@tempest's comment on 'With global population declining how are we going to sustain a colony on Mars?'

With global population declining how are we going to sustain a colony on Mars?

It's going to take a decade to set up a lunar research base right now.

Safely assume another 20 years to set up a Mars base.

The US has a below replacement fertility rate so you are going to have to send more and more people to replace the population on Mars.

With the world population declining increase in Mars population will be due to decrease in the population of Earth.

This whole system only makes sense if the most advanced society in the world is on Mars ( Only the smartest people went to Mars ), and the poorest regions of the world are emptying out as their people move up the ladder with the most backward regions on Earth being taken back by nature.

None of this works until and unless nation states reach a point where they are again up to replacement fertility levels.

Developed economies do not have above replacement fertility rates.

They are not in a position to send their populations to colonize another planet. It's not a tech issue, it's a manpower issue.

Even South America is below replacement.

Oceania will be below replacement by the end of the decade, and only Africa is going to be above replacement levels.

African IQ on average is too low to send Africans to run a space colony.

In conclusion:

We could build a Mars colony, but we couldn't fill it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

nuclearshill gau/cho 4mo ago #6645016

Before speculating about the possible fertility rate of a Martian Colony we should focus on how to get there and if a colony is feasible.

We don't even know whether Mars gravity (0.38 G) is good enough for longterm human habitation.

!spacechads

20 Context

tempest me/me nuclearshill 4mo ago #6647479

I thought 0.38g was generally considered plenty sufficient? You'll still need to exercise much more than on Earth to maintain bone and muscle mass, but the various bodily functions that implicitly rely on gravity should be fine.

That being said, there's other questions. Like I wonder what effect it'll have on pregnancy.

3 Context

nuclearshill gau/cho tempest 4mo ago #6647503

I thought 0.38g was generally considered plenty sufficient?

We don't know for certain :marseyshrug:

We know microgravity is terrible for the human body (astronauts at the ISS suffer from 1% loss of bone mass per month), but we have no data on low G environments, the Apollo astronauts didn't remain on the Moon long enough to study it's effects.

The Artemis missions will have a longer duration than Apollo (ranging from a few weeks to months), considering the Moon's gravity is around 1/6 G that should give a good idea of the effects Martian gravity will have on humans.

But yeah, there's a huge difference between zero G and .38G.

Like I wonder what effect it'll have on pregnancy.

People born on Mars will probably never be able to walk on Earth.

asshole there/then (>^.^(>O.○)> nuclearshill 4mo ago #6645070

I bet if gravity is an issue theyll just create gravity enhancing living stations that rely on centrepal force. Probably wont be sustainable for a huge population though.