The future of British Society.

[WestmidsChippy]

What rights, they have to be earnt.
Totally agree with that statement. The indiginous population in this country appear to be overlooked. Oh, let's not put the Saint Georges flag up incase it upsets a certain section of our community. Let's not call it the Union Jack anymore - it has to be called the Union flag?
Let's not call it the Mecca bingo hall anymore. For goodness sake, how much more do we have to bend over backwards to appease these people?
Put up or shut up.

the indigenous population is a mix of many different cultures races and religeons all with the SAME rights.

Personally i find all flag waving of any nationality pretty pathetic but the old Union Jack just reminds me of the National Front

and the Flag of ST George just reminds me of when England get knocked out of yet ANOTHER WORLD CUP !

Funny none the people you moan about generally dont give a F@K about it

large sections of what YOU think are the indigenous people are FAT,THICK,LAZY,CRIMINAL and WORKSHY sort those out and you will have cracked it

you have no solutions, you have the odd brain fart/idea which i presume in your mind someone should snowball the idea yet someone perhaps 500+ years ago had already forseen such problems and solved them the very same day.

My solution would be to get my head around on how to turn a planet within distance to our own at this moment in time to become much like the same as our own.

Could it really be that mindblowing for the homo sapien to use the equation 6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2 (PHOTOSYNTHESIS) amongst other s, add 'em all up and manage somehow to turn the moon into earth number 2 in time?
I heard somewhere that teh moon is roughly the same as the earth with no wata/life blah blah.

Can't really see even the most evil of person being able to wipe out half of humanity without any serious consequences.

 

[Susiejb]

well he seems a cheery chappie

 

[sooey]

My solution would be to get my head around on how to turn a planet within distance to our own at this moment in time to become much like the same as our own.

I read somewhere that Earth's population doubles every 43 years, let's call it every 50. That means if you could terraform a new planet to take the overspill, you'd have two planets full of people in 50 years and you'd need another two planets to spill on to. 50 years later you'd need another four etc. etc.

 

[krisdorey]

Ohh

Is the moon

1) A planet
2) A moon
3) A satellite

So ignoring option 1 because a planet orbits a luminary and has a certain mass.

Option 3, Technically speaking the earth is a natural satellite of the sun, and the moon is a natural satellite of the earth.

Option 2, A moon is a celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body

So 2 or 3?

Thread diversion to stop the bickering.

 

[Karinska]

Well, it was a conversation stopper that's for sure kris

 

[Big Tone]

 

[Space cat]

I heard somewhere that teh moon is roughly the same as the earth with no wata/life blah blah.

You heard wrong. It has only one sixth of Earth's gravity and, consequently, no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, the temperature on the surface varies enormously between night and day and radiation levels are dangerously high. If we want to live on the Moon the best place to be is underground; maybe eight metres underground. There is water on the moon (frozen of course) but no life has ever been found. There is no easy way around the gravity problem.

The Moon is an excellent place from which to launch space missions, not least because of its weaker gravity. We would have to take a lot of tools and equipment to get started but the bulk of the material needed to build a base station - and then a starship - is already there. What the Moon is not is a convenient place on which to dump any sizeable fraction of Earth's population - and neither is Mars. Venus might become habitable if we could find a way to modify its atmosphere but where do we go after that?

The whole idea of relying on space colonization to accommodate an ever-increasing population is preposterous. In the abscence of warp drive, any trip to a habitable star system would take decades. I suggested in a different thread that a ship with an anti-matter powered engine that we haven't invented yet could reach Proxima Centauri in twelve years. That doesn't sound too bad except that it might not have any planets. We could be star hopping for many more decades before we find that elusive M-class planet and so, like the Enterprise, our first starship will have to carry a viable breeding population. What happens if they carry on breeding at the same rate as they currently do here on Earth?

Of course we take it as given that the starship inhabitants will control their total numbers; not too many and not too few. But if we're so sure that we can do that on a starship --

WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE DO IT ON A PLANET!!!!!

 

[cantaloup63]

If we could find a suitable planet then transportaion en-masse could quite easily be achieved by an enlarged version of air-tube message systems used in supermarkets. I know that it's feasable since I saw just the thing in the original movie of Charlie and the Chocolate factory

 

[HopDavid]

I heard somewhere that teh moon is roughly the same as the earth with no wata/life blah blah.

You heard wrong. It has only one sixth of Earth's gravity and, consequently, no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, the temperature on the surface varies enormously between night and day and radiation levels are dangerously high. If we want to live on the Moon the best place to be is underground; maybe eight metres underground. There is water on the moon (frozen of course) but no life has ever been found. There is no easy way around the gravity problem.

At the lunar poles (the same regions that have ice) there are also plateaus that enjoy near constant illumination. The temperature swings in this regions are quite mild.

New Light On The Lunar Poles

...Of course we take it as given that the starship inhabitants will control their total numbers; not too many and not too few. But if wer'e so sure that we can do that on a starship --

WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE DO IT ON A PLANET!!!!!

Population growth is often modeled as exponential. This leads to predictions of Malthusian disaster.

However actual biological populations display logistic growth. Logistic is much like exponential growth until the population nears the maximum size local resources can sustain. Then growth slows down.

Here's a pic contrasting logistic and exponential growth:

And in fact, it looks like our population growth is starting to level off.

I like to think of the logistic spiral disk above as a petri dish. Settling other worlds would not ease the population pressure in our petri dish (earth). But it would start the logistic growth spiral in other petri dishes.

If real estate is measured in area, the asteroids have many thousands of times as much real estate available at the rocky planets or big moons.

 

[Susiejb]

 

[ladylola]

Has anyone thought that any planet we could find capable of sustaining life probably already is supporting life?
Imagine the problems if the situation was reversed and an alien ark arrived here looking for somewhere new to live.
If we arrived at a planet that hadn't yet evolved civilliastion such as our world was a few million years ago would we then go about slaughtering the dinosaurs or early mammals to make way for our people or maybe there could be primative but cognative beings on that planet. Surely a huge moral dilemma.
Then there's the question of who would be sent to this new planet. Would we send our best and leave the uneducated masses on earth to continue breeding unchecked or send the "excess " populations away.
Or do we do as Douglas Adams suggested in the Hitch Hikers Guide send that "useless" third of our population (I always recall telephone sanitaztion engineers were mentioned) on the premise that the new planet will have clean 'phones and you could get a nice haircut when the rest of the population got there when in reality the first wave of spaceships were mearly programmed to crash there and thus solve any problems back home.

 

[Susiejb]

Quote:
If we arrived at a planet that hadn't yet evolved civilisation such as our world was a few million years ago would we then go about slaughtering the dinosaurs or early mammals to make way for our people or maybe there could be primative but cognative beings on that planet.

Whenever I have had this discussion before I have always argued that life on another planet would in no way evolve as we have, I imagine they would indeed look like aliens.....surely no other planet would follow the same evolutionary pattern as our own ie dinosaurs ....etc.
Just my point of view

 

[ladylola]

Whilst it's probably true that evolution on another planet wouldn't follow ours exactly and produce humanoid beings remarkably similiar to us and so beloved in especially sci-fi before CGI it is generally accepted that it would or should follow along the same type of lines, i.e. single cellular life in the seas developing into multicellular beings before evolution to colonise the land and eventually ending up with some sort of cognative being.
Either way if it's a planet of amoebas or Einsteins the moral argument would still be valid.

 

[Susiejb]

Yes of course, I fully agree .....what right do we have to go and park ourselves and all our problems on another planet.

 

[ladylola]

And of course simply shipping off loads of people to another planet , even if it were possible , hardly mends our society that the OP was worried about