On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 3:01:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 9:58:51 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > For the same investment, one could relocate much higher numbers of people to
> > Texas, which would be easier to terraform.
> While not a practical solutiion, that was funny. More seriously, perhaps Canada
> could consider dedicating, say, Baffin Island to the relocation of excess populations
> which we don't wish to accept as immigrants. Terraforming of a sort would be required,
> as it's too cold for effective agriculture at the moment, but it would be much easier
> than what Venus or Mars would require.
>
Perhaps we could terraform Earth so that these huge cold areas could support vastly more people? We could call the project "global warming".

John

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Actually, I believe it was long ago established (in SF circles) that
>> it was /impossible/ to reduce Earth's population by transportation
>> because /people would be born faster than they could be removed/.
>
>Of course it is impossible to reduce the Earth's population by
>sending people into space... quickly enough to avoid the need for
>limiting reproduction in order to avoid mass famines and so on.
>
>However, there is one point that is missed by simply showing that
>there's no way we could launch people into space fast enough based
>on how much it costs NASA. And, no, that point isn't Elon Musk and
>his new cut-price competitors.
>
>Remember that guy Gerard K. O'Neill?
>
>We could send a small number of people out into space, and have
>them set up permanent colonies. And these colonies could grow.
>
>Given enough time, these colonies would grow using the resources
>of the Solar System to support a population of *trillions*.
>
>Then, while the Earth couldn't afford to export even a modest
>population increase to space from its resources... the space colony
>population could expend but a modest fraction of *its* vast resources
>to achieve that end.
>
>So if one takes good enough care of the Earth so that it will last for
>a few more centuries, there _is_ a way out for all of us - or, rather, for
>all of our descendants living there in that age.

So you're saying that the space colonists will forcibly transport the
savages out the park?