(OT) Possible extra-solar planet

[Zappo]

1) Life always expands into every available niche.

Then why has growth almost stopped in various European countries (discounting immigration)? We don't lack resources.

 

[s/LaSH]

Why has growth stopped? I can think of two reasons. One, Europeans are no longer truly alive. (Although I think that applies better to American consumer zombies...) Two, that isn't actually an available niche. Everyone in developed countries has evolved, not only into territory they need, but territory they want, which are two very different things. And now that the niche is filled but not used... well, you see my point.

Abrupt change of talk:

Genetic modification, anyone? It'll be what takes us truly into space. Without an ozone shield, every other planet is exposed to deadly solar radiation, not to mention crazy atmospheric contents and poisonous gasses. In fact, Jupiter's magnetic field is so strong that you couldn't survive on one of its moons without an advanced radiation shielding suit. So gelfs will be the ones to live on such worlds. (Gelfs being Genetically Engineered Life Forms for the uninitiated.) Now, many of the confirmed extrasolar planets seem to be much closer to their stars than Earth, AND are much larger than Jupiter, hence probably magnetic on their own. Anybody even thinking of living on or near one of those behemoths is going to have to go through some pretty heavy germ-line modification.

And that's definitely going to be possible by then...

 

[Matt Black]

Mining won't cut it, because it is more cost-effective to mine here and then recycle.

Have to disagree with this. Mining of the asteroid belt could be extremely cost-efficient, especially if most of the operations are robotic (sustaining human life there would be the most expensive prospect). Once you have your initial setup in place - a processing plant on a larger asteroid, drones to tow in small, metal-rich asteroids, a small habitat for the techs - the subsequent costs would be small. Transport could be very cheap, because you're dropping materials down into a gravity well, rather than lifting them out. And without over-mining or environmental concerns, you could turn out huge yields. The profits for the corporation which managed this would be massive.
Recycling, on the other hand, could never yield the same magnitude of profit for a single corporation.

Let's face it, world governments, which have attention spans of exactly four years, will never commit to these sort of projects, which might take a decade or more to show returns. I think it'll happen, but it'll be in the hands of private enterprise. Same goes for manned missions to Mars.

 

[Brisk-sg]

Have to disagree with this. Mining of the asteroid belt could be extremely cost-efficient, especially if most of the operations are robotic (sustaining human life there would be the most expensive prospect). Once you have your initial setup in place - a processing plant on a larger asteroid, drones to tow in small, metal-rich asteroids, a small habitat for the techs - the subsequent costs would be small. Transport could be very cheap, because you're dropping materials down into a gravity well, rather than lifting them out. And without over-mining or environmental concerns, you could turn out huge yields. The profits for the corporation which managed this would be massive.
Recycling, on the other hand, could never yield the same magnitude of profit for a single corporation.

Let's face it, world governments, which have attention spans of exactly four years, will never commit to these sort of projects, which might take a decade or more to show returns. I think it'll happen, but it'll be in the hands of private enterprise. Same goes for manned missions to Mars.

If I remember right, there are already companies interested in landing small probes on some asteroids to "claim" for ownership so when this eventually does come to pass they can mine them. Most or your asteroids are very large, and composed of a primary material (in some cases gold, iron or other valuable minerals). In some cases, the estimated amount of valuable minerals on a single asteroid is greater then or equal to the amount of the material found on earth.

 

[William Ronald]

Briefly addressing the population issue, I suspect that the world population should stabilize at 10 billion and decline based on current U.N. projections. Assuming that there is a gradual increase in living standards world wide, there is a likelihood for smaller families throughout the world. (In the First World, many women work and families are smaller. Also, large families in Third World countries do serve an economic role. In developing nations that are experiencing economic growth, there is a trend towards smaller families.)

I suspect commercial interest in space would spur further exploration. It may not be necessary to genetic modify human beings for new environments, but rather to work with making habitable structures. (For example, using lunar materials to build a moon base.) Also, I suspect there would be a lot of reluctance by people to genetically modify themselves for a new environment. (That and the political headaches would be tremendous.)

As for extrasolar travel, that may take a while. The future is uncertain.

 

[s/LaSH]

I suspect commercial interest in space would spur further exploration. It may not be necessary to genetic modify human beings for new environments, but rather to work with making habitable structures. (For example, using lunar materials to build a moon base.) Also, I suspect there would be a lot of reluctance by people to genetically modify themselves for a new environment. (That and the political headaches would be tremendous.)

As for extrasolar travel, that may take a while. The future is uncertain.

But if you look at it from an economic/evolutionary perspective, if even half a dozen people get germ-line modification to live in an extraterrestrial environment without protective gear, they'll immediately be superior to some guy in a radiation suit. Given time, they'll become the indigenous population of an ET locale. And frankly, I think it's unavoidable for something like this to happen. Look at the past year in genetics: Despite huge furores in the media, not one but (at least) two groups have begun human cloning projects (an Italian and an USAmerican); there is vocal opposition, but they are going to happen. The 21st century will be the biotech century, just as the 20th was the physics century. By the end of the century, I wouldn't like to bet against there being substantially gene-altered human populations.

