Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

Ranger_2833 · 2003-02-06 15:21:35

I was told that one of my posts might better serve its purpose on this section of the forum as its own topic.

Below is my original message:

Ranger_2833 · 2003-02-06 15:22:33

I think that there is one factor you all are failing to consider, the human one. No I don't mean is it to risky, or is it morally right, etc. I mean that if we keep pushing it off will we be able to ever get to Mars?

As we begin this new century, we race at an ever increasing rate toward a bottleneck of sorts. In the past century we rapidly passed the point of sustainibility for humanity. Population increases at an exponential rate stretching our resources, both physical and economical, to the breaking point. In the final days of 1999 our species surpassed the 6 billion mark. At about the same time the United Nations Population Division released a study showing that the earth is only capable of sufficiently supporting around 3.5 billion people on an 1800-calorie per day diet. The U.N. reports that currently 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. The original projections for world population reaching 11 billion in 2025 were pushed back to 2050, because the fact that most of our new population would starve to death before reproducing wasn?t accounted for in the original estimates. This also explains why our current population growth is beginning to level off.

With resources for their overcrowded countries dwindling, many countries may resort to more aggressive means to ensure their survival. A prime example of this scenario is World War Two. The Axis countries sought by means of military conquest to expand their resources and living space. The only difference with the coming threat is that this time it won?t be a few countries trying to survive; it will be the entire world. There is no longer anywhere for the victims to be displaced.

A few statistics on our diminishing resources:

--Production of grains per capita has been declining since 1983, due to a 20% decline in per capita cropland, a 15% decrease in irrigation water, and a 23% drop in the use of fertilizers. (Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1999)

--Only 11% of the world's soils can be farmed without being irrigated, drained, or otherwise improved. (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)

--Worsening water scarcity stems in large part from increases in human demand. Water tables are dropping world wide.

--By 2040, we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet the basic food needs of the eleven billion people who are expected to be alive. But doing so would require a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. (Beyond Oil, 1991)

These are merely a couple of the effects of overpopulation. On the surface they may not appear to endanger the space program, but observation of the whole system shows otherwise.

As governments struggle to support their growing populations by both producing new and defending existing resources, their economies will be taxed to the limit leaving no spare change for "non-critical endeavors". We see it happening already, droughts across the western US, pollution problems in our cities (leading to health problems, mainly respiratory), rising costs in the basic nesecities, unchecked urban sprawl, and the increase in those living in abject poverty. Many politicians already (especially after the Columbia incident) are beginnig to attempt to pull us out of space, or at least severely limit our access to it.

The question arises "Why should we spend money on going to Mars when we have so many problems here?" resounds across the world. But these problems are exactly (if one takes the time to have the foresight beyond the next election) why we need to push harder into space than we have ever done before. And we must do it now. We cannot solve any of our long term problems by drawing back our borders and staying Earthbound. To do so will sign the death warrant for our species. Granted, it will most likely be many decades or even centuries before humanity would die off. But the conditions of life will be like those suffered during the dark ages, mass poverty, scientific illiteracy, tecnological stagnation and collapse, and pandemic diseases.

To those who say "Mars will always be there", yes it will but soon we will no longer be able to reach it. In five years a significant event will begin, te baby boomers will be beginning to retire. Many of these will take their technical skills with them as the current generation of youths have a quickly fading interest in persuing technical careers. Along with the decline of technical know-how is the economic impact. Most economic analysts predict a serious economic collapse as the baby boomers begin to cash in on over extended retirement benefits.(Boomernomics, 1998) The government (even if reforms are made) simply cannot support this population of retirees. Taxes will most likely be levied on the younger generations, but how far they will allow that to go waits to be seen. By 2025 the GNP of the US will no longer be able to support the costs of supporting the country, meaning that space will most likely become a very low priority endeavor, if it stays a priority at all.

