gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (02/23/86)
In article <37378.509307074@lbl-rtsg.arpa> jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA writes: >The only long-term way to assure the viability of Earthlife, including >whales, gorillas, cephalopods and everything else as well as humans, is >to get off this planet. As long as Earth is the only place we live, we >are vulnerable to extinction. There are all sorts of nasty things that No matter where we lived, we would be vulnerable. >could wipe out all life on this planet. A really large comet could hit >us, pasteurizing the planet. Sirius could go supernova. Maybe a new form A large, space-going cephalopod could come along and eat the whole planet. Get serious (pun intended) Sirius isn't going to blow up. Why don't you learn some Astronomy if you like space so much? It is very interesting stuff. >Furthermore, we have a time limit. Our sun is getting hotter. It has been >getting hotter, very slowly, for as far back as we can measure - billions >of years. So far, the biosphere has managed to keep the local temperature >constant by steadily decreasing the proportion of greenhouse gasses in the >atmosphere - carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc. However, if the >sun continues to get hotter for only another 100 million years, that >solution will no longer work - even getting rid of every last molecule would >still leave the planet too hot. There will be a runaway greenhouse effect >leaving Earth looking something like Venus. Not a place you'd want to live. > >So, you may ask, why am I worrying about events that won't happen for 100 >million years? Surely we've got plenty of time to start colonies in the >asteroids and begin moving out to the stars. We've got *more* than 100 million years! In the 10 billion years the Sun will spend on the main sequence, it will double in luminosity. Most of that will occur towards the end. The Sun has been getting hotter, but very slowly. Adaptation to increased heat will proceed much faster. We are still having ice ages now, so what's the big deal? >Well, we actually don't have very much time at all - 100 years, 200 at the Oh no! An emergency! Call an ambulence! >outside. Humans have been using up the natural resources of this planet >at an amazing rate, and now we're running out. Soon we're going to have >to fall back to a low-energy, renewable-resource, labor-intensive way of >life. I have two objections to this. One is the immediate loss of life. >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. And space colonization, even if successful, would not prevent it. Birth control might. >My second objection is that if we go to a low-energy life-style now, we will >never be able to reverse that decision. The easy resources are gone. The >close-