> > > Now, that's an interesting question and a different issue, I think. Because the question arises, if cutting these trees down to make room for people to live is bad, what are we going to do with the people? The population of the world is always increasing; we have to live somewhere. It's not an easy question to answer.
> >
> >
> > These days, the phrase, "science fiction is becomming science fact" has become an over-used cliché. New developments like cloning, desktop computers, quantum computers, genetic engineering, nanomachines, teleportation, etc. used to be scoffed at as cheap fiction. Well, it was just cheap fiction... but that doesn't mean that it was impossible.
> >
> > Not being a physicist, but an avid reader of physics, I have some (probably worthless) ideas of my ideal solution to the problem of an overcrowded earth (if initial costs were not an issue):
> >
> > 1) Make a "beanstalk" out of buckytubes, or carbon nanotubes. Arthur C. Clark suggested a beanstalk years ago (an elevator to space, built atop the tallest equatorial mountain), but it wasn't until a few years ago that we discovered a material capable of withstanding the tidal stresses it would require. Maybe it could be powered by it's motion through the earth's magnetic field as well as by solar energy from the top.
> >
> > 2) Make a lunar spaceport, maybe a lunar beanstalk as well. The lunar regolith (soil) has H2 (nice to have to make water, not to mention rocket fuel), CO2 (which plants can convert to oxygen), and some other volatiles (not to mention the billion-ton ice field at the lunar south pole). Serious metals for construction can be harvested from the asteroid fields, sent into lunar orbit, and construction for space ships would take place in orbit.
> >
> > The general idea behind it all is to build colony ships to ship off the excess of humanity. It isn't easy to ship off millions, perhaps billions of people using rockets... the sheer amount of fuel required to reach escape velocity makes it just a dream. But if you never have to reach escape velocity in the first place, the rules change a bit. Escape velocity is much, much easier to achieve at the Moon, making it a nice stepping-stone. You can build massive, non-aerodynamic spaceships in orbit, send them off to other worlds and moons to colonize. Europa would be another nice stepping stone (I think it's covered in ice, tho I'm not sure if it was water ice or not).
> >
> > Eventually, you run out of lunar volatiles; eventually, the asteroids become depleted; eventually, the billion tons of lunar ice are gone... but hopefully, by that time, it won't matter. All our eggs won't be in one basket anymore, and our colonies might help us out if we haven't developed alternate strategies by then.
> >
> > Maybe this will remain a dream, or just cheap fiction...but maybe, just maybe, it won't.
> >
> > -Enig"reads alot of sci-fi"ma
>
> Wow! You make me want to start reading science fiction again after 25 years. As for the oxygen produced by plankton in the ocean; sure, we can breath that. As long as it's a two atom molecule, it's ok. That might be a good reason to stop polluting the ocean.
>
> As far a population increasing in concerned, there are things we could do about that. However, I don't know that I agree with any of them. After you are around 50 or 60 years, you begin to realize just how fast the population is increasing. No only that, the rate of increase is increasing. I can remember when you could find a place to park. When you could turn left at a light with no arrow. I can remember when red lights didn't have arrows, even in cities. I can remember when people could walk to work quickly and safely. I remember when cites were connected by two-lane highways and airliners had propellers.
> I remember when the doctor's office was in an old house or a room over the drug store. I remember when schools had one room for each grade. I remember when each town had one bank, one post office, one drug store, two gas stations and three churches and it was enough. I remember when a town of 8000 had 300 phones and it was enough. I remember when you had to drive out into the country before getting to the next town. I remember walking all over town. Then I got a bicycle and rode all over town and nobody ran over me. I remember when everybody's parents grew up on a farm and their grandparents still lived there.
> But the population of the country, and of the world, has doubled a couple of times since then and we don't have as much room in the more comfortable parts of the planet anymore. We may have to spread out into the jungles, the deserts, and the snowfields.
> Howard

What I find ironic is that we have 2 different segments of science both working toward a similar goal: preservation of humanity, yet one's accomplishments makes more work for the other. Lemme 'splain... Everything in nature has a system of balance; animal populations are kept in check by natural predators. Save for one another, the only predators humans have is disease. However, medical science works dilligently to cure every disease we have, leaving us with no natural predators, thus allowing us to cheat nature and grow out of balance.
If medical scientists, and now geneticists, were to stop working, those groups who are trying to solve problems of overcrowding would no longer have that problem to solve.
There was a thread a couple weeks ago where someone mentioned the "survival of the fittest" natural law, and how with science we're allowing every member of humanity to survive and not merely the fittest. If this continues, and science is curing diseases and imperfections on a genetic level, doesn't this just make matters worse?
I'm not saying that we should encourage disease to run rampant, or even that a line should be drawn selecting which diseases to cure and which to leave alone, but it just seems to be contrary to the planetary balance.

Tra "a beanstalk to the moon??? -wouldn't rotation and an eliptical orbit make that sort of "tether" a little difficult?" nio