Projected Marsian Population?

Palomar · 2003-12-13 16:00:25

*Cobra Commander made the following statement in the "Nations or World Government on Mars" thread [I'm *not* interested in this turning into a political discussion, however...I'm just quoting the source ]

"If everyone is to have the freedom once enjoyed by the few, the conditions that allowed it need to be restored, meaning large tracts of uninhabited but accessable land..."

1. Suppose Mars is fully terraformed to the point where people can go outdoors and breathe the air without the aid of any artificial devices.

2. Bodies of water resulting from rainfall, etc., take up 15% to 20% of the planet's surface (small seas, rivers, lakes).

3. The majority of Mars (except near to the poles by a few hundred kilometers) is habitable.

What would be the desirable population limit for Mars, do you think? Especially in terms of the number of people per square kilometer? I'm afraid I'm not very good at projecting numbers and things of this nature, so I'm curious for your input.

I don't recall us discussing these sorts of specifics previously...

Thanks.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-13 16:08:37

phew. Depends on how robust the ecosystem is, for a start...

A lot of Earth is landmass that's not really habitable (Desert, steppe etc..) but the surface of Mars is comparable to that of the Earth (that's minus our oceans)

so... Several billions, if you're really good at terraforming, that is. Here on Earth were doing at best a fairly lousy job terraforming deserts, so extrapolations are a bit difficult...

Rxke · 2003-12-13 16:14:54

I think a good minimum area of living (taking the idea of "empty land") would be a 'circle' with a radius spanning the distance you can travel on foot in an hour or two, that way you'd have a place to roam freely.

But i guess modern man will huddle up in cities anyway, this 'Eden' might suit some people, bu not all... Telecomunnication is advancing rapidly, but real physical presence is still that little bit more 'human'

of course you could build some cities, an give everybody a second house in 'the outback' so they can stay where they want...

(and who's gonna pay for that? *grin*)

Byron · 2003-12-14 06:48:44

What would be the desirable population limit for Mars, do you think?

To answer this question concerning Mars, I think we should first ask what should the population limit of *Earth* should be. I've heard from a number of sources that in order for everyone to enjoy a U.S./European standard of living, the total worldwide population should be no more than one billion people, less than a one-sixth of today's level. Some people say the max should be even lower, something like 500 million, which would certainly give rise to those "large tracts of uninhabited but accessible land."

Assuming that you don't want Mars to ever become as crowded as present-day Earth, just figure that Mars will eventually have about 3/4ths of the "habitable" land area as Earth, and base the max population limit on what the most ideal level of population would be here on Earth. That would place the upper limit on Mars at 375 million to 750 million, although the citizens of Mars would likely resist the idea of their population rising beyond, let's say, fifty or one hundred million (face it, even 100,000 people is a lot of people...lol.)

B

atitarev · 2003-12-14 17:37:24

The idea of limiting the population growth makes sense. If we want the quality of life for all people, then yes, the population shouldn't grow too fast. In K.S. Robinson's "Blue Mars" people could live a very long life due to a new treatment but another procedure forced them to have only 1 baby per family. The rights could be bought/sold. At first I felt it was weird and cruel but then I thought it would probably be the right thing to do if the Earth's population reached 20 billion.

As the Martian population will be highly urbanized, at least initially, it'll be mainly from developed countries, where it's not common to have large families and besides migration will be limited for a long time not only by the speed of terraformation but by the capacities of the spaceships. Even with space elevators and faster spacecrafts the travel time will remain too long to allow greater migrations.

As for the livable areas on Mars. I guess, the percentage may be even less than on Earth. At the moment it's almost impossible to predict the climate patterns on the future Mars, how much fertile soil there will be. Tharsis bulge may stay uninhabited (even otside the largest volcanoes), depending how tall the atmosphere goes. Mars will remain colder than Earth, so the livable areas might only be in the equatorial/tropical areas where is enough water or in the areas with warm currents.

