Does government intervention seem to be the only solution for the modern environmental-ecological crisis?

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,014
Italy, Lago Maggiore
@AlpinLuke: OP talked about environmental issues, you talked about colonising other planets. That makes it look like we shouldn't even try to better our environment, we should wait to go to other planets. If this is not what you meant, then I don't understand how it was related to the OP.

I was not reasoning about something which will happen after I die. This is about how we view our current environmental problems.
In Italy environmentalism is not politically oriented. We do think that we have to reduce drastically pollution [already this would help a lot!], erase plastic and avoid to issue greenhouse gasses. From left to right it's the same. This is the reason why in Italy there isn't political fight about environment ... we are all "green".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offspring

Offspring

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
8,126
România
In Italy environmentalism is not politically oriented. We do think that we have to reduce drastically pollution [already this would help a lot!], erase plastic and avoid to issue greenhouse gasses. From left to right it's the same. This is the reason why in Italy there isn't political fight about environment ... we are all "green".
It's similar here.
 
Jun 2016
1,860
England, 200 yards from Wales
No ... our future is to develop a technology to allow us to colonize other planets in this solar system or even in other solar systems. The human species goes forwards ... it's our "signature" in history.
Considering that the pace of space exploration has slowed down rather in recent decades, and considering the predicted timescale of climate change effects, it seems very unlikely that we will dvelop a technology that will make the colonisation of other planets in our solar system (Mars presumably) possible in time. As for developing technology to get to and colonise planets of other stars......................
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offspring
Oct 2017
243
America ??
@AlpinLuke

I do like your ideas, but as others have explained, it’s sadly probably far from realistically possible, resource wise combined with the predicted timescale of climate change. Unlike space sci-fi related topics, our current environmental-ecological crisis is far from fantasy & hypothesis; it’s very real, obvious & predictable, as well as soon, if not immediate, basically a current & immediate issue, not to mention long term effects. Doesn’t this qualify for traditional text book definitions for apocalypse & armageddon, traditionally more the stuff of literature?

In regards to colonizing space, I think the first big problem to address is how to create sustainable oxygen & crops, I think the only solution is to alter the atmosphere of another planet, mars currently being the only possible candidate, but that would take a minimum of a few centuries. Current space technology, which ranks among the most advanced of human achievement, just manages to scrape by being in free-fall above us. The Apollo Program has been the only instance of other planetary travel by far, & like with the ISS just managed to scrape by to put it simply, & even that’s highly subject to conspiracy theories. While I know next to nothing about the Apollo Missions, it does certainly strike me for being way ahead of the known technology of the time.
A good question regarding your points would be how advanced is space exploration bound to realistically be?

My other post on the other hand would be a better place to discuss your points wouldn’t it? :

Age of Discovery compared to space exploration?
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
1,617
U.S.A.
Terraforming mars is a fantasy at best. It has a third less gravity than earth, studies have shown long-term exposure to lower gravity can be detrimental to your health, that makes living there impractical. Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, meaning its regularly bombarded by radiation, making walking around outside impractical. Finally, the martian dust produces significant friction, causing regular electric shocks that can short circuit unhardened equipment and potentially harm humans. Even if you melted the poles and flooded much of the planet (and hoping the water didn't just evaporate into the atmosphere), the soil would be nutrient deprived and anything you managed to plant would be killed by radiation. The best you could hope for on mars, is an enclosed colony with artificial gravity and imported soil.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,961
Sydney
Modern societies did not cancel population numbers limitations ,
it simply pushed them further using non sustainable means
populations will re balance themselves once those means are exhausted
 
Jun 2016
1,860
England, 200 yards from Wales
Modern societies did not cancel population numbers limitations ,
it simply pushed them further using non sustainable means
populations will re balance themselves once those means are exhausted
I think you have a point in your first two sentences.
However the term 're balance' is a rather mild description of what that process would be.
Wars over water and other resources, famine due to crop failure, flooded cities - it wouldn't just mean an adjustment of population numbers in societies, but probably the destruction of those social structures too.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,961
Sydney
" the term 're balance' is a rather mild description "
when one get to the bottom of it people are protein transformed
nothing is lost , all is recycled

8 billions people are a protoplasm weighing 440 million tonnes
equivalent to a cube of 760 m on the side of ravenous hunger
this is one organism , the largest animated creature on the planet and is eating it all
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
1,617
U.S.A.
^@VisigothPanzer

Well said. Do you know how possible is an enclosed colony there?
In theory its possible, but would require significant investment and more advanced technology than we have now. The facility would have to be hardened to resist radiation and electric shocks; as well as host spaceport for landings/returning to earth (or for early on just land supplies near it). Alternatively we could build an orbital elevator (which we could do with current technology on mars, horribly expensive though) to cheaply transfer supplies from space to mars' surface.
You would have to build the base near sources of frozen water just to be sustainable. To make it more practical, it should produce something (unless its just for tourism), meaning it should be built near mineral resources as well. The mining would have to be done by machines with human controllers to be practical. A colony on mars should be built for a purpose, initially it should be for learning (studying mars itself and how to maintain a colony on uninhabitable worlds{although we should do that on the moon first}), then as a launching point for the outer solar system. Mars would be an excellent place for refueling/resupplying ships travelling/returning from the outer solar system. To this end it would be efficient for it to produce fuel (whatever is available on mars), basic machinery/spare parts and food/water. More or less a colony on mars would be like Hawaii for the US, a stepping stone across a vast ocean (or space) towards somewhere greater. Once its established the colony could grow into its own, like Hawaii did, becoming a popular tourist location. Who knows, mars could have theme parks and racetracks in the future. Ultimately, like all colonies it will have to be self sufficient or profitable to be worth the effort.