We may or may not be able to help Earth, but should humanity simply fade away because we didn't have the intelligence to see what was coming. Time is running out and something needs to be done. There is no hope for humanity if we do not persue colinization now, but there will be hope for humanity (hopefully Earth as well) if we begin to expand our resources and territory. I know I probably don't need to explain to those of you who will read this the near infinite possibilities for survivial that await us beyond. But I do want you to consider the effects of our complacency.

--There of couse is much more I could say, but I have to get back to my homework. On a side note, I know many of you will see me and this view as being radical or extremist as many of my peers think. But I ask you to look at what the evidence shows in plain sight. I encourage you to check it out for yourself. Look at the total picture of the future that is and has been evolving before our very eyes.

Ad Astra o Ad Necis
(To the Stars or To Death)

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 15:29:44

I hope you're not offended or anything, though. Your ideas will probably get more traffic in their own topic anyway.

I am moving my reply, too:

I don't think your view is extreme at all. Perhaps a bit off topic (it really deserves its own topic), but not extreme.

I think that even if we pollute our butts off, and basically destroy the world, we will still be able to go into space, as long as humans survive, and the knolwedge to get there is regained. The Earth is an ecosystem, one capable of healing itself quite well as long as there is no intervention. Sure, it could take many years to get back to the levels we are at now, technologically, if all hell breaks lose, people start dying off, and so on, but don't think that we'd lose the ablity.

Think of it as the Game of Life. Species grow and die in proportion to the resources in a system. If we do out-grow, out-produce, and out-consume ourselves, our species will simply cull itself back to a more, well, agreeable level. Such a culling won't mean that future space potential no longer exists, just set back a while.

Your views are honest, though. But the only way they would become realized is if the human race went completely extinct. I don't think the things you outlined are things which lead to extinction. I'm more afraid of unnecessary wars than I am over-consumption...

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 17:03:39

A common and often annoying misconception in scifi and in how people generally think about the environment, is that we're ?using up? resources and we'll eventually ?run out? because of that.

Yes, the second law of thermodynamics says that useable energy doesn't last forever. But that's okay. Where does energy come from? Most energy comes from the sun, right? The sun isn't slated to burn out for another, well, 4 billion years or so, right?

So what's there to worry about?

Think about it this way. People say that when we use up all our fossil fuels, we'll be screwed, because we won't have any other energy source. Probably true, in one sense, since if we run out and have no alternative, we'll be unable to function and half the world will die off. But strictly speaking, we'll still have plenty of energy, again, back to the sun.

When we burn fossil fuel, we're actually burning stored sunlight. That sunlight was converted into plant life by photosynthesis, it died, fossilized, and became what we know as petroleum which contains minerals which help make plastics and fuels. We burn a derivative called gasoline in engines, creating small explosions which push pistons up and down, turning rods, to move vehicles and create energy, exhausting the excess carbon dioxide and other things into the atmosphere.

Is anything ?lost? in the process? No. The mass was in the gasoline only changed forms. It went from being hydrocarbons (hydrogen and carbon) to being steam (the hydrogen mixed with the oxygen in the atmosphere to create water) and carbon dioxide (the ?di? in dioxide means 2 oxygen atoms- so carbon dioxide means, quite literally, one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms). We simply took the oxygen in the atmosphere, and caused a reaction with it and the other elements.

So, can we really ?run out? of resources? Well, sure. Indeed, most definitely. You only have so much coal, uranium, and so on. But as long as we're not doing exotic energy processes, like destroying matter, the mass to do chemical reactions will always be there- the sun is our energy source after all!

There are two solutions to this problem (which are mutually inclusive).

1) Use resources which don't run out and are naturally renewable over a short time period (by definition, fossil fuels are renewable! It just takes a long ass time for stuff to become fossilized again!)
2) Use devices which are more efficient. It's a wonder more people aren't using low enery lightbulbs!

I know that the crux of your concern isn't about energy, but I think it's important to show that resources within the Earth's system are't ?going anywhere,? or being ?depleted.? They're just changing form. Like I once said to clark, we're just increasing our entropy.

