"Even 100 million people could easily deflect an asteroid"
is that right? even now no one with expertise is willing to claim we could successfully do it. sure, we'd try, but literally everyone admits that attempts to divert or destroy a large impactor could fall well short. and time isn't even the main factor. the problem is that we're just not prepared.
one thing is certain. the division of labor is an advantage that in general increases faster than an increasing population and would decline in the same manner if the population were falling. that is, the advantage isn't linear. if there were just a dozen or so people on earth, they'd be too busy trying to survive to do much else. they'd need more people and progress would be slow. on the other hand, with a large and increasing population the spectrum of what people would be able to do rises quickly. yes that advantage can be destroyed with rising indolence, taxes and regulations, but then that's always the case no matter the size of the population. so far, the larger the population the easier our lives become. and it looks like we can support many, many more people. with the right morals and ethics our standard of living would continue to rise for a long time to come.
but you seem to want to have a declining population. why? any arising problems can be more easily solved with a growing population. we'd have a widening spectrum of things that could be done. but i suspect that you don't believe any of that. i think you want a declining population. you should be working for bill gates, as his views are the same. and if you really want a shrinking population, may i suggest that you go first.
"$100 per person = $10 billion to deflect an asteroid = easy peasy."
yeah, 'easy peasy' except that with a shrinking population, all else being equal, your labor becomes worth less. you won't be able to buy what you think you'll be able to buy. and even if you could afford to buy what you need, much of what you need wouldn't be there anyway. it wouldn't exist. there'd be fewer people making things. so there'd be fewer things. and if you're going to try to deflect an impactor, you're going to need more things, not less. that's what i meant when i said there wouldn't be enough people to adequately respond. |
