Jump to content

Really want to save the planet? GET OFF IT!


Mallette

Recommended Posts

Mallette, your response suprises me, and with respect, smells like a cop out. Did you think before you posted that interest would not be generated? I for one am not comforted to know someone can trust you with information deemed unfit for general consumption. Thinking that it was you who started this thread one would hope your sense of responsibilty to the topic at hand would at least allow you to summarize said trusted information in general terms. Or are we getting into the realm of top-secret.

Just before my faux pas I told my wife it surprised me I had cruised so far without taking one below the waterline. Should have kept my mouth shut on both counts...

If I said "I know something I can't tell you that would prove my point" THAT would be a cop out. It WAS NOT GERMANE to my hypothesis, and since you correctly identify me as having started this thread, I can state that with confidence. Even if it were I would not use it as it was a trusted communication.

I'll say it once more...I goofed up and I apologize.

Regrets,
Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a previous life, I worked for a guvment contractor. I was, on occasion, privy to some pretty incredible information about technology that was in the works. None of it matters in this conversation either, but I think that all of our tax dollars are not going to waste... just most of them.

Dave...would we be in agreement if we said that:

1. We be in big trouble on this planet. Let's slow its demise, or at the least its inhabitibility for the human race.

2. This will perhaps give us time to figure out how to get us out of here. The numbers of people are yet to be determined.

This is making me think of Anne McCaffrey for some reason...

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldenough said, "i for one do not believe that somewhere in the western desert there is a bunch of brilliant scientists sitting on the answer we need, and if they do then we ( as in the majority ) will not benefit anything."

' Dave said... Well, if I could share with you a series of off line emails I rec'd earlier today, it might change your mind about that. Can't do that, and it really is not germane."

Then i guess the above statement is contradictory, or can you explain what part of my mind you can/cant change.There certainly seems to be no ambiguity in your reply and i would welcome a change of mind from a higher source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bruce. I needed that. Really stuck my boot in my mouth and outta have one stuck up my...

Anyway, you have my hypothesis in a nutshell. I'm just looking to see if anyone can find serious flaw in it.

The lack of interest in space exploration in the present time simply amazes me. Even if it were not the most important thing any living creature has ever contemplated, it would certainly be at least more fun than deep sea diving.

I just don't get it and am pleading for help in correcting my obviously damaged psyche.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of funds for Space can be summed up with Three reasons.

1. Home Land Security get the biggest bite of the Budget.........

2. The War in Iraq...............wasting lives , wasting families, wasting Money..................

3. Sending Aid /Money to Other Countries...............

Just my 2 Cents...........[:@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are more interested in a half baked plan to fight global terrorism. Like the war on drugs, poverty, etc., there is eally no end. (sorry Amy, I couldn't help my self. It's just my POV, if anyone wants to debate it I'll remove this post)

Dave, did something special shock you and get you excited about the whole idea or has it been percolating for a long time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Like the war on drugs, poverty, etc., there is eally no end. (sorry
Amy, I couldn't help my self. It's just my POV, if anyone wants to
debate it I'll remove this post)

Can't help but be curious...what's the deal there that might draw the Sheriff's attention?

>Dave, did something special shock you and get you excited about the whole idea or has it been percolating for a long time?

I guess it's really been percolating all the way back to the end of Apollo. I had no idea at the time that the whole thing was a political stunt to "beat the Russkies." I was so dumb I really thought it was about a deep human urge to expand, reach out, explore new worlds, etc, etc.

What an idiot...

Maybe I am trying an end run. Perhaps if word starts getting around that our children's survival is not only not assured, but their eventual demise is certain if we don't get off our butts, we can drain a few pennies off those REALLY insane mindless programs you referenced into that which, IMHO, is the true destiny of the human race and the only justification for our existence. If that is not the case, then we are just glorified frogs with cell phones. Ribbet, rib (my phone croaked).