In the future people might decide that having just 20% water surface is not enough to provide sufficient precipitation and more areas will need to be flooded. If only Hellas and Argyre basins are flooded in the Southern Hemisphere, the population will concentrate around them (mainly in the northern part, where it's warmer). I think, there must be a network of lakes in the south and maybe a straight from Argyre to Boreal (where it's shallow to allow outflows). I am not sure the canal could be cut from Hellas to Boreal as in Mars trilogy, by looking at the Martian topography, it seems easier to do it from Argyre to Boreal.

Also, I think by the time Mars is fully terraformed and there are enough resources to support large communities, and the transportation is significantly improved, humans will have started colonizing/terraforming other planets/moons, so Mars may never get overpopulated, who knows...

DonPanic · 2004-02-14 04:08:37

LO

The idea of limiting the population growth makes sense. If we want the quality of life for all people, then yes, the population shouldn't grow too fast. In K.S. Robinson's "Blue Mars" people could live a very long life due to a new treatment but another procedure forced them to have only 1 baby per family. The rights could be bought/sold. At first I felt it was weird and cruel but then I thought it would probably be the right thing to do if the Earth's population reached 20 billion.

Before telling such things, U'd better take notice that world population projection by demographs has completly changed,
hardly up to more than 8 billion by 2050, and world population could decrease after 2050.
This because increasing urbanisation equalizes natality behaviour,
urban people do naturally limit the number of children to an average number of two, under the generation renewal rate.
2 children per family is under generation renewal because of accidental and disease losses.
Also take notice that Africa's population long range demographic projection has been made without AIDS devastations coming on.
Last thing, don't ever eclude burst of some pandemia...

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-14 09:48:32

Discussing such a topic is going to require a lot of assumptions, starting with successful and "complete" terraforming. If we take that as a given, the question of desirable population will be directly proportional to how free we want the society to be. The more crowded, the less freedom the individual has. If one person has the entire planet to themselves they can do whatever they want within their physical capacity, as the numbers rise more restrictions become necessary.

Ideally, I would think each person having their own lage "plantation" of sorts, maybe 60-80 acres or so, something expansive but not utterly beyond the capacity of a single person to cover on foot, similar to what Rxke suggested. Something capable of supporting the occupants independently if they so choose, yet close enough that travelling to others is not too difficult.

This would severely limit the population. To give a meaningful number I would have to do some calculating, which I'm not inclined to do on Saturday morning, but it would be low. Perhaps as low as one million, depending on enviromental and other factors.

This arrangement would be more practical if we assume a more advanced technology ("robots," I hear Josh muttering) but that is not necessary if the planet is terraformed. People could live like the Amish on Mars, but probably wouldn't want to.

But then if we assume that people live there before terraforming is complete it's a completely different game. Then we have a history of cowded cities filled with all manner of controls on "freedom." If this is the starting point for Martian society, it's going to have all the limitations and irritations of Earth living even with a small population. When terrafoming is complete the Martians must be driven from their cities into the wilderness! There to spend the rest of their days living like free humans, not cogs in an urban machine.

The long-term implications of this "plantation" approach to colonization is that we would be forced to continually expand to new planets, otherwise we are forced to either crowd people together or forcibly control population growth. Either way, in a few generations we'll have a society whose people are no longer free but who pretend to be because they've been educated to believe it is the case. Which brings us back to where we're starting from.

Well, that was odd.

Mundaka · 2004-02-16 02:25:20

DonPanic · 2004-02-16 09:15:16

LO

the question of desirable population will be directly proportional to how free we want the society to be. The more crowded, the less freedom the individual has.

Are you really sure ot that ?
Freedom isn't only to do what you want whenever you want.
Doesn't variety of things you choose to do rely on the many people working to produce your computer, your movies, the books you read, the car you drive, the TV programs you watch, the food you eat, the artwork you like, the highways you ride on ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-16 16:54:11

Likewise with the population issue: the claim of overpopulation is glibly made by "experts" and we just accept said "facts" because, A) we aren't experts and, B) most of us live in cities and seldom think about just how rural this planet really is.
One thing that has astounded me in the course of driving trucks around the US is just that: the US is almost totally rural -- no, let me amend that: at least half of the US is almost totally forested, or desert wilderness, or empty coastal plains, or isolated mountains.

