Extending life beyond the normal. Should we be doing it?

[Heyo]

And if we leave the planet and come to another why would another planet accept us. Wouldn't they just say you screwed up you own planet and that's your fault. We don't want you here. Just a thought.

The idea is Space Migration. Who would want to leave Earth with much effort and plunge down the next gravity well as soon as we get there? No, living in space means living on big ships and space stations.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well in actuality it would be impossible to overpopulate the world.

Did you know that you could fit every person on Earth (almost five billion) into NYC if you placed them shoulder to shoulder?

That’s just the city, not the state.

It’s not lack of room it’s a governmental problem.

Yes I have heard that fascinating fact. It is of course meaningless. Space for humans is not the physical space of the actual human but the space needed to maintain a person which is a carrying capacity influenced not just by land by by land conditions. It was estimated we have already passed the comfortable carrying capacity in the year 2000 and now the effects of over population are already presenting problems. So it is not only possible to overpopulate earth but is happening now.

 

[Bear Wild]

The idea is Space Migration. Who would want to leave Earth with much effort and plunge down the next gravity well as soon as we get there? No, living in space means living on big ships and space stations.

So would you personally be up to space migration?

 

[Heyo]

So would you personally be up to space migration?

Yep, but I fear nobody would want an old wreck like me on such a project.

 

[Spice]

The idea is Space Migration. Who would want to leave Earth with much effort and plunge down the next gravity well as soon as we get there? No, living in space means living on big ships and space stations.

Have you read the sci-fi duology by Octavia Butler: The Parable of the Sower & The Parable of the Talents? They strive for "the Destiny."

 

[Heyo]

Have you read the sci-fi duology by Octavia Butler: The Parable of the Sower & The Parable of the Talents? They strive for "the Destiny."

No, but from what I just read about it, space migration would solve the problems described therein. A space station as near as in a lunar orbit would be out of reach from ballistic missiles, and thus out of reach of the most menacing evils humanity has put on itself.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Yes I have heard that fascinating fact. It is of course meaningless. Space for humans is not the physical space of the actual human but the space needed to maintain a person which is a carrying capacity influenced not just by land by by land conditions. It was estimated we have already passed the comfortable carrying capacity in the year 2000 and now the effects of over population are already presenting problems. So it is not only possible to overpopulate earth but is happening now.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

It’s not a space problem it’s an organizational one. We have the ability to produce an endless supply of food or resources for any amount of people if that’s what we were to prioritize.

We could house them all and provide for all their needs if we as a world wanted to.

But we prioritize other things like borders, laws, wealth……

So while it is certainly possible it’s also certainly never going to happen.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

It's over eight now.

Yeah, and then let them starve? A human doesn't only need a place to stand on, but also a lot of place to get their resources from. And we consume about double the resources that regrow. There are some reserves, but they are vanishing fast.

Of course you are correct but I like to use that example to put things in perspective.

It’s also interesting that only around 100 billion humans have ever lived on this planet.

As for space for resources that could also be solved with the technology we have.

 

[Quagmire]

. . . so I've decided to grab a 4 lb hammer and beat on yellow orange metal. Just think ... in another 10 years. . .

You'll be in great shape but you'll be deaf.

 

[Quintessence]

Anyone asking this question should take a basic college course in ecology and then they will understand why it's a terrible idea pretty quick.

 

[Bear Wild]

Anyone asking this question should take a basic college course in ecology and then they will understand why it's a terrible idea pretty quick.

That was the point of the question. Unfortunately we live in a world that is so disconnected with ecology that people are trying to find the fountain of youth with full disregard to the rest of the world.

 

[Heyo]

As for space for resources that could also be solved with the technology we have.

We could possibly streamline our processes to be about double as efficient as they are now if we had a worldwide dictatorship who's main goal is just that, but then we still wouldn't have room for improving living standards or further increase of population.
It is simply a brute fact that this planet has limited space and limited resources, and exponential growth of anything will come to its limit eventually.
Earth has a landmass of ~150 million square kilometres. About half of that is unusable because it's arctic, desert or mountains. That leaves you with an area of 100 * 1000 metres. A football field is about 100 m in length. You have that space to live on, build roads and factories on, grow your food (including grazing cattle), mine resources, grow timber and dump your trash. With a modest western lifestyle, you need about half of that, so about 500 * 100 m. That leaves the other half to all the critters who also want to live.