I don't doubt the concerns raised in the things you cited. But I don't think overpopulation is a huge of a problem as it seems. I recall that the food consumption of the US could feed the world several times over. I would say that more or less, the problems are related to mismanagement more than anything. If we could make people accountable for pollution, third worlds would be cleaner, and more able to support their people. Generic food growth could feed those who are starving.

But as to the space program. I think we're going to actually see a lot of space progress in the next decade. This isn't really a pipe dream, either. The world is getting wealither (despite the fact that the distribution is unjustly disporporationate- and becomes more so every day). It's just a matter of time before the wealth of the world must be expanded into space.

Will it happen before an epidemic occurs? Who knows, but if one does, our chances of recovery aren't too bad I'd say.

el scorcho · 2003-02-07 10:06:10

Hmmm, interesting topic. I once had a history teacher who suggested that the Third World War would be fought over water and other resources.

IMHO, I believe that the Third World War will be the result of a combination of factors that have been previously mentioned in this thread. As the UN becomes more powerful and heads more towards becoming our world government, dissatisfied people will begin taking up arms in droves and we will see what would amount to a global civil war. That's my fear, anyway.

But in any case, it is imperative that we head out of this gravity well and expand to other worlds. It may be that Mars becomes the "new world" where refugees take shelter from a war-torn Earth. Basically, our solar system is humanity's "lifeboat." At least, that's always been my view.

P.S. This was hastily written and I apologize if it looks incoherent, as I am quite tired.

soph · 2003-02-07 17:17:18

Eh, as of this point, the UN represents countries that are so vastly different that to call them a world government wouldnt be a good representation of reality. Maybe in 50-100 years, as our global economy assimilates countries and economies into a contiguous entity, but certainly not now.

A lot has to happen before that time comes.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 22:25:15

You don't need a single cultural mindset to be a world government, you just have to have a body of nations who agree to a set of guidelines, and respect those guidelines. For years now, the US has had veto power over everything within the UN. It looks like they don't on Iraq. What does this mean? Well, it means that the legitimacy of the UN is finally occuring.

You're seeing the world government growing in strength, soph. And I would have it no other way. I would not desire a world where all countries are run the same, and one culture saturated everything. I desire diversity. And I would say most of the world would, too.

soph · 2003-02-07 22:32:32

No, what I mean is there is too much hatred and fundamental issues for it to be a legitimate world government at this point.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 23:31:27

Um... right, but you pretend as if it's not going to occur for another half century at the least. No, it'll happen with a few decades, at best. The US, with the failed coup of Venezuela, has shown that it can no longer build nations like it once did with the dictatorships of the past. It's a shame, really, that was one of the few things we actually did pretty well (assuming by well we mean destroy the democracies of the world).

soph · 2003-02-08 12:00:33

Yes, but in my view, it doesnt have enough power, and there is too much sectionalism to forsee a reconciliation anytime soon. Sectionalism has led to wars far too often for us to ignore its presence. I think everybody can do something to alleviate this, the US included. The Middle East's use of oil to support despotic regimes has left us hated for supporting them, and then hated again for protecting our oil.

If we are able to develop a hydrogen-based fuel economy, we can do a lot to balance foreign trade, and withdraw our support of despotic regimes in the Middle East. But these differences arent just political. We cant expect centuries old religious disputes to vanish. Time and education are the only hope we have for this ignorant hatred to cease. I truly hope it happens, but I don't think the UN as it is is powerful enough to be a world government.

I envision a day where we do have a world government, and continents are the countries of today. Ambassadors would relay the desires of Presidents, as they do today. We would have a globalized economy, where there is an international military.

At this point, the UN is too reliant on American forces for any military operation. This has to change. I hope it does.

el scorcho · 2003-02-08 16:03:31

Soph...I didn't say the UN was a world government. I mean that it's headed in that direction.

As for sectionalism, organizations such as NATO and the European Union were established in order to bring whole regions under the control of a central government, or at least some form of one. Theoretically, this will prepare civilians psychologically for rule by a single world entity.

