THE COLONIZATION OF OTHER PLANETS AND THE SURVIVAL OF MANKIND - PART ONE
Although this issue has been brought up previously by renowned authors and the like, it most recently was brought back into focus by Stephen Hawking's June 13, 2006 lecture where he suggested that the survival of the human race depends on its ability to colonize other planets.
As a sidenote to this point, please be aware that I made this same suggestion on September 1, 2005, albeit with a bit more colorful language and minus the "world-renowned physicist" tidbit...and a sidebar about how irresponsible most citizens and businesses are with resources that won't always be available.
"We're all going to die, nature is going to systematically kill us all (overpopulation, wars, storms, disease, famine), and noone can do anything about it. Unless we get into space and start colonizing other planets IMMEDIATELY!!! We need to get into space to 'rape and pillage other planets' because of our oblivious unsustainable continued (ab)use of our (Earth's) depleting natural resources."
Overpopulation - The world currently has over 6 billion inhabitants, with estimates that this will reach around 10 billion by the year 2050. Combined with several other key factors, how many people can the Earth sustain? For how long? There are several other factors that will play an enormous role in this, including the rise of the average age and medical/technological advancements that will essentially save everyone from illness or premature death.
Natural Resources - To date, there have been several contradictory predictions on both sides of the argument. Paul Ehrlich said, "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Meanwhile, Julian Simon claimed, "We now have in our hands in our libraries, really the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... We [are] able to go on increasing forever." An interesting comparison prediction by David Pimentel claims that "...population outcomes for the 22nd century range from 2 billion people (characterised as thriving in harmony with the environment), to 12 billion people (characterised as miserable and suffering difficult lives with limited resources and widespread famine)." Granted, these are simplified predictions that don't take into account the rich/poor disparity where, say, currently 2 billion of our 6 billion people are eating sufficiently while the other 4 billion are miserable and suffer from limited resource availability. Perhaps the only thing we can rule out is that, no, we do not as yet have the technology or ability to produce enough resources to support the ENTIRE population. Not all of the world's resources are plentiful or recyclable, and if the population continues to increase we run the risk of running out of certain resources, from food to fuel, because recycling will only accomplish so much.
Health and Medical Advancements - Technology and medical advancements continue to improve the quality and longevity of lives. Life expectancy in developed countries continues to increase, and is expected to increase from 77 years of age in the U.S. today to the mid 80s by 2050, and perhaps extend into the 90s thereafter. What effect will this have upon other resources, particularly coupled with how the same technology advancements are also decreasing the number of premature infant deaths?
AIDS/Cancer/Genetically Engineered Virus - It's sad to think that one of the only things keeping population growth in check at all is that no perfect cure has been developed for AIDS, cancer, or several other diseases/ailments. AIDS claimed roughly 3 million lives in 2005 and cancer claimed at least twice that amount. Meanwhile, China said its 'one child' policy has prevented over 300 million births.
War/Nuclear War - Another sad thing keeping population in check is war. Technological advancements have helped make attacks more precise; to focus on key targets and minimize collateral damage. The current Iraq war is estimated to have between 214,000 - 655,000 casualties, whereas WWII had upwards of 70 million deaths. However, this ability to minimize damage will be erased in one instant if a nuclear war were to ever occur, and with more and more countries gaining access to nucelar weapons and building stockpiles this becomes a growing concern. Aside from population damage, nuclear war could potentially devastate resources and infrastructure.
Global Warming - Even if the skeptics are 'right' that mankind is not having an affect on the environment - that storms are not getting more severe, the Earth is not heating up because of it, and the polar icecaps are not melting - is it really so much to ask to be a bit more responsible with what we've got. Regardless, we've got plenty of other issues to deal with. But, really, is the Earth capable of enduring an endless number of people treading on it, using every last square inch to mine, manufacture, or produce resources and goods? If it hasn't already, even if it can't fight back, Mother Earth will suffer for it and so will mankind.
The Unknown - An asteroid pulling an 'extinction of the dinosaurs'. Aliens turning out to not be as friendly as we'd previously thought little green monsters would be. Robots take over.