselves )2) we engineer one or more species which surpass us… [About] option 2, at least I wrote an article recently with a similar view, called The Cassandra Prophecy. This is only the second draft, so I would appreciate constructive criticism: http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6billionZPG.htm" CP: Read more for an excerpt from Engines of Creation pointing out that space colonization postpones but does not solve the problem. From Engines of Creation, chapter 10. The full, searchable text of the book is available free at: http://www.foresight.org/EOC
"Some people now note that exponential growth will overrun the fixed stock of Earth's resources, a simpler argument than the one Malthus made. Though space technology will break this limit, it will not break all limits. Even if the universe were infinitely large, we still could not travel infinitely fast. The laws of nature will limit the rate of growth: Earth's life will spread no faster than light.
"Steady expansion will open new resources at a rate that will increase as the frontier spreads deeper and wider into space. This will result not in linear growth, but in cubic growth. Yet Malthus was essentially right: exponential growth will outrun cubic growth as easily as it would linear. Calculations show that unchecked population growth, with or without long life, would overrun available resources in about one or two thousand years at most. Unlimited exponential growth remains a fantasy, even in space."
January 28th, 2001 at 6:41 PM
Engines Of Creation and the limits to growth
Chris, Thanks for reminding me of the relevant sections from Engines Of Creation. I just re-read them online (perhaps it's time I re-read the whole book!). I completely agree that we will continue to face limits, and I think Kardashev accurately defined them for all space-faring civilisations: Kardashev Level 1 – use all the resources of home planet. Kardashev Level 2 – use all the resources of the home solar system Kardashev Level 3 – use all the resources of the home galaxy. If any technology can unlock the potential resources at each of these levels, it is nanotechnology. Any technology which can use the power of exponential growth is going to ensure that the availablity of resources in the future will match exponential population growth. David
January 30th, 2001 at 12:25 PM
Good Article
The only other scenario I can imagine is one where people are sterilized at birth (in a reversible manner) by a world government and then a few earn the right to reproduce by meeting some set of criteria such as getting an advanced degree.
To me, anyone who is pro-environment should be a major supporter of space exploration. The only way for humanity to tread lightly on an environment is to be thinly spread — only a few million per planet.
IMHO we will evolve or engineer ourselves into beings who have no desire to land on planets. I have in mind some sort of sentient spacecraft like the "Leviathan" Moya in the TV series Farscape.
Thank you for the reminder of cubic vs. exponential growth too. Even if engineered ourselves to be molecular-sized beings dwelling purely in space we can't escape that.
February 1st, 2001 at 6:03 AM
Re:Good Article
I too believe that I am an optimist rather than a blind faith and pessimist. One thing that you article clearly forgets is that the world we, as humans, create is made by personal decisions of the many. People's daily decisions, based on rational or irrational ideas and concepts, create our societies. These respective societies create the large scale behavior that you have modelled. Instead of looking at people as numbers and dumb masses that are made up of biologically propagating material you might want to look for large changes in personal philosophy among the masses. This mass change in personal philosophy has large historical value.
In each time period of human civilization one cannot refer to the wars, revolutions, and mass philosophies as small items. These have a large effect on population growth. Wars can increase or decrease population growth by large amounts (the american baby boom for instance). Revolutions and wars can bring about social orders that affect the personal decisions of the masses.(I'm using masses as a normal distribution curve, or a set of them, here which isn't necessarily ideal for the situation but it does illustrate a point.)
Just as Socrates and Aristotle created the field of science by asking the people to question societies dictates I believe that our current abilities in technology pose ethical and moral questions. I believe that nanotechnology and genetics pose questions that will lead to the following changes in philosophy of the masses.
All of these can be answered f, for lack of a better answer.
1) What is your race or ethnic background? (This is a major one that might change the number of ethnic/religous wars happening now. Ntech and Genetics could possibly remake atleast your exterior so that there is little difference between races.)
a)It won't change because I love being_______ and I have strong ties to religon and my specific culture.
b)Haven't thought of it
c)Ntech and genetics can't do that
d)technology doesn't affect culture
e)I might try being a different race at some point
2)Is a genetic clone your brother or your son?
a) no it would be improved and due to evolution design your son
b)it is your brother
c) it is your son for no specific reason
d) it's another person and has no cause on population growth
e)If it is the same what's the point of making it and if it is better why didn't I make the improvement to myself instead
3)What does it mean to be human vs. superhuman vs. genetic altered human?
a) It doesn't mean anything since human is in all of those titles
b) It is preposterous to believe that such things can be due to current technology
c) am I more bird, etc. or human?
d) It has nothing to do with zero population growth
e)If I can become anything I want I would rather explore the opportunities than have a child and have to stay on planet earth and raise him/her/it
4)What level of acceptance do you place on other beings or human beings?
a) I accept all others regardless I am not a racist etc.
b)I accept those I meet but I think the world is a bad place which means I reject most of the people out there
c)I don't accept that anyone else has any value to me all of them are boring and never have unique thoughts and therefore can not contribute
d) I accept only the good in people and I reject the evil
e) I try not to classify people because they are living organisms and defy almost every classification standard but I do know when I don't like someone
5)Is there such a thing as a human family?
a) No we are all islands unto ourselves
b) No we are largely genetically different between races
c) Yes genetically we are over 99% the same
d) it doesn't matter to zero population growth
e) Yes and I shall do my best to teach my family and myself right from wrong rather than having a child.
6)If there is a human family should raise each other rather than creating new members of which we can raise?
a) what do you mean by raise
b)But I want a child of my own so that I can see a little me running around
c)I believe that my cultural background demands it of me
d) I can't have kids but am looking forward to the day that technology can change that
e)It doesn't matter to the health of society
7)If the internet is creating a global village, as many have stated, then what is the difference, if it is a net culture, of growing up in New Zealand, Japan, or China?
a) I have nothing in common with people who grow up in any other country I am _______
b) In war we always fight the bad, the internet and a global village has no effect on culture
c) I'm not on the internet often and It makes only a small contrabution to my philosophy
d) I live without a computer and therefore I can't see this and it doesn't affect the people around me either
e)I have many things in common with people world round and I look forward to having a global village
8)Do I have more in common with someone on the opposite side of the planet than my relatives(including primary family members)?
a) maybe
b)definitely
c)Don't know anyone
d)NO!
e)Yes I chat with people all of the time
9)Who do I talk to more and if they are not family why?
a) Sisters and brothers(in the traditional sense)
b) Mother and Father
c) Friends
d) Co-workers
e) Net people
I believe that I have my answers to these questions and it makes for an entirely different viewpoint on the area of ZPG. I would like to hear your own.