>>13688604>all the evidence we has point to negative population growthNo evidence we have points to negative population growth. You listed 2 countries, one of which is a tiny overcrowded island, the other if which has positive natural population growth.
>Do you think poor Africans will develop an effective space programNo, I think the US is developing sn effective space program
>>13688627>our population is still rapidly expanding, I'm gunna guess you haven't thought this through to well.Where is the word over polulation in there? The post I am replying to made the argument that aliens wouldn't want to expand just like we don't. My response was pointing out that 7% of the humans ever alive are alive today. And that we are still expanding.
Anything to do with overpopulation is a figment of your retarded little imagination.
>That's where you moved the goal posts, and it's completely unsupportable.I never moved goalposts and it absolutely is supportable. You are throwing out 300,000 years of steady population growth in favor of a couple years of negative. That isn't rational thinking in the least.
>A "couple" (your words) would be comparable to Earth's habitable land area. 11 of them would be equivalent to all the land on earth and you could absolutely fit a population of a couple trillion on the planet. Assuming efficient use of all land and food grown in orbit.
>Wow, are you suggesting time dilation/contraction as a survival mechanism? No not at all, I am suggesting pushing stars closer together to increase the star forming period of their region. Perhaps in a much much more extreme scenario even counteract the effects of dark energy. Though I'm not sure if there would even be living stars left by the time dark energy would have any major effect on a galactic scale.
Which brings me to my next point
>>13688637>and throw in "slow" while we're at it.It doesn't have to be fast, we are talking a timespan in the billions of years here.
