Humanity will shrink in the future: 97% of countries will experience negative growth by 2100

boem@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 382 points –
Humanity will shrink in the future: 97% of countries will experience negative growth by 2100
english.elpais.com
113

You are viewing a single comment

Technology is not going to save us - escaping to space is a pipe dream: hugely expensive and frought with technical challenges and harsh realities like cosmic radiation that will kill anyone outside of Earth's ionosphere for too long. And even if, somehow, we solve all of that, what makes you think that we can make Mars habitable when we can't even keep the planet we've already got habitable?

realistically, living in space doesnt mean making mars habitable, it means getting good enough at life support and indoor farming and building bigger structures in space to just live inside artificial habitats, be that on mars or some other planet, or in space itself, forever. Its not a solution to climate change or such though, even if simply because being able to do it at scale means that the climate changing is no longer an existential threat anyway.

Making a self-sufficient space station is not any easier, and you still need to solve the cosmic radiation problem. How many people are you expecting to live on this thing any way, and how do you propose to lift a space craft big enough to support them all into space? These projects are so pie in the sky I'm lost for words...

its much easier than terraforming an entire planet, orders of magnitude easier. Its difference between building a city and building an entire world. I dont think this is something we'll see anytime soon mind, Id imagine the better part of a century at the earliest for even the most basic ones.

that being said, the answers to the latter two questions are actually much easier: You solve the radiation issue by putting a lot of stuff between the people inside and space, what stuff depends on where the structure is. On a place like mars, itd probably just be a lot of dirt piled on top, or you build underground to begin with. as for the latter, you dont launch it all at once, just as you dont build a colony on another continent by loading an entire city onto a ship. You harvest most of the needed materials from wherever you plan to build it, and construct it in space. You probably send people back and forth in a large number of trips with multiple smaller ships. This sounds very difficult now because we do not have much infrastructure in space yet, and launching mass is very expensive. Once one can both mine materials in space and refine and assemble them into useful forms there, the task is dramatically easier as one just has to launch the people. We wont really be doing any space colonies without building that kind of in-space economy first, which will be a slow process

Yes, that’s why we need to get into space asap. Scaling out space infrastructure to affordable support any appreciable population will take a lot longer than people think, even once we do figure out how to live off-world. We have well over a century of work to make any difference, so let’s get started already

How many people are going to live on this space station? Thousands at most. What about the rest left on a dying planet?

Cosmic radiation goes about 10kmt through the earth, so a pile of dirt won't help. A metric fuck ton of water or an incredibly strong magnetic field would be the minimum. Earth is habitable because it has the later.

What even is the goal here? A tiny group of people are now just about surviving on a small spaceship so they don't have to... just about survive on a dying planet? Not sure I see the win here...

The idea isn't to build one station. A station in this case is equivalent to a city or a town, you just keep building them over time. Not just a handful, but at first dozens, later hundreds, eventually thousands or millions of them. This isn't about some sort of sci-fi "we're fleeing because earth is dying" plot, it's about utilization of the extreme abundance of resources available outside of earth. Again, if you've reached the point of being able to build these, Earth isn't dying, because even if you just totally ignore the climate or even if you've just had a nuclear war or something, you've proven the ability to build livable space on literal dead rocks, so worst come to worst you could build them on earth too and then you have a society for which is effectively climate-proof. Not that this is the goal mind you, it's just a side effect.

I disagree.

Technology is the only option besides euthanasia or actually killing people in a regular basis - and I doubt very much we'd like any of the latter options. Cosmic radiation is solvable and I never said it's Mars we need.

Apart from that: The planet is and will be habitable for quite some time - but we're going back to square one and the question will be: Euthanasia or outright killing those that have no say.

I disagree too.

Degrow already.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Degrow

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

There is another way, the one we seem to have chosen already - do nothing and wait for nature to take its course. Lots of people will die, but mostly the global poor who are far enough away from the 1% for them to care.

Cosmic radiation is pretty easy to stop. 100 miles of atmosphere, about 10 feet of water, or a few feet of rock will do just fine. There is a lot of rock on the moon.

Nothing in space will really help with the climate crisis, imo. It will help humanity a lot if we get past it, tho.