# Evacuating Earth



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Obviously, you can't evacuate 7 billion people. But how remote is the possibility of successfully pulling this off do you think this is? 250k people off the planet within 75 years? I can't picture it. And how do you seriously make sure that people reproduce in the numbers you want them to without crossing ethical lines? I don't know that you can. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm confused where you send these 75k people once you get them off the planet.

There is no where to send them, unless you make a self-sustaining space station. But that's a stretch because it would inevitably fail without many many redundancies. If it's to be separate from Earth, you can't just have a spaceship re-dock and fix the thing.

So it would have no way to get raw materials and manufacture parts, so it would eventually fail. Unless you brought technology up to the point where it could refit itself from raw materials harvested from space.

Yet then, it's tied to this solar system because it would have need for raw materials. If it goes floating to another star, it would have no materials to resupply itself.

So if you wanted to send something to another star, it would probably be more practical to locate an X-planet or stray asteroid that has raw materials, and launch a fast space-craft to rendezvous with the object, and piggy-back that to another star system.

Or you just stay on the planet until you can move at faster-than-light speed. Which is probably the only solution that makes sense.

I mean, Earth is preferable to Mars, really no matter how bad we pollute our planet, Earth is still preferable. We could have a nuclear war and dump toxic waste everywhere, and Earth would still be a more sustainable place to live. Makes no sense to colonize the solar system unless an asteroid is going to hit. Even if an asteroid were going to hit, we would want to move back as soon as it was over with, unless it was large enough to make the earth molten... which is kind of unlikely.

All we would need is a temporary colony vessel to hold people for a month or something, while it hit.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Couple of things:

1. There will be no need to evacuate the Earth within 75 years.
2. Nobody can predict what can happen in 75 years. Think of 75 years ago. The world was a different place. Nobody can really imagine the technology or anything else that far ahead. 75 years is a long time. I think it is somewhat likely we would have something that could move that many people off the Earth by then.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

hahaha Not keen on spending an hour and half watching it.

But i'd be doubtful of it happening with my range of ignorance towards technology and the sort.
All I keep thinking is they'd have no where viable to go, the amount of resources it'd take to create something viable for 75,000 people to stay alive would be something incredibly expensive and I imagine by the time you want to have this ship it'd be too late to build something of it's competence and size.

My understanding is most things are worth their weight in gold to send into space because of the amount of fuel it takes for every pound. Be nice to build things out in space and have a space elevator to transport things more cost effective but whether these things will be possible in the next 75 years I don't know. The space elevator seems plausible with Graphene but is currently difficult to make and each piece would have to be perfect to maintain itself against the force of the earth spinning and all that.

I'm assuming this ship for 75,000 would need to be habitable because we won't have the capabilities to go terraforming planets within 75 years I imagine and it'd take some time in itself if it was possible. 

I also think that if you got to the point where you've fucked up your own planet what's to stop the next bunch of people from doing the same? Would they maintain the wisdom to do better in the future or would it all teeter off when children have no experience of what life on earth is even like. Even now a lot my generation has little regard for the horror of the world wars, a lot lost in a few generations.
Sounds better to not have an evac. plan and go down with the ship if we can't keep it going because if things got so bad we deserve to die out, we failed the experiment. 

And that's my messy thoughts on it


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I know, we could build a Halo just like the video game  It would only take 5,000 years or more.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Razare said:


> I know, we could build a Halo just like the video game  It would only take 5,000 years or more.


We wouldn't want a halo though, they if i remember correctly were designed to destroy all life for the flood to feed on or something.
Plus I rather now be conscripted into a war against Elites and Brutes hahahaha


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Wellsy said:


> We wouldn't want a halo though, they if i remember correctly were designed to destroy all life for the flood to feed on or something.
> Plus I rather now be conscripted into a war against Elites and Brutes hahahaha


We don't have to make our Halo's into bombs, no that would not be good.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I thought of this:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

In the video, they gave an example of a Neutron Star approaching our solar system. In which case, it would be catastrophic for not just earth but our solar system. In the hypothetical situation, they had 75 years advance knowledge. Theoretically, if earth could actually work together as a planet and put money aside, experts were saying we could build a space craft that could take 250,000 people. That would probably be the simpler part, given that we've done something on a smaller scale with the International Space Station. The real issues would be finding a new planet. There is a good possibility that there are inhabitable planets out there. The question is can we figure out which is which without going there? And how quickly could we get people there? 

The best two options for transportation was one that was extremely unstable and required creating gravitational fields so it didn't touch the container. Or using nuclear propulsion with a design meant to absorb some of the impact of numerous explosions. That would take 80-100 years to get where they would need to go. They would need gravity for reproduction etc... Oh, and they were pointing out the importance of genetic diversity. Ideally, of those 250,000 people, most of them would come from a variety of countries. 

Anyway, they had some interesting ideas. But it seemed very much the idea of a capsule so that at least some of humanity could survive. I doubt that humanity would be that co-operative at this time. I think we would sabotage ourselves and nothing from this planet would survive in that scenario.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

We don't have the tech to handle that. We wont have the tech for quite a while.