I'm not totally against all forms of world government, but the UN would not be the right body to entrust with global rule, IMHO. The reasons for this are simple: for one thing, I have no desire to pay taxes or send American troops to a distant body that (if my history serves me correctly) was established without the consent of the people of the United States. This would usurp a national sovereignty that has existed for over 200 years and inflame nationalism. History has recorded many instances of what happens when nationalists become inflamed, and the UN would cause civil strife on a global scale. We've already got a bloated bureacracy in Washington, D.C. Why do we need a new one in New York City or Geneva?

I propose a look to the Swiss constitution as a model for a good world government. Each Swiss Canton retains enormous powers and is granted the power to maintain a standing army, not to exceed a certain number of soldiers. The Swiss Federal government is entrusted with foreign relations, public works projects, regulation of the mail system, and very little else. No standing army is allowed; instead, the Swiss military is comprised entirely of those soldiers comprising the Cantonal armies and is called up only in times of crisis. I believe this form of government has stood since the 13th century. So if we're looking for a good government for the whole world, I suggest we look to that model.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-08 16:14:11

Yes, but in my view, it doesnt have enough power

Yes, we've been over that. The question isn't whether or not the UN has enough power, but if it's heading in that direction. The answer is obvious. It is.

Fance, Germany, and China are going after the US over the Iraq issue. I am confident they won't give in unless the US does provide real, damning, evidence. I don't see it happening.

and there is too much sectionalism to forsee a reconciliation anytime soon

Sectionalism doesn't prevent law from working (unless it is in the form of hegemony). If it did, such concepts as ?freedom of speech and religion? wouldn't work. Hegemony (in any form for any reason), however, does prevent law from working.

The Middle East's use of oil to support despotic regimes has left us hated for supporting them, and then hated again for protecting our oil.

Our oil? What's this garbage? This is why France, Germany, and China are looking down their noses at us. We expect to have our way, and they're tired of our inablity to respect another nations sovereignty.

And despotic regime is subjective, especially when you consider that many of the failings from a welfare standpoint in non-friendly nations to the US, are due to unjust sanctions. Don't have this moral attitude that the US picks only the nice guys to side with, as history has shown otherwise.

We cant expect centuries old religious disputes to vanish.

Wow, the propaganda has really managed to weaking your view quite a bit. This isn't about religious disputes. If it were, Saudi Arabia would have kicked us out a long ass time ago for desecrating their holy land with our non-Muslim militaries and so on.

And even if we were to argue that it was about personal differences, it would be obvious that the differences were more offensive to the US than any other nations...

...but I would say it's more about power and wealth than anything.

Time and education are the only hope we have for this ignorant hatred to cease.

Yes. It's only a matter of time before the US falls to second world status, or is caught up by China and has to share first world status. And with some real education, more Americans will realize that blowing people up is no solution to problems (as if a majority doesn't already).

At this point, the UN is too reliant on American forces for any military operation. This has to change. I hope it does.

I hope that this trend we see with Iraq continues with the UN. I hope military action is never needed. This is the ideal. The US just doesn't realize that. I think we're gettting there, though.

soph · 2003-02-08 18:12:47

Josh, the Saudi Arabian rulers aren't hard-line muslims, believe me, the people would kick us out in a minute if their leaders didnt keep us for our oil money.

And I was just making a point. When I said "our" I didn't mean it was exclusively ours. But it's pretty easy for Europeans to slam our military actions when they can't really commit to any military actions of their own.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 00:29:44

Heh, that's what I said... religious disputes have nothing to do with it, it's about money... if the Saudi Arabian leaders stopped selling oil after using their own wealth to make their nation independent, the US would come down on them quite hard. They're not stupid. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, is their attitude.

They would, of course, have absolutely no reason hate the US, if they were simply left alone...

soph · 2003-02-09 10:02:08

Except that for the people, we are the "infidels."

