gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (02/28/86)
In article <8602272123.AA08936@s1-b.arpa> REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA writes: >B> Date: 23 Feb 86 13:58:30 GMT >B> From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith) >B> Subject: Long-Term Viability >B> No matter where we lived, we would be vulnerable. > >You obviously didn't listen to the original argument when it was >presented years ago (see some book by Asimov I think on size of >various disasters; anybody recall the name? also see archives of SPACE) This argument has been around a *lot* longer than you seem to think. Any competent sci-fi author could come up with a scenario where going into space *decreased* survival chances. However, that isn't the point; it may well be true that space colonization and the attempt to colonize other star systems will increase long-term viability. What won't do anything is vauge, ill-considered "planning" concerning events far in a future which all experience has shown is not that predictable. >>Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the >B> Oh no! An emergency! Call an ambulence! > >Are you trying to be an asshole here? Come on, this isn't an >emergency, like within 3 minutes the Earth will die, and nobody said >it was, so what the hell are you trying to get at? Given that it will My snotty comment was a way (not very good, I guess) of registering disagreement with the idea "into space in 100-200 years, or not at all". The logic of this sounded terrible to me. >to be done yet so let's wait longer". (Ad hominum remark: do you wait >until April 15 before even looking at your income tax forms?) I won't dignify that with a response, since of course it's true. (Ad hominem remark: never mind.) >>Ecotopia can't support five billion people. Maybe one billion. That >>means four billion people must die - which is about fifty times more than >>have died in all wars so far combined. >B> And space colonization, even if successful, would not prevent it. Birth >B> control might. > >Not clear. If people on Earth are offered a choice, do it the old way >having as many children on Earth as they want, with not enough food >for them, so most will die, or do it a new way, have one child on >Earth and as many as they want in space, with the latter having >abundant room to live and abundant energy and materials for growing >abundant food, we may be able to have birth control on Earth without >people who use that birth control basically dying out by not having >any children anywhere. We may prevent overpopulation of Earth without >simply doing genocide by birth-control on the present Earth population. Hey, did I get the Pope on this net or what? "Genocide by birth-control?" If you stop and think a minute, you will realize what population will be attained if exponential growth at the present rate is continued through the 5 billion years or more you "plan" on having the human race around. (Of course, this IS harder than trigonometry.) >B> Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not >B> hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have >B> just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy somewhere >B> else? > >grows. It's the nine orders of magnitude more energy out there, just >for the Sun, not counting all the 100 billion other stars in the >galaxy, and the billions of other galaxies, that makes longterm life >possible in space and impossible except for the lucky few survivors on Earth. By the way, I WISH certain people on the net would quit thinking so much about colonizing superclusters as a serious argument for building another shuttle. When you feel an attack like that coming on, get a cold washcloth, lie down, and put it on your forehead. You'll feel a lot better. And people won't laugh at you when you say "billllyuns and billllyuns". >B> Why is there so much unmitigated bullbleep on net.space? I really would like an answer to this question. It has begun to seriously puzzle me. >Come on, the above isn't bull bleep (except for your remarks; sorry >for ad hominum, just retaliating). There are good solid reasons for >getting to space if we want to survive long. (Ad hominem forgiven) What solid reasons? They've sounded like highly speculative reasons, and calling them solid is bullbleep. >B> Is this some kind of obscure religious cult I haven't heard about? > >No, it's just our desire to survive tied with our understanding of our >current situation and of the prognosis based on current scientific >theories. Unless and until science says the Sun isn't getting warmer >or won't go red-giant and will burn forever via some magic >perpetual-motion machine or God's intervention or somesuch. I don't >believe that possible, so I'll stick with current theory that the Sun >won't go on much longer than 5-10 billion years further. If you choose >to ignore science and believe some unsupported view, I'd say it is you >who is following some religious cult. Let's clarify the question then. Is this deep fear of eventual red-gianthood the basis of some obscure religious cult I haven't heard about? To quote Bertrand Russell, "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown.... Fear is the basis of the whole thing--fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.... Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived.... Science can teach us ... no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in...." >I am not aware of anyone on this list who claims just wishing will get >us there. We have been doing a lot more than wishing; brainstorming, >petitioning Congress and President, and some of us are even helping >finance private venture. Siriusly? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.