At least no one has mentioned polluting and pillaging infinity...not even we could manage that.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get off this planet you have to have a place to go...(i,m privy to some details on that) So far the engines are too slow to complete the destination,,Plus no fuel stations on the way....So scooping up enough energy on the way is remote at best... I.m a fucherist but not that direction... Teleportation cant be completed unless you have a reciever at the other end....And the other end aint building one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was a disappointment, but i will look forward to reading your future op ed piece in The Houston Chronicle. Well fielded Marvel. This should show people who truly have an interest in the future of our planet just what they are up against.....Out.

Shame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get off this planet you have to have a place to go...(i,m privy to some details on that) So far the engines are too slow to complete the destination,,Plus no fuel stations on the way....So scooping up enough energy on the way is remote at best... I.m a fucherist but not that direction... Teleportation cant be completed unless you have a reciever at the other end....And the other end aint building one.

To start with there is the moon, which is ROTTEN compared to Earth with Helium 1. Of course, we need fusion to use that...but fusion happens to be an area were saving the planet and space exploration meet. How 'bout those fix things here and us get us out folks come together and agree on a Manhattan Project level push to develop practical fusion??? We get safe, carbon-neutral, cheap energy and the next best propulsion system to a warp drive for intra Solar System space ships of any size.

Then there is Mars. Rotten with almost everything, including water from which hydrogen is easily isolated. Not as good as fusion, but still good fuel.

There are a number of other moons such as Titan with potential for human habitation.

I am not going to put a number on it, but let's just say large numbers of humans can thrive in several places in our own system while we we figure out how to go beyond.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think I have fully understood the problem we are trying to solve here.

On the one hand there is humanity. Yes - it is possible, if not likely, that any one of a number of events could either wipe us out completely or reduce our numbers significantly.

On the other hand there is earth as a life bearing planet. I think it unlikely that any event in the 100 million years or so would wipe out all of life on earth.

A given event might reduce biodiversity enormously (large meteor striking the earth for example) and erase us from the surface but, as others have pointed out the earth itself will likely survive and life appears tenacious enough to do likewise.

Now we know that at some point the earth wil be totally destroyed. When the sun goes nova that's it folks - game over. The good news is that this is about 5 billion years hence - so no need to panic just yet.

On the other hand - a gamma ray burst in our vacinity would wipe out all life equally effectively. That could happen tomorrow - or in 10 billion years - we dont know. The bad news is that even space travel will not help much with this. We could not get far enough away in any reasonable time to survive it - and gamma ray burst travel at the speed of light - so there is no warning either.

Now I should state for the record that I think space exploration is a must but I do not really see it as opening a bolt hole for humanity to survive. You would get more milage for that out of building a space defence system to deflect or destroy incoming comets and meteors IMHO. The further problem is that manned space exploration is pretty ineffecient so it is likely that our most exciting exploits would be unmanned and therefore of little use as a life boat.

The moon and mars don't look very edifying for colonization - right now. A more promising candidate might be Europa (how did Arthur C Clarke know this??) with the addiitonal benefit that Jupiter is near enough to deflect most incoming projectiles. Europa is, however, a long way away compared to our current technological capabilities and we would need to send a whole lot of equipment there to support even the most modest community.

Of course it goes without saying that once there - should the earth meet an untimely end - they would be pretty much stuck for thousands of years (should they survive that long). Bad luck and even that community would end.

Assuming we beat the odds and get passed all of the above there is the issue of the end of the universe itself. It is called the big rip - and it won't be nice. That is something like 50 billion years off - so again no immediate worry - but there is no getting away from it - we are all doomed!!![+o(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I dont think I have fully understood the problem we are trying to solve here.

Dealing with a known high quaility intellect here, so must be careful...
You are correct Max, your statements suggest you missed my succinct restatement of the opening post. Here are the postulates:

Humans reproduce. That which reproduces eventually occupy all available space and consume all available resources. Therefore, no amount of conservation can prevent eventual catastrophe. Further, other events have occurred throughout Earth's history that can happen suddenly and destroy most, if not all, life.

From that: If one assumes survival of the species is everybodies business, then the only way in ensure infinite resources and indefinite survival is to leave the womb and reach out, to the stars when we can, to the planets now.