Good point. As it pertains to desireable population levels though, we still have the same choice before us, namely how "free" versus how urbanized we would prefer. I realise my phrasing implies that "city folk" have less freedom than those who live in rural areas or relative wilderness, and while arguable I agree with this basic sentiment.

Which brings up Don's point:

Freedom isn't only to do what you want whenever you want.
Doesn't variety of things you choose to do rely on the many people working to produce your computer, your movies, the books you read, the car you drive, the TV programs you watch, the food you eat, the artwork you like, the highways you ride on ?

Is the opportunity to go to the movies, or read a book, or download who knows what on a computer freedom? Certainly they are all opportunities available because of a technological society, but we are hardly more "free" than our ancestors for having these things. We have more options on how to spend our time perhaps, but modern society imposes many restraints as well. The more tightly packed a population becomes, the less real freedom the individual will have. The ideal population number depends on what balance we intend to strike between the two.

Another thing to consider, not everyone wants to be "free" in this sense. There are people out there, probably some right here on this board, who actually desire the constraints placed on them, find them comforting. This opens the possibility of a sparsely populated Mars in which the citizens have all the benefits of a technological society (from Terran imports, made by those who prefer that lifestyle) without all the urban/industrial baggage.

Back to the wide expanses of nothing in North America, they have another lesson for Mars. While this land is open, unused, and often fairly cheap; the situation is very different from the sort of "colonial" circumstances of early America or that a terraformed Mars could offer. Namely, if you wanted to lead a band of persecuted dissidents into the wilderness where you can make a better life fo yourselves, the authorities will be right there. It is impossible to go far enough to escape. You'd no sooner have a few huts put up before some rotund bespectacled government bean-counter would start nagging you about property taxes and building permits and any number of other damn things. All in a country with so much empty land that abandoned cars sit on the highways for weeks! Sometimes because no one much cares, sometimes because it takes that long for anyone to notice!

Rambling again, must collect thoughts into something more coherent...

Earthfirst · 2004-02-27 10:59:48

People did goe into the wilderness and started their own society. Salt lake city was founded by the persicuted mormens who just wanted to live their way. They created an entire cluter in the desert, no one much cared either. Untile the transconitintal rail road was planed to goe right thought their great valley. Then they were forced to conform to americas morals, laws, and pay taxes. You can start your own counrty but you have to be strong enough to defined it from people who think that it part of their counrty. A hard thing to do against the USA. But on mars far away from governments you could get away with it for a while. :bars2:

Brian Hanley · 2004-03-04 09:51:39

Cobra mentions the assumptions that have to be made for this discussion, which is wild because the whole topic so far made me think of just that: assumptions.
I'd like to start by saying I respectfully disagree: I'm not sure that many of the assumptions we make about many issues are valid; ...
Likewise with the population issue: the claim of overpopulation is glibly made by "experts" and we just accept said "facts" because, A) we aren't experts and, B) most of us live in cities and seldom think about just how rural this planet really is.
What's more is when you look at a picture of the world at night you realize pretty fast that the US is by far among the most developed: aside from Europe and a few other areas, a quick glance at most other countries and you can see almost no lights at all -- its virtually pristine out there.
I don't think what I just said will be popular, it grates against assumed ecological positions, but I think those positions need to be questioned. For example, Rxke -- a totally rational, intellegent, and even agreeable individual -- made the statement that deserts and steppes aren't habitable. Well, the Mongols not only live on the steppe but like it, and I like living here in the desert. This is not meant as a slight Rxke (I like ya just fine), but as an example of an assumption that needs to be questioned: I remember my impression of what life in the desert must be like before I moved out of the city, as it compares to how I see it now, after a decade of incredible vistas, spicy local wines, beautiful storms, the smell of irrigated pecan orchards in the spring, summer monsoons, the hiss of corn fields in the desert wind, snow under the dogwood trees, and my favorite: the Chili Harvest. Each is a desert reality -- as were the many who died of thirst out here. I'm sure the steppe denizens have similar memories.
I'm especially troubled at how easily we accept these assumptions and how willing we are to make decisions based upon those assumptions: for example, Jaque Coustou (I know I just butchered the spelling of the guys name -- captain of the Calypso, invented scuba diving, etc.) made a galling statement during a UN meeting in 1993: (this is a paraphrase but its damn close) "If we want to save the planet, we need to find a way to get rid of 350,000 people a day in addition to natural deaths, for as long as it takes to reach sustainable levels."