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 14:54:42

A majority of them say that they don't hate Americans in general, but that they hate the American government.

clark · 2003-02-10 10:43:34

Interesting point of view Ranger.

Please don't take this personally...

*I* think you are wrong.

I think that population numbers have not reached a critical point where we are endanger of a malthusian meltdown- not in our life time, and not in our great grandchildrens life time.

There are VAST swathes of this world that have yet to be populated, or used for resources.

We could run out of food, but then again, we have food that rots now. We have whole nations whose agircultural base is destroyed if we change our farming subsidies- that is not indicitive of a food production system that cannot meet demand, quite the contrary, it suggets that we have too much production capability.

The coming water shortage could eb ominous- however, that dosen't create global anarchy, only regional ones. Plus I might add, once the value of water increases, it will become more economically attractive to build desalination plants- after all, 80% of the world is covered in salty brine, and might I add, most of the worlds population live near rivers OR the coast.

We can go back and forth with different estimates, different prediction models. We can even yell about which one accounts for more variables, or which one has more confounds. In the end, we are both left with a "guess" on what the crystal ball to our future is.

Now, I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your point of view, let me add this:

Mars will NEVER be the life boat of humanity that you seem to indicate. We simply cannot launch enough people, ever, to Mars, to ever effect the population growth on Earth.

The only people who would actualy get to go would be people from first world nations- the same nations that have zero population growth or negative population growth. You in essence are suggesting that the rich first worlders use mars as some convulted white-flight suburb to flee from the coming thrid world apocalypse.

Hardly egalitarian, and hardly what I am sure you were suggesting. But that is in essence what your statements derive too.

The regional overpopulation that is occuring is the result of western medicine mucking up in countries that were unprepared for a decreas in their infant mortality rates.

The parents had lots of children becuase only a few would survive, and all of them were needed to work the farm- now though, medicine saves the families- but the families continue to have more and more children.

I am not sugesting we cut the medicine, just be honest about the situation as it stands.

I think suggesting manned missions as a means to develop technology to recycle waste water and improve crop yield, and more effiencient power production would hav e far ranging advantages for Earth- yet Mars is not a requirement.

Mars is simply a desire to pin our dreams to.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 11:54:16

Never say ever, clark.

I think that, quite obviously in fact, space will become more populated by humans than Earth. Venus, Luna and Mars are all quite good places to live.

And though it may be true, at first, that third world nations won't be going to Mars, or any of those places, I expect that once space infrastracture is built, things will become better for all of humanity. The technology built to survive independently in space (ie, the things you mentioned), would certainly help third world nations and so on work better, with a higher standard of living.

The key is that those third world nations should be left alone, their debts should be revoked, and they should be allowed to exist independently. You suggest that the world is over producing; this may be true from a literal standpoint, but from a third world perspective, people are underproducing,because they don't have enough for themselves.

clark · 2003-02-10 12:10:17

Never say ever? Fine, in all likely hood, based on simple airthmatic, we will have a difficult time sending enough humans into space to alleviate any population problems occuring on earth.

Let us accept that space will become more populated than earth- that will be the result of a space population growing on its own. More people in space will not neccessarily mean people on Earth will have an easier time in getting there.

The regional problems that exsist are just that, regional problems. this is not a prblem on a global scale.

Global warming is a global problem. Over population in Rawanda dosen't mean that our world is going to end anytime soon.

I don't pretend to have solutions for the third world, but i certainly can see that sending men to mars will not help them, and that is effectively the argument ranger is making (more or less, he is arguing that going to mars will help humanity)

Developing means to live in the *conditions* of space will help humanity. Going to mars is just a prepubecent sci-fi fantasy that is relatively meaningless. Goign to the moon would develop the same technologies. Going to Venus would as well.

Mars is an artifical justification for neccessity, neccessity being the "mother of invention". Which is what the argument for Mars boils down to- at least in this version.

it is a flimsy argument. A flimsy rationale.