>You would get more milage for that out of building a space defence system to deflect or destroy incoming comets and meteors IMHO.

No good against gamma rays or any of the certainties expressed in the hypothesis. Further, building that system also requires the same technology needed to establish bases elsewhere. In fact, the most convenient, stable platform for such a system would be the moon, would it not? So, I'd get at least a little of what I want as you get what you want.

The rest of your post is thoughtful and interesting, but I disagree that the moon and Mars are not habitable. Certainly the moon would take a lot of work to host significant numbers, but, as I've pointed out, even a single breeding pair surviving castastrophe is something.

Regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments in bold

>I dont think I have fully understood the problem we are trying to solve here.

Dealing with a known high quaility intellect here, so must be careful...
You are correct Max, your statements suggest you missed my succinct restatement of the opening post. Here are the postulates:

Humans reproduce. That which reproduces eventually occupy all available space and consume all available resources. Therefore, no amount of conservation can prevent eventual catastrophe. Further, other events have occurred throughout Earth's history that can happen suddenly and destroy most, if not all, life.

Quite an assumption to start with. At the moment humans are breeding faster than they are dying off. This could be reversed by any number of actions - although the social impact would take some getting used to.

Further - whether or not we operate a moon base (for example) the event that destroys most life would still occur. In the building a defence alternative one would hope it would not. I should add that a defence is not an either or option - both a defence and one or more off-world colonies would be the ideal.

From that: If one assumes survival of the species is everybodies business, then the only way in ensure infinite resources and indefinite survival is to leave the womb and reach out, to the stars when we can, to the planets now.

>You would get more milage for that out of building a space defence system to deflect or destroy incoming comets and meteors IMHO.

No good against gamma rays or any of the certainties expressed in the hypothesis. Further, building that system also requires the same technology needed to establish bases elsewhere. In fact, the most convenient, stable platform for such a system would be the moon, would it not? So, I'd get at least a little of what I want as you get what you want.

Put the gamma ray thing to one side - there is just no way we can go far enough to counter it. A gamma ray burst is the highest energy event in the universe since the big bang. We would have to be in a distant galaxy to avoid it.

The moon as a base is obviously the easiest to conquer - but would cause all sorts of problems of its own. If, for example, a colony on the moon survived the earth it would probably never be able to re-colonize the earth due to biological changes in the moon's residents. If nothing else the de-calcification of the bones and the gravity would make it pure hell to come back.

The rest of your post is thoughtful and interesting, but I disagree that the moon and Mars are not habitable. Certainly the moon would take a lot of work to host significant numbers, but, as I've pointed out, even a single breeding pair surviving castastrophe is something.

Something it might be - what though? Hardly a basis for the continuation of the species. You would really want rather a large population to do that successfully. Genetic problems resulting from small breeding groups are well documented.

Regards,

Dave

I think it is a problem that I coming across as pouring cold water on your premise. This is not the aim at all and I would adore mankind to concentrate a little on spreading his wings into space. I am just not sure that this reasoning is going to get it to happen. How do you talk a tax-payer into funding something he or she has effectively zero chance of benefiting from on a personal level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Max. While I have had some thoughtful responses, specifics a bit more pointed and direct like yours are really what I am after here. Pour all the cold water you want...precisely what I need.

>Quite an assumption to start with.
I would like more detail on what you mean by that. I would contend it is not an assumption, but an observable fact. Which part is assumptive?

>At the moment humans are breeding faster than they are dying off.
At what point are CERTAIN this will change? Without that certainty, all you have done is restate one of my premises.

>This could be reversed by any number of actions - although the social impact would take some getting used to.
Indeed it could. Forced sterilization, mass extermination, biological re-engineering, etc. WWII suggests these remedies do indeed take a bit of getting used to. Any thoughts on others that might pass congress or the UN?