Well, on the face of it, the claim that the USA is obviously more lit up is simply not true. Look here: [http://www.cs.hut.fi/~mox/world-at-night/]http://www.cs.hut.fi/~mox/world-at-night/ Scroll to the right and you see more light in Europe.

It's extremely irritating when people don't do the math or research and base their thinking only on personal anecdotes. Sure, personal experience is useful, but should be tempered by clear thinking and looking at the data.

For example, the aquifer that allows Chris to live in Arizona is archeological water. If he checks out how long it's going to last, he will find out that Phoenix is as good as dead as a city, as is the desert agriculture he refers to. It's just a matter of time unless a different massive source of water is found, then everybody has to leave.

Another little stat is that grain reserves are dropping worldwide. The green revolution gave us an increase in productivity equal to converting all the remaining forested lands on earth to farming. Now, after hitting the limits of that, we need to double or triple what the green revolution has given us. But even if we did, much, if not most, of the forested lands of the world are unfit for agriculture anyway.

We are almost certain to face inundation of roughly half the urban centers in the world over the next 15-100 years, perhaps faster, along with wild climatic swings. That is going to put incredible pressure on world population. Agriculture doesn't work without predictable weather patterns.
See: [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm

Then let's look at Hubbert's peak and the decline of oil.

i.e. This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around. ???

Brian Hanley · 2004-03-04 10:16:16

For a brief discussion of Hubbert's Peak, see: [http://www.oilcrash.com/falling_off.htm]http://www.oilcrash.com/falling_off.htm

Yes, there are alternatives like nuclear and breeder reactors, but even that has problems. (Though global warming isn't one of them.)

Anyway - Mars is going to have much tougher and more obvious limits than the earth. It is of necessity going to be a highly technological society. Perhaps, because of that, it will be less likely to overshoot its carrying capacity. But the fundamental is always energy. KSR did a fair job of dealing with that, although not quite explicitly enough I thought. But he did have nuclear power plants - just no source of uranium.

But, given energy, huge amounts of it that on a per capita basis far exceed energy consumption on earth, Mars can be made into quite a wonderful and exotic place.

Brian Hanley · 2004-03-04 10:20:05

All that is why I think it's a good idea. Mars will be where the next leaps can happen. It can be, given enough energy per capita, a true terra nova, where land taken is not taken away from someone already living there. It can be like the USA, except without the somewhat bloody past. (Though, to be accurate, 95% of all aboriginals in the USA died from disease, not war. But even so.) That, and having another, totally new planet for people is why for me.

I'm not exactly sure on population carrying capacity, but my WAG would be somewhere around 100 million - because of the resource problems and energy requirements.

MarsDog · 2004-04-02 04:52:14

Population increases with technological capability. From stone ax, to fire, to agriculture, to the skyscraper environment. The
ultimate limit is space and available energy. A prisoner can live in a 8x8x8 room, while some people can get by on 700 calories
a day.

Ian Flint · 2004-04-26 12:54:55

Well, although I am an environmentalist, I don't think the Earth really has a set carrying capacity. Malthus thought that Europe would be destroyed by overpopulation. That was over a hundred years ago and it didn't happen.

My basic idea is this: As the population increases people will do two things naturally --

1. People will find better and more efficient ways to produce food, power, etc.

2. People will voluntarily limit their family size if they feel like they are running out of room or resources.

These two things are already happening in industrialized nations. The problem is when people aren't educated enough to control family size or if they are too beaten down and hungry to innovate.

Another problem is when rich, educated societies (like the U.S.) waste resources. For example: instead of helping to control AIDS in Africa, America had to start a war with IRAQ. The government also pays some farmers not to produce to keep prices up/stable instead of just destributing our surplus to famine stricken parts of the world.