 

[JustGeorge]

I think much of the problem is the modern lifestyle so many participate in.

We produce too much stuff. Too many toys, too many luxuries. And the idea that we must live apart from the natural cycles...

I'm not claiming I'm not a part of all this. It just seems that the problems are deeper than just population alone.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

We could possibly streamline our processes to be about double as efficient as they are now if we had a worldwide dictatorship who's main goal is just that, but then we still wouldn't have room for improving living standards or further increase of population.
It is simply a brute fact that this planet has limited space and limited resources, and exponential growth of anything will come to its limit eventually.
Earth has a landmass of ~150 million square kilometres. About half of that is unusable because it's arctic, desert or mountains. That leaves you with an area of 100 * 1000 metres. A football field is about 100 m in length. You have that space to live on, build roads and factories on, grow your food (including grazing cattle), mine resources, grow timber and dump your trash. With a modest western lifestyle, you need about half of that, so about 500 * 100 m. That leaves the other half to all the critters who also want to live.

We can build upwards we can build under ground, we can build on the sea and beneath the water, we could even build on the moon with the technology we currently have.

We can now grow almost any crop in any environment, we can make water, we even have unlimited power if we choose.

The only limitations are those we place on ourselves.

It’s not that we can’t do it it’s that we won’t do it.

 

[JustGeorge]

We can build upwards we can build under ground, we can build on the sea and beneath the water, we could even build on the moon with the technology we currently have.

We can now grow almost any crop in any environment, we can make water, we even have unlimited power if we choose.

The only limitations are those we place on ourselves.

It’s not that we can’t do it it’s that we won’t do it.

I think we're trying.

Though not all benefit.

And we're tearing up the planet in the process.

 

[Heyo]

I think much of the problem is the modern lifestyle so many participate in.

We produce too much stuff. Too many toys, too many luxuries. And the idea that we must live apart from the natural cycles...

I'm not claiming I'm not a part of all this. It just seems that the problems are deeper than just population alone.

It is population * footprint. To keep the current population and not end in a catastrophe, we need to halve our footprint. An easy way to imagine how you can halve your footprint is to contemplate how to live with half the money you spend now.

 

[JustGeorge]

It is population * footprint. To keep the current population and not end in a catastrophe, we need to halve our footprint. An easy way to imagine how you can halve your footprint is to contemplate how to live with half the money you spend now.

I don't think it would be so difficult if we(general we) worked together.

The 'every man is an island' attitude just won't work if this is to be accomplished.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think it would be so difficult if we(general we) worked together.

The 'every man is an island' attitude just won't work if this is to be accomplished.

That's another reason why I'd like to live on a space station, and I think everybody should (or should live as if they are on a space station). The good thing there is that you only have to agree with a few hundred or thousand people. The other good thing (more educational than just good) is that actions have more immediate consequences. Water will be recycled in days, not millennia. You'll become much more conscious about your environment in a small, enclosed space.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I think we're trying.

Though not all benefit.

And we're tearing up the planet in the process.

Yes.

I was not saying if it’s something we could ever accomplish as it would take a level of cooperation that isn’t possible.

I was only saying that theoretically it is possible.

 

[Madsaac]

Science has been making significant progress in understanding senescence which is life's slow process of dying. It may be now possible to alter the genetic code and extend life out for an unknown amount. There are several billionaires who have been helping fund this research. The question is do you think this is a good idea. The character that Jeff Goldblum played in the movie Jurassic Park gave this thought - "Yeah but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should." Although it is tempting to want to extend life, Is there any reason this could actually be a bad idea?

People are having much more 'experiences' now because we can live longer, I didn't settle down until I was 35 unlike my parents who settled down at 23. I, like many others have had the opportunity to learn and experience much more than previous generations and may that continue.

So I'm all for trying to live longer, it's a large part of human evolution, how far can we go?