>Put the gamma ray thing to one side - there is just no way we can go far enough to counter it.
Assumption based on insufficient data. The ability to get far enough away could be discovered tomorrow. It MIGHT even already be known out there in the desert somewhere. In any event, neither you, nor I, or anyone else can make that statement categorically for all possible futures I have always made it a point to ask my programmers "Are you telling me it cannot be done, or that you can't do it?" In most cases, it happens.

>Something it might be - what though? Hardly a basis for the continuation of the species. You would really want rather a large population to do that successfully. Genetic problems resulting from small breeding groups are well documented.
I agree. Hardly ideal and likely only in classic SciFi. I was speaking rather minimally.

Please, return fire, or cold water. Shields UP! [:D]

Regards,
Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That which reproduces eventually occupy all available space and consume all available resources. "

This was the assumption. One wonders whether the natural world - or even our arguably unnatural one would allow for such expansion. So many factors come into play - from disease to falling fertility to concequential wars due to overpopulation to increases in non-breeding stocks (for example an increasing proportion of homosexuals within the population might be direct natural control to over-population - I have no evidence for this one whatsoever - just musing as I type).

To re-iterate - the reason I would call this assumptive is that you are talking about approaching limits behaviour and this is something we are yet to have truely experienced. There may indeed be some leming in us afterall....

As for social changes that might undermine such growth I would not think it safe to assume anything can be off the radar of acceptability when it comes to social policy. I have seen so many changes in my life-time - a mere 40 odd years - and even more so in the last 10 that anything and everything could become acceptable with a decade. China's model may not have been a model of success - but it has stemmed the growing population problem. Is it such a stretch to imagine that a given family in the far flung future would have to prove that a relative has died in orde to gain a "breeding licence". This might being us out in hives today - but in a world of, say 14 billion people it might be a wholy acceptable proposition.

OK - yes - we might be able to get far enough away to avoid even a gamma burst. Bit of a stretch if you ask me - we can barely get to the end of our own solar system (and then very much unmanned). The nearest star is 4.5 light years away - or with today's technology about 30 years or more probably. The galaxy is 100 million light years across - give or take a hundred million - with today's technology - call it a cool billion years to cross it.

The next nearest galaxy is rather further away than our own galaxy is is across - in simply terms - unless something SERIOUSLY remarkable happens - fuggedaboutit.

And here is the problem with the arguement. Right now interstellar travel (not intergalactic - a whole new realm) is entirely science fantasy - not science fiction. We aint even close. We aint even on the starting line - we are further away from this than we are from stone-age man. How do I put this? Lets talk again in a thousand years.

Even then - when we have the technology to make the journey - do we have the biology? We are not built for space. Ever see the pictures of that russian cosmonaut that came back after about 18 months in space - poor sod couldnt walk - could hardly breath - needed lots of help and time to recover and his bone calcium had dropped to levels normally the reserve of people suffering from brittle bones syndrome.

Ultimately - one has to ask the question - which is the easier task - to sort out issues here on earth or to mount an effort to cross the bounds of space? I am not sure which would be the easier - but each time we start to talk about how far we have come I am reminded of this:

There is a scientific theory that if you bored a hole through the earth - right through the centre you could achieve continuous motion by dropping an item into it.

Here is the thing - we are nearer to the stars than we are to be able to do this feat - in fact even tunneling the 30 odd miles through the earth's crust is totally beyond us. Deepest mine on record is around 2 miles deep.

Dave - I'd adore it if we could do any of this stuff. We just - cant right now and we are talking such a huge quantum leap to get there it seems a bit like hanging on to win the lotto. If you play every week you will win one day - but when that day is ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAX.....you are a hundred percent correct....WE have discovered more with the Hubble tele...Than actually going there.. The idea of going back to the moon is a politicle mony grabbing boondoggle...Science could better use the money elsewhere. If any thing the International space station has shown us what what our limitations are,,,Phisicly. In space travel would you like drinking your reprocessed body fluids over and over again?? I think not....Also if you have just one crop failure in the space ship you just cant send home for another envelope of seeds. Here on Earth we have special seed banks with seeds stored away just in case something catistrophic will happen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...