The "carrying capacity" of a planet will increase and keep pace with the population of that planet if the people are educated and unselfish.

Mars right now has a carrying capacity of zero, yet we are already talking about millions and billions of people living happily on that planet. People create the carrying capacity of their planet.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth turned into a perfectly sustainable Courosant (spelling?) city planet supporting hundreds of billions of people.

Rxke · 2004-04-26 14:00:04

...the statement that deserts and steppes aren't habitable. Well, the Mongols not only live on the steppe but like it, and I like living here in the desert... ....as an example of an assumption that needs to be questioned: I remember my impression of what life in the desert must be like before I moved out of the city, as it compares to how I see it now, after a decade of incredible vistas, spicy local wines, beautiful storms, the smell of irrigated pecan orchards in the spring, summer monsoons, the hiss of corn fields in the desert wind, snow under the dogwood trees, and my favorite: the Chili Harvest.

*very* belated reply, sorry, thought i replied already, but didn't...

What i meant was: desert/steppe are not really habitable for high concentrations of people, without some means of terraforming, like irrigation etc. I should've written 'readily' instead of really...

Mongols used to be non-sedentary because the land didn't support them, if they'd stay put, only after better techniques (sometimes as simple as digging a well) the land becomes habitable. Your description of the desert (with snow, irrigation) assumes water, but some places on earth are bone-dry, and would be harder to live in w/o modern techniiques (anything post 1700's, say)

But you're right, i was too quick with assuming those places were uninhabitable, hey, humans seem to be able to cope *anywhere* from the bone-dry deserts, to the poles, to Belgium, with it's miserable climate (as Julius Caesar once wrote in the Bello Gallico: "From all Germanic tribes , the Belgians are the most brave.... For they live in a place where it rains all the time, and is cold and miserable" (not kidding, he wrote something like that, of course we only cite the first part! )
For your information: Belgian climate is *very* similar to that of New York, J.C. was an Sun-loving Italian, not used to things like that, he thought we lived in a hellish place...

Palomar · 2004-04-26 15:35:48

For example: instead of helping to control AIDS in Africa, America had to start a war with IRAQ.

*Interesting that AIDS comes up in this discussion. I've previously started a thread about this concern well over a year ago (long since buried; can Search if anyone wants to read it). Just last week I read a Yahoo! article where in the AIDS crisis (not just in Africa) is swiftly becoming a global scourge. Asia/Indonesia is seeing fearful rises in its numbers of AIDS patients, as well as in India (IIRC). Americans aren't wising up either, apparently.

I really don't know what it's going to take. I think many people, in the West at any rate, have this stupid notion that so long as they eat right, exercise, and look halfway attractive they "can't" get it. Meanwhile, morons are bed-hopping like mad -sans- protection.

It's a behavioral problem for the most part, unfortunately nearly completely tied in with one of the most basic of human desires.

Of course I'm all for continued research, making medications available to at-risk people, especially education (preventative strategies), etc. That takes $$...but you can't legislate behavior. And there's the crux of the problem.

This is a REAL mess. It's only getting WORSE. I'm amazed at how many people (in the West) seem so "la-de-dah" about it.

I transcribe medical (and surgical reports) 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. The numbers are distressing. And -increasing-.

Oh well, let's just keep whistling past the bedroom (graveyard)... :angry:

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-26 19:49:14

Interesting post, Cindy.
To be honest, I don't really think about AIDS much at all. I hear reports and read magazine articles now and then which seem to be saying there's a cure almost at hand and so I suppose I tend to dismiss it as a background problem which will go away quite shortly.
Then you come along and remind us all that we're "whistling past the bedroom (graveyard)...", a very apt phrase which would be highly amusing if it weren't so disturbingly accurate.
I guess, since you deal with the actuality of AIDS and its consequences on almost a daily basis, you have a better 'feel' for its gravity than most of us. Humans do tend to forget very quickly about things they don't encounter all the time. Without wishing to place any burden on you when I'm sure you have more than enough on your plate in the way of work and home duties, maybe you have easy access to some of the latest figures for HIV infection rates in various 'hotspots' in the world?
If you do, and if you ever get a moment spare, perhaps you could post a few basic details one time? I am curious to know just how fast this disease is spreading.

