Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: December 10, 2013, 03:41:28 AM »Biomass however can as you pointed out be located in the oceans (algee and fish). If 95% of a body is water it could house an extremely large and rich ocean biomass but still have very little room for humans to live on without infrastructure (representing underwater habitats).
I disagree that human population cap should increase with tech since it's a human factor. Perhaps through genetic engineering conditioning you to be comfortable in less space...
The neat thing with my suggestion is that population cap is a softcap since it can be raised by infrastructure, and infrastructure production is actually increased through techs already! (both construction speed and civilian infrastructure production).
What I'm trying to argue here is that it's mostly the humans/populations them self that do this (through consumer goods, non-TN production, waste, transportation, services and so on), not them working in facilities like say research labs or orbital shipyards...
I disagree that human population cap should increase with tech since it's a human factor. Perhaps through genetic engineering conditioning you to be comfortable in less space...
The neat thing with my suggestion is that population cap is a softcap since it can be raised by infrastructure, and infrastructure production is actually increased through techs already! (both construction speed and civilian infrastructure production).
As for population hurting the biosphere this is sort of taken care of by having facilities actually emit atmosphere changing gases which based on the rate of atmospheric change would alter biosphere health.
What I'm trying to argue here is that it's mostly the humans/populations them self that do this (through consumer goods, non-TN production, waste, transportation, services and so on), not them working in facilities like say research labs or orbital shipyards...