Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 13th, 2018, 01:59 PM   #1
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Northern part of European lowland
Posts: 2,027
What "spaces" are open for human colonisation?


here deadline:the end of this century. There has been many ideas of "space-colonisation", but nothing real of it so far. So for anything but very small numbers I am somewhat sceptic at least before the proposed mdeadline. Others have suggested the deep oceans, but here the same may be said. Homo Aquaticus is so far a fantasy.
On the other hand, as it seems there is warmer climate in sight, there could be more to the territories closer to one of the poles, Here today huge areas are extremely sparsely inhabited, when they are at all. Could a warmer Siberia, Canada, or even Antarctica be used? Or is greening of desserts an option?
Fantasus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 13th, 2018, 02:51 PM   #2

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,806
Blog Entries: 5

There are large areas of northern Canada that are slightly populated and could be home to more people. It's not easy to live in those places, but it can be a nice challenge. People who live in those areas become resourceful. They find ways of building and repairing their own machines with parts they make or re-purpose, they overcome the weather and survive.
Jake10 is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 03:25 PM   #3

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,484
Blog Entries: 19

Not deep oceans ... the submerged parts of the continental shelves promise something. The question is if human beings will accept to go and live under the ocean ... not exactly the safest place to settle.

Regarding space colonization ... eh, we are still waiting for a scientist discovering a way to defeat gravity. Once we defeat gravity we can go where we want. But in this solar system there are few opportunities for human settlements.

Personally I would suggest underwater "isles" on Europa, more that industrial quarters on Mars.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 01:03 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,246

There is just so much space on earth. Japan has built living space over selected coastal waters but deep oceans are not suitable unless you like to drift. We could go underground with artificial light. The temperature is a year around 12 degrees (55 F) at cavern depth. As you go deeper it gets warmer, then very hot, too hot for comfort and eventually lethal.

If we go into space, building orbiting space colonies using materials from the Moon or the asteroid belt is much better than trying to survive on planetary surfaces. Space colonies can be powered by solar energy and provide climate controlled living environments. Fake gravity can be generated by the rotation of a "bicycle tire" shaped colony (which can be stacked for larger colonies). Water will be a limiting factor. Europa (a moon of Jupiter) has a deep ocean, but oxygen (from water) would need to be recycled.

Then again, we could go back to zero population growth (ZPG). China seems to have succeeded in holding their population to 1.3 billion for more than 20 years, if we can believe them.

Last edited by stevev; January 14th, 2018 at 01:15 AM.
stevev is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 05:05 AM   #5

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,806
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevev View Post
There is just so much space on earth. Japan has built living space over selected coastal waters but deep oceans are not suitable unless you like to drift. We could go underground with artificial light. The temperature is a year around 12 degrees (55 F) at cavern depth. As you go deeper it gets warmer, then very hot, too hot for comfort and eventually lethal.

If we go into space, building orbiting space colonies using materials from the Moon or the asteroid belt is much better than trying to survive on planetary surfaces. Space colonies can be powered by solar energy and provide climate controlled living environments. Fake gravity can be generated by the rotation of a "bicycle tire" shaped colony (which can be stacked for larger colonies). Water will be a limiting factor. Europa (a moon of Jupiter) has a deep ocean, but oxygen (from water) would need to be recycled.

Then again, we could go back to zero population growth (ZPG). China seems to have succeeded in holding their population to 1.3 billion for more than 20 years, if we can believe them.
One big factor to consider is food, which is why orbiting space stations don't seem to be able to sustain a population for an extended period of time. In order to have enough food, the colony has to have sufficient farming. I can see that happening underground, but I'm not sure about other places.
Jake10 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:48 AM   #6

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,484
Blog Entries: 19

A colony need resources [fresh water and food], but also acceptable life conditions. How would you persuade a guy from Miami to go and live in Antarctica?

Mmhhh ....


The main problem would be a terrestrial gravity: that's our environment. A different gravity would be not so tolerable in the long period. It would cause irremediable damages to our bones [we would have terrible difficulties to adapt again to the gravity of our world].

So, it's easy to imagine this or that ... but we need 1G. That's the magical formula: 1G.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 12:45 PM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
One big factor to consider is food, which is why orbiting space stations don't seem to be able to sustain a population for an extended period of time. In order to have enough food, the colony has to have sufficient farming. I can see that happening underground, but I'm not sure about other places.
Food, water and oxygen are limiting factors. Hydroponic gardening can be carried out in the colonies, possibly in pods outside the living areas. Water is available from various sources in the near solar system as I said but to reduce costs, effecient recycling is needed. Meat will imported from Earth. Oxygen can be extracted from many sources and recycled. However whether large populations can live in space is a question for future technology.

Last edited by stevev; January 14th, 2018 at 12:47 PM.
stevev is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 12:55 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post


The main problem would be a terrestrial gravity: that's our environment. A different gravity would be not so tolerable in the long period. It would cause irremediable damages to our bones [we would have terrible difficulties to adapt again to the gravity of our world].
The bicycle tire design (at least 2 km across) is to produce a centrifugal force to simulate gravity with rotation. In principle that could be 1 G, but 0.7 G will put much less stress on the structure and is probably adequate. Most adults can afford to lose some weight.

Last edited by stevev; January 14th, 2018 at 01:01 PM.
stevev is online now  
Old January 14th, 2018, 01:04 PM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Northern part of European lowland
Posts: 2,027

Very fine. But so far any "colonisation" is only for the future, and that mean it seems not the immediate future, perhaps the "never" future. Any idea that more than a microscopic fraction(that in most "optimistic" scenario) live outside earth in 82 years seems so far not to be taken very seriously. And Sputnik after all came more than 60 years ago.
Fantasus is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 01:11 PM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasus View Post
Very fine. But so far any "colonisation" is only for the future, and that mean it seems not the immediate future, perhaps the "never" future. Any idea that more than a microscopic fraction(that in most "optimistic" scenario) live outside earth in 82 years seems so far not to be taken very seriously. And Sputnik after all came more than 60 years ago.
I agree. The European migration to the New World began around 1500, but the European population remained very small until about 1700 and didn't really begin to approach that of Europe until 1900. It's impossible to foresee the technology for space colonization 2-3 centuries from now.

Last edited by stevev; January 14th, 2018 at 01:39 PM.
stevev is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
colonisation, human, open, spaces



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are our views of the future more "open" or "closed"? Fantasus Speculative History 5 October 7th, 2017 04:41 AM
Historical Terminology of "Telangana", "Telugu", and "Andhra" civfanatic Asian History 20 September 28th, 2014 07:41 PM
Was "Socialism with a Human Face" in the Prague Spring (1968) an impossible project? PG93 European History 22 May 26th, 2014 08:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.