Palomar · 2004-04-27 05:42:32

Interesting post, Cindy.
To be honest, I don't really think about AIDS much at all. I hear reports and read magazine articles now and then which seem to be saying there's a cure almost at hand and so I suppose I tend to dismiss it as a background problem which will go away quite shortly. .... I guess, since you deal with the actuality of AIDS and its consequences on almost a daily basis, you have a better 'feel' for its gravity than most of us. Humans do tend to forget very quickly about things they don't encounter all the time. Without wishing to place any burden on you when I'm sure you have more than enough on your plate in the way of work and home duties, maybe you have easy access to some of the latest figures for HIV infection rates in various 'hotspots' in the world?
If you do, and if you ever get a moment spare, perhaps you could post a few basic details one time? I am curious to know just how fast this disease is spreading.

*Hi Shaun. I'll try to dig up some information, especially that Yahoo! article I read last week. Give me a few days at least...

As for a "cure" -- not even. There are medications to help alleviate symptoms and prolong the lives of AIDS patients (mostly available in Western nations). They're working -for- a cure of course, but to my knowledge no cure is forthcoming any time soon.

Yes, it is unfortunate most "humans do tend to forget very quickly about things they don't encounter most of the time..." Unless more people wake up, lots of humans WILL be encountering this problem in ways they'll wish later they hadn't.

The burden on poor societies/nations of numerous children orphaned by this disease is already becoming a terrible burden; in another decade it'll be a crushing problem for them. (African nations in particular, currently) Imagine a nation consisting mainly of illiterate, displaced, homeless, hungry, angry, desperate youngsters with zero family support and little to no social support (because most adults are dead or dying). Rather disturbing, huh?

Then there's the popular media, always and consistently promoting sexualized themes. It's $$$ to them, of course. But it definitely encourages the idea that "there's nothing to worry about."

AIDS isn't the only "social disease" which is spreading like wild fire either.

To be blunt, I think the AIDS crisis alone could keep humanity Earth-bound for a long time to come. The economic impact/fallout alone will be difficult. Now more people over 50 years old are contracting the disease (in the U.S.); Medicare is already on the skids.

It's not a pretty future, folks -- unless behaviors change or they DO come up with a cure. I'll try and rustle up some information to back up what I'm saying here.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-04-27 06:02:07

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/new … =AIDS]List of Yahoo! articles on AIDS

*As per my post (response to Shaun) above, here's a list of articles.

It really does stymie me that, here in the U.S. at least, weight issues and smoking are harped on and on about, as if being 20 pounds overweight or smoking 1/2 pack of cigarettes a day are the most terrible things imaginable...and yet AIDS and related issues are seemingly swept under the rug ("hush, hush") by comparison.

I can't figure out if it's political correctness (don't want to offend AIDS patients or something) or stupidity borne of vanity (physical appearance more "important" than actual health). I sometimes just really DO NOT understand my fellow human beings and the seeming lack of prioritizing issues.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Article #14 may be of especial interest, regarding children in AIDS-devastated nations. I think it'd be the height of arrogance to assume only Africa or poor Asian/Indonesian nations can face this sort of problem.

Byron · 2004-04-27 10:52:34

Cindy -

To be blunt, I think the AIDS crisis alone could keep humanity Earth-bound for a long time to come. The economic impact/fallout alone will be difficult. Now more people over 50 years old are contracting the disease (in the U.S.); Medicare is already on the skids.
It's not a pretty future, folks -- unless behaviors change or they DO come up with a cure. I'll try and rustle up some information to back up what I'm saying here.

Interesting that you mentioned this about older people getting AIDS now, as I heard a while back that AIDS is now showing up in nursing homes all across the country, presumably due to the widespread availability of Viagra...talk about your unintended consequences!

Yes, the AIDS pandemic is a very serious problem worldwide, with millions already dead in Africa, leaving millions of orphans to fend for themselves, along with war, famine, etc, etc.

Personally, I think the United States should seize the patents of all existing AIDS drugs currently on the market and make them available for free or low-cost distribution, both here at home and abroad. As for developing new AIDS drugs (or any other life-saving drug for that matter,) I think that should be the sole responsibility of national governments, otherwise this is only going to get worse as time goes on (we'd be fools to think that AIDS is the only pandemic we'll be having to deal with in this century, IMO), as how can any of these destitute nations afford to pay for these vital treatments? ???

B

Palomar · 2004-04-27 12:36:02

Cindy -
To be blunt, I think the AIDS crisis alone could keep humanity Earth-bound for a long time to come. The economic impact/fallout alone will be difficult. Now more people over 50 years old are contracting the disease (in the U.S.); Medicare is already on the skids.
It's not a pretty future, folks -- unless behaviors change or they DO come up with a cure. I'll try and rustle up some information to back up what I'm saying here.
Interesting that you mentioned this about older people getting AIDS now, as I heard a while back that AIDS is now showing up in nursing homes all across the country, presumably due to the widespread availability of Viagra...talk about your unintended consequences!

*That's a good way to phrase it: Unintended consequences.

Two or three years ago I heard a then-56-year-old woman, on a TV "magazine" program, discussing how she'd contracted AIDS. I commend her for coming forward in public to try and raise attention to the issue, but I'm afraid I don't understand her claim to ignorance. She'd been in a monogamous marriage for decades. She and husband divorced. A few years later she began dating. She contracted AIDS from a boyfriend.

This woman claimed she hadn't been aware of the seriousness of AIDS until she contracted it herself. In fact, she made it sound as though she really hadn't heard much about it. I'm like, "You were 35 years old (approximately) when AIDS first came to national attention (in 1981) -- which generated a lot of panic and fear back then, especially regarding use of public toilets, sharing drinking fountains, etc. -- and you claim never to have known/heard much about it? After all these years besides? Were you in a coma or something??" I was only 16 years old in 1981, when the public first heard of AIDS -- I paid attention! I've been following the matter along for years now. Well, at least she's trying to draw attention to the situation; I'll give her that (too bad, though, that it took HER contracting it herself to wake up...).

It ain't 1970 anymore...older folks had better wake up. Crow's feet and gray hairs don't make you immune (duh).

--Cindy

clark · 2004-04-27 13:32:19

poor woman.

Euler · 2004-04-27 21:40:38

It really does stymie me that, here in the U.S. at least, weight issues and smoking are harped on and on about, as if being 20 pounds overweight or smoking 1/2 pack of cigarettes a day are the most terrible things imaginable...and yet AIDS and related issues are seemingly swept under the rug ("hush, hush") by comparison.

This is probably because smoking and obesity kill far more people in the US than AIDS does. While AIDS runs rampant in many third world countries, in the US it accounts for much less than 1% of total deaths, and it is not one of the top 15 causes of death. I agree that AIDS is more dangerous than many things that get a lot of media attention (like terrorism), and steps should be taken to prevent it. However, it is important to keep things in perspective and realize that things like cancer and heart disease are still much more important.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-13 16:00:25

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#2 2003-12-13 16:08:37

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#3 2003-12-13 16:14:54

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#4 2003-12-14 06:48:44

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#5 2003-12-14 17:37:24

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#6 2004-02-14 04:08:37

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#7 2004-02-14 09:48:32

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#8 2004-02-16 02:25:20

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#9 2004-02-16 09:15:16

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#10 2004-02-16 16:54:11

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#11 2004-02-27 10:59:48

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#12 2004-03-04 09:51:39

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#13 2004-03-04 10:16:16

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#14 2004-03-04 10:20:05

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#15 2004-04-02 04:52:14

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#16 2004-04-26 12:54:55

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#17 2004-04-26 14:00:04

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#18 2004-04-26 15:35:48

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#19 2004-04-26 19:49:14

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#20 2004-04-27 05:42:32

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#21 2004-04-27 06:02:07

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#22 2004-04-27 10:52:34

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#23 2004-04-27 12:36:02

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#24 2004-04-27 13:32:19

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

#25 2004-04-27 21:40:38

Re: Projected Marsian Population?

Board footer