What is the best case scenario for our race if...

[infinix]

If we never discover how to attain faster than light travel, no worm holes, no hyperspace, no warp engines. We never figure out how to get off our planet because we can't scrap together enough resources to build generational colony vessels...

Under those assumptions, what's the best case scenario for our race?

We could survive the next hundred years, but could we survive the next thousand? Could we solve the energy crises or reverse the environmental impact or solve the food and water shortages? Even if we do, what can we do about world's population?

I don't know, I feel like the only way ensure the survival of our species is for us to actually get out into the cosmos. Your thoughts?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think we make do with our solar system and build giant colonies and space stations wherever we can. We may not be able to travel to worlds in other star systems, but we could still expand outward as a species beyond Earth that way, IMO...

 

[Deks]

Best case scenario?
Get rid of money.

Use existing technologies such as recycling in vast quantities to clean up large portions of those garbage fields and convert them into useful materials we can use again.

Make the switch to new and more efficient energy sources that won't pollute the environment.
Also, we have the technology to explore our own solar system right now and probably find resources that might be hard to come by here on Earth.

I mean seriously... there are numerous options to consider with preexisting technology alone... the most limiting factor is 'money' because it's ALWAYS something we come back to as the main problem as to why is something not done.

 

[sojourner]

"money" is just a paper representation of resources.

 

[Mr. B]

Money isn't a problem, scarcity is. Get rid of that and money quickly loses meaning.

If humanity doesn't blow itself up, it's conceivable that scarcity could be eliminated with terrestrial technology. Nuclear power is already a good step in the right direction of cheap and clean power. A future fusion-or-some-such-thing providing "free" and limitless power gets you a lot closer to eliminating scarcity.

"Perfect" birth control in a century or two should help a little with inevitable population issues, but there is a lot of land yet unoccupied... and of course all the world's oceans are as yet uninhabited by humans.

Hopefully that gets us as far as the life of our sun.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Money isn't a problem, scarcity is. Get rid of that and money quickly loses meaning.

The hidden secret to Trek's "money-less" society--don't tell nobody though, 'cos the debates are entertaining...

 

[Saturn0660]

Make the switch to new and more efficient energy sources that won't pollute the environment.
Also, we have the technology to explore our own solar system right now and probably find resources that might be hard to come by here on Earth.

Like what? Only thing i could see is dumping all tech into maybe into fusion tech.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

"money" is just a paper representation of resources.

... or a tokenised form of barter. Just as well, because otherwise, most of us would starve due to a lack of worthwhile things to swap for food.

 

[KJbushway]

Well if we could build big fusion generators, get rid of 3rd world countries, get along, share our knowledge in a peaceful way, get rid of cars that use gas and get cars that run on a small fusion like pack, if we find a way to bring material back to its atomic roots and store it, then re-assemble it when needed to for water, food, etc. that will take away big dump yards. Propell all spent nuclear reactor rods to the sun. Get rid of money, so that it takes a evil side of us away(greed, lust of power,etc.). Use the deserts as big fields for wind mills, solar panels. Stop drilling into our earth for resources. Plenty of asteriods with nickel, copper, titanuim, other minerals not naturally found here. Yeah I say if we get our shit together we could have a chance.

 

[sojourner]

^Most of that is a long way off, if ever.

 

[KJbushway]

Agreed.

 

[Myasishchev]

get rid of 3rd world countries

Harsh!

 

[KJbushway]

Not in a way like Bombing them. But have the big help the small.
Have the older countries come in, teach the younger generations, help build their infrastructure, set a birth limit law, then slowly bring them up from 3rd world to growing country.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm kidding.

And no or very few countries really need birth limit laws. Overpopulation is a bit of a myth, at least to the extent that it's a problem which is very close to cresting.

 

[KJbushway]

Yes, but you want time between the current growing up population and the newer ones coming out. Plus usually the one mistake is that an early infrastructures get these huge population booms, which bring down its life expentancy. You want a slow and gradual population boom, then when a decade has pasted since other countries have stopped supporting that growing country, then lift the birth limit, but a population down size wouldn't be bad world wide. This way we can get control over resources, then when we find these magical cures(food,water,tech, energy, returning nature).

 

[FordSVT]

I'm kidding.

And no or very few countries really need birth limit laws. Overpopulation is a bit of a myth, at least to the extent that it's a problem which is very close to cresting.

In the poorest of countries, there are no social services, lifespans are low, and childhood mortality rates are very high. People try to have as many children as possible because it's their safety net.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Overpopulation is a problem for countries that are transitioning from a high birth rate and high death rate to a lower death rate. Eventually, the birth rate falls along with it, but it can take a few generations to really settle down. Western nations are already experiencing birth rates barely at or even below replacement levels. China's population will peak in the coming decades and begin to decline. There's really no reason to control birth rates anywhere--it's a problem that essentially sorts itself out, given some time.

 

[sojourner]

^Unless of course, that self correction doesn't occur fast enough. Then we could be in big trouble.

 

[Myasishchev]

The major drivers of "overpopulation" are already curbing their excesses. And everywhere in the developed world but the United States, there is negligible or even negative population growth.

I'm not saying that the current population of humans isn't a problem, just that it's in the process of solution. Unlike in heyday of overpopulation cautionary tales, we can realistically point to a peak human population arriving in our lifetimes, after which human numbers will dwindle. This may even be to our detriment--the intellectual resources of four billion is bound to be less than those of eight billion, all else being equal.

The only overpopulation concern I have is if radical life extension technologies emerge in the near future, and rapidly become available to all social classes and all nations. That would be a gamechanger and I admit I would be terrified of overpopulation then.

But for now, leaving aside science fictional speculation, the new demographic problem is catastrophically skewed sex ratios. Get on the trolley.

 

[sojourner]

I think higher standards of living and technology will offset the reduced number of intellectual resources you cite. There may only be 4 billion, but a larger percentage of them will be higher educated and with more idle time to ponder the imponderables.