Of course, this is all conjecture. It just seems likely... very likely.

And that's not counting telomere alteration technology. I'm no biochemist, but I believe telomeres (the ends of our chromosomes; they decay with age, I think) are the secret to eternal life. And when someone figures out how to preserve those... brave new world of some kind.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

And frankly, I think it's unavoidable for something like this to happen. Look at the past year in genetics: Despite huge furores in the media, not one but (at least) two groups have begun human cloning projects (an Italian and an USAmerican); there is vocal opposition, but they are going to happen. The 21st century will be the biotech century, just as the 20th was the physics century. By the end of the century, I wouldn't like to bet against there being substantially gene-altered human populations.

Of course, this is all conjecture. It just seems likely... very likely.

As I always say: if something is possible, someone or another does it sooner or later.

Humans of the end of the 21st century won't be the humans of today (heck, we may be humans of the end of the 21st century... and I'm certain I won't be the same by that time, not if I can help it.

And there's always the possibility of Singularity, which pretty much makes any predictions moot.

The future is not the "same old".

 

[Zappo]

Why has growth stopped? I can think of two reasons. One, Europeans are no longer truly alive. (Although I think that applies better to American consumer zombies...) Two, that isn't actually an available niche. Everyone in developed countries has evolved, not only into territory they need, but territory they want, which are two very different things. And now that the niche is filled but not used... well, you see my point.

So, there will be no massive growth until available space massively increases (for example, with the discovery of a survivable planet and the means to reach it). But on Earth, population won't grow to Coruscant proportions, mainly for psychological reasons - which aren't any less important than physical reasons, BTW.

Genetic modification, anyone?

First of all, it is true that all extrasolar planets discovered until now are of Jupiter proportions and completely unsurvivable, but that doesn't mean that there aren't Earth-like planets (or at least planets that can be survived with little gear) out there. It only means that we need better telescopes to see them. It's easy to see something the size of Jupiter.

In any case, unless something really weird is discovered, genetic "modification" of a living being is impossible. It's always something you have to do before conception. It isn't a possibility for grown-up people, and which couple would want their son to be engineered so that he can only live on a different planet than his parents?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

In any case, unless something really weird is discovered, genetic "modification" of a living being is impossible. It's always something you have to do before conception. It isn't a possibility for grown-up people, and which couple would want their son to be engineered so that he can only live on a different planet than his parents?

Genetic surgery is coming.
Nanotech, if one tenth of the possibilities are realised, will make genetic modification of living people a doozy.

Secondly, even if genetic tweaking has to be done before conception (or just before birth), it doesn't invalidate the idea.
First-generation colonists live in habitats.
Their second-generation altered kids can live both in the habitats and outside them, with only some equipment necessary.
Their third-generation kids don't need the equipment except when they visit their grandparents in the bubble habs.

 

[Number47]

Before we got married, I made my wife promise that when there was a moon colony, we could move there. I think it would be a great retirement spot. With 1/6 gravity, some of the problems of the elderly will be alleviated. The biggest problem with a moon colony is the fact that after you've spent a certain amount of time there, you cannot go back to Earth. Your heart would no longer be able to stand the gravity. This is probably not true of Mars, though. Mars has 1/2 gravity of Earth, so coming back may make you very weak but probably shouldn't kill you.

As for genetic manipulation, you aren't going to find answers to withstanding cosmic radiation or breathing methane there. What radiation does to living things is it actually smashes into them at high speed. Where it hits DNA, it cuts and scatters it, which is why radiation causes cellular mutations (cancer). If DNA were capable of withstanding even the amount of radiation Mars is exposed to, there would probably be some very simple life there.

I'm afraid that, rather then genetic mutation, cyborgs are more likely to be our explorers. A human that spends most of their time in a mechanical apparatus is already a good part of the way to becoming a cyborg. There may need to be genetic manipulation involved to get man and machine to work together, but I still think this is more probable than mutation alone.

Don't even get me started on extrasolar exploration. That will only ever be done robotically, period. Unless our entire understanding of physics is completely wrong, faster than light travel is completely impossible. Now, it is possible for particles, sure. But there is no way to do it with a ship. So without ftl, it would take something along the order of 30 years to get to even the closest star. Okay, you say, what about using cryogenics? Well, that may become technically feasible. But with the risks involved, the enormous weight/fuel costs for transporting humans compared to sending robotic probes, why would we? Certainly not for colonisation. Any planet we could reach that would be habitable would have to have life of its' own that we can eat. Anything with life we can eat is too dangerous for colonisation. I suppose terraforming is a possibility, but is any government or corporation going to send a ship 30 years to a planet to spend 100 years terraforming it? Where is the payoff?

Face it, we're stuck in our solar system until our life spans increase so much that 30 years will not be too much sacrifice. I am not even sure it's feasible for humans to live 300 years.