Oh man, that list of videos on the side is nothing but documentaries. I just got a raging brainer.


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

Hahahaha, might be indicative of my mbti type but my first thought was not whether this is technically feasible but - which 250 thousand people would be taken? And how to select those who would be the most appropriate for starting a new civilisation, anyway?

I'm concerned that those with most money and power would just buy up all the spaceship tickets in advance :-D


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

One of the many problems with traveling in space is that to go a long distance -e.g. to Mars- people will get radiation poisoning. We haven't figured out many ways to sustain ourselves in outerspace. Another problem that long term effects is heart weakness from low gravity and this is not easily rectified even when returning for many years back on Earth or ever for some because it can be a permanent problem.

These are the first things that pop into my head when I saw this thread, but the short of the long of it is that I'm not going to be the first. haha


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

The 1959 film, _On The Beach,_ has a more plausible ending than saving a remnant of humanity. Probably no one would want to go on an open ended mission to Maybe. There is no reason to believe technology to lift that kind of mass out of a gravity well is possible. There will be advances in technology but not nullifications of the basic laws of physics. 

The death of humankind is probable due to overpopulation and exhaustion of basic resources, with warfare and disease as the killing instruments. So. . . Bye, Y'all.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> One of the many problems with traveling in space is that to go a long distance -e.g. to Mars- people will get radiation poisoning. We haven't figured out many ways to sustain ourselves in outerspace. Another problem that long term effects is heart weakness from low gravity and this is not easily rectified even when returning for many years back on Earth or ever for some because it can be a permanent problem.
> 
> These are the first things that pop into my head when I saw this thread, but the short of the long of it is that I'm not going to be the first. haha


If you watched the video, they showed designs for rotating spacecraft that provided gravity. I did wonder about radiation though and I didn't see anyone addressing that concern. 



OldManRivers said:


> The 1959 film, _On The Beach,_ has a more plausible ending than saving a remnant of humanity. Probably no one would want to go on an open ended mission to Maybe. There is no reason to believe technology to lift that kind of mass out of a gravity well is possible. There will be advances in technology but not nullifications of the basic laws of physics.
> 
> The death of humankind is probable due to overpopulation and exhaustion of basic resources, with warfare and disease as the killing instruments. So. . . Bye, Y'all.


Exhaustion of resources is very likely. Controlling greed is very difficult. Overpopulation, probably not. Birth rates have been dropping across the board all over the world for decades. Continued population growth is related to improved life spans. We'll see a peak and then a rapid decline in population. 

No one would seriously consider moving a space ship in one piece into space. The International Space Station was made in different countries and shot to space by these different countries. It goes without saying space craft would be assembled in space. 

But like I said, I doubt that in an emergency the world would co-operate on this level.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> If you watched the video, they showed designs for rotating spacecraft that provided gravity. I did wonder about radiation though and I didn't see anyone addressing that concern.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I had to go to work this morning so I didn't take the time, but I will watch it now. I've seen space station designs for gravity back when I was a kid... ya know. Basic Space Odyssey 2001 thingies.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

If space colonies were to develop, humans would have to know how to build self-sustaining ecosystems before getting the hell off of the planet. Hell, maybe some people could live in underwater cities too!

There's an astrophysicist and permaculturist who wrote a book on development of space habitats called Gaiome. Here is his website:

Gaiome: Notes on Ecology, Space Travel and Becoming Cosmic Species


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

This reminds me of 2012 the movie with John Cusack.

I think I'll opt to stay on Earth because it makes no difference to me whether humans lasts or not. You can take my seat. :wink:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> This reminds me of 2012 the movie with John Cusack.
> 
> I think I'll opt to stay on Earth because it makes no difference to me whether humans lasts or not. You can take my seat. :wink:


2012 movie sucked so much! 

Would you be able to stand by that decision comfortably? Just waiting to die? I don't think my survival instincts would be that accepting. I mean, I can imagine accepting death for principles. But accepting no hope in catastrophe isn't likely. Even knowing I was going to die, I'd probably still try anyway.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> 2012 movie sucked so much!
> 
> Would you be able to stand by that decision comfortably? Just waiting to die? I don't think my survival instincts would be that accepting. I mean, I can imagine accepting death for principles. But accepting no hope in catastrophe isn't likely. Even knowing I was going to die, I'd probably still try anyway.


It is hard to say what anyone would do when facing that sort of thing, but I'm uninterested in grappling for survival and then leaving behind others on Earth who will have to be left behind. The thought of it makes me think that I'd rather wait to see what happens and pray the end will be quick.

I've faced death a couple of times and found myself surprisingly calm when it came to a decision that death was better than living in pain or fear.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> 2012 movie sucked so much!
> 
> Would you be able to stand by that decision comfortably? Just waiting to die? I don't think my survival instincts would be that accepting. I mean, I can imagine accepting death for principles. But accepting no hope in catastrophe isn't likely. Even knowing I was going to die, I'd probably still try anyway.


I liked 2012... and John Cusack. LOL!

May be I should reference Wall-E instead.


----------