We go to Iraq to prevent the spread of WMD, but we all realize that it's to get oil and further the US balance of power. Let us be honest. let us accept that going to mars is to fufill our own notion of goals- not as the only shinging beacon for humainties future.

mars is not that. Lord help us if it were.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 12:54:15

Blah. I was suggesting that Mars would be just one of the gateways to the cosmos, not that people would go to Mars and stay there, but that they would stop at Mars on their way to other places.

My position has always been that Mars itself would not alleviate any population problems on Earth (you'll have people populating Mars, too, mind you), and that using that as an argument is dishonest.

But certainly space in general could alleviate population problems (which aren't really about population, but mismanagement of resources, blah, blah). Mars, Luna, Venus (yes, I have lots of ideas about living on Venus), the asteroids, etc.

And, as you seem to agree, the technology.

dicktice · 2003-02-10 18:09:43

To paraphrase what my realitor-nephew keeps on about the three ways property values are determined (location, location, location)...there only three ways to solve the "population crisis" on Earth: Education...Education...Education!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 18:20:41

Indeed! Education is one of the cheapest cures to societies ailments. But I would also add into the mix: Management, management, management!

Granted, management generally comes naturally with education, but we need to teach it anyway.

soph · 2003-02-10 20:39:23

Well, to get to that gateway, we need to be united. While I hope it comes, I truly hope it does. Country divisions hurt commerce and create sectionalism. If continents came together, following the European model, we could have each of these unions represented in a global republic, whose delegates would be elected by the leaders of their unions. The head of the republic would be held in check by the delegates, and would be elected by these delegates.

A maximum term limit would be imposed, to prevent lifelong leaders. This government would be in charge of vast pools of resources, and it would not be biased to any one region, because each region is represented equally. This pooling of minds and resources would be unprecedented. Comittees to govern the sciences would be led by experts in the field.

There would be a global military to keep the peace, with no regional affiliation.

The management of funds on a micro scale could be handled almost as they are today, with countries having governments to oversee division of taxes. However, since resources could be moved freely over borders, there would be an abundance of capital to work with. Things like cocaine and organized crime would be easier to regulate with the international muscle.

This system of government would have the strength and resources to launch people deep into space.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 20:59:36

When people start talking global military, I get queazy. I hate the concept.

Some cultures are not completely compatable with what other cultures would consider the ideal system. So a global military is just going against common sense. I love how we need a global military to be ?united!?

Bah.

soph · 2003-02-10 21:18:05

You still need the abilitiy to enforce laws, stop terrorist groups, and so on. It doesn't have to be some huge force, just a mobile force. Use of that force would have to be approved by 75% of the "Senate." (7 regions+1 leader=8 so, 6 have to approve). This ensures that lawful protests aren't squelched.

The Senators also don't have a political motive to put down dissention arbitrarily, because they have term limits. Oh, and legislation would have to be in plain language, with no pork, and no under the table dealings.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-02-06 15:21:35

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#2 2003-02-06 15:22:33

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#3 2003-02-06 15:29:44

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#4 2003-02-06 17:03:39

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#5 2003-02-07 10:06:10

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#6 2003-02-07 17:17:18

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#7 2003-02-07 22:25:15

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#8 2003-02-07 22:32:32

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#9 2003-02-07 23:31:27

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#10 2003-02-08 12:00:33

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#11 2003-02-08 16:03:31

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#12 2003-02-08 16:14:11

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#13 2003-02-08 18:12:47

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#14 2003-02-09 00:29:44

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#15 2003-02-09 10:02:08

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#16 2003-02-09 14:54:42

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#17 2003-02-10 10:43:34

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#18 2003-02-10 11:54:16

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#19 2003-02-10 12:10:17

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#20 2003-02-10 12:54:15

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#21 2003-02-10 18:09:43

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#22 2003-02-10 18:20:41

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#23 2003-02-10 20:39:23

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#24 2003-02-10 20:59:36

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#25 2003-02-10 21:18:05

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

Board footer