New sex drought threatens SS, Medicare, the GDP, the future (Politico report) and more Autism. Young adults are scared.

[_Chap]

So the chance of something big (comets, an asteroid,gamma radiation) ending human life on Earth in the next 200 years isn't really that low.

And so?

(As the French so annoyingly say, when someone says something mildly pointless from any practical point of view.)

[_DoubtingThomas]

Better educated women have far fewer children than women with little education.

In the US and Europe that is a problem, there won't be enough young people to take care of the elderly. But I guess it won't matter because the robots will take over anyway.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Okay, if the world population continues to grow for the next 200 years, what should we do?

It would have to be a truly large asteroid, but the point is we are not likely to have an independent population Mars in the next few decades or longer that could survive if Earth is annihilated by an large asteroid. Even then it is probably way cheaper to build large underground areas on earth to live in and grow food, and you still have more resources available on earth.

Does that solve the overpopulation problem in the next 2 centuries?

I'm not against going to Mars or colonizing Mars with lots of people. I'm just saying over the next century it's not likely to be a viable solution to overpopulation on Earth. If there are some major improvements in space travel and other areas it could be more realistically achievable.

It is challenging, but the tech to send astronauts to Mars could soon available and humans can begin to terraform Mars in 100 to 200 years from now.

[_Themis]

Yup! No doubt about that. We must, and I think we will, find better and more efficient means of propulsion. Solar sails and ion drives are promising, and practical nuclear powered propulsion of some kind (preferably fusion) will probably be perfected before too long. But to be really practical, I think, we must eventually be able to mine and utilize the resources and energy to build and power our spacecraft in space, rather than on earth. It would be wonderful, though, if the Alcubierre drive turns about to be realizable after all!

I am optimistic that we will find more efficient means of travel beyond earth. It's probably then when we will really start to harvest resources of the solar system. Although I would suggest it is way better to for machines to do most of the work. Humans are not well adapted to space and we would need to waste a lot of resources to send them out to gather resources.

I agree that our population is probably already considerably larger than ideal. I still fear there will inevitably be a truly disastrous amount of tragedy and sorrow due to mass starvation, pestilence and war before we finally manage to achieve an optimum and sustainable population level.

I think to remain optimistic about the next century, but it is really hard seeing how things are going and how dumb people can be in large numbers.

[_Themis]

Yup! Everything you pointed out in this post is vitally needed, and presents our best hopes of avoiding or minimizing absolute disaster. If only we could replace Trump and his ilk with national and international leaders with the real compassion for others than themselves and the practical scientific understanding, leadership skills and competence necessary to lead us into that future.

I hope Trump is just a bad aberration, but I suspect there is a trend here. Hopefully Trump will be gone by January and the trend changes in the US and other parts of the world.

[_Themis]

It's 0.000001% chance per year, but that is only for known "Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)." It doesn't take into account interstellar objects, or solar system asteroids that haven't been discovered. There is a 1/10,000 chance that a lot of comets are heading towards the inner solar system. https://www.space.com/28611-star-flew-t ... ystem.html

So the chance of something big (comets, an asteroid,gamma radiation) ending human life on Earth in the next 200 years isn't really that low.

NEO's are quite common since the area that comprises near earth is massively larger then the earth itself. Most of these objects are also not big enough to cause planetary extinction. The star in your link is something we would see today thousands of years away. Larger objects tend to be easier to find and fortunately we do have groups looking for them, although I would like to see more money put into this. As to odds of a big object hitting earth in the next 200 years, it is extremely low. All we have to do is look back in history to see how often we can expect to be hit by large objects.

[_Themis]

Better educated women have far fewer children than women with little education.

In the US and Europe that is a problem, there won't be enough young people to take care of the elderly. But I guess it won't matter because the robots will take over anyway.

Actually one of the main reasons countries let people in is to fill jobs that we don't have enough people for. They tend to be younger as well. It also helps a country grow in population, which in turn helps to grow GDP, which in turn helps us deal with deficits and debt we cannot seem to stop doing.

[_Themis]

Does that solve the overpopulation problem in the next 2 centuries?

To some extend it will help feed the masses, but no it does not solve the overall problem. Sending the masses to Mars doesn't help either. There are massive amounts of Land in places like northern Russia and northern Canada. We don't grow much of any food there because it is not very practical, but if we ever decide to, it will cost a fraction of what it would cost to try doing the same on Mars. Even the MOON would be a lot cheaper. Colonizing Mars is something I would like to see, but it will not solve overpopulation on earth, so it would be better to focus on things that can solve the overpopulation on earth.

It is challenging, but the tech to send astronauts to Mars could soon available and humans can begin to terraform Mars in 100 to 200 years from now.

I would like to see it happen.

[_Gunnar]

I am optimistic that we will find more efficient means of travel beyond earth. It's probably then when we will really start to harvest resources of the solar system. Although I would suggest it is way better to for machines to do most of the work. Humans are not well adapted to space and we would need to waste a lot of resources to send them out to gather resources.

I have no disagreement with that. We will undoubtedly invent better, more efficient and reliable means of space travel, and yes the more we can we can rely on machines and A.I. to do the bulk of exploration and exploitation of the resources we find there, the better.

I think to remain optimistic about the next century, but it is really hard seeing how things are going and how dumb people can be in large numbers.

I used to be a lot more optimistic about the future than I am now, but the election of Trump, and the fact that there are still enough people who resonate with his blatant appeals to bigotry and misogyny to have made that possible, severely damaged whatever confidence I had in the basic goodness and rationality of humanity in general, and Americans in particular.

I was elated when our first Black President was elected, mainly because it seemed an indication that our country was finally turning the corner against racial bigotry and inequality. That elation was dampened when I saw the extreme and unfair backlash against him by conservatives, and took a deep dive when Trump's deliberate appeal to the latent racism, xenophobia and misogyny still existing in America, (which I had thought and hoped was on the wane) succeeded in reawakening those evil sentiments in enough people to get himself elected.

[_Gunnar]

Actually one of the main reasons countries let people in is to fill jobs that we don't have enough people for. They tend to be younger as well. It also helps a country grow in population, which in turn helps to grow GDP, which in turn helps us deal with deficits and debt we cannot seem to stop doing.

Right! An honest and rational study of American history clearly reveals that whatever real greatness we have managed to achieve was made possible, in large part, due to extensive immigration. Contrary to what Trump and his xenophobic advisors (mainly Stephen Miller) would like us to believe, sharply curtailing legal immigration will almost certainly hurt this country, in the long run, more than it helps it. For one thing, it is a well documented fact that immigrants residing in America (even undocumented ones) have lower crime rates than residents born and raised in America all their lives. They tend to be among some of the hardest working and most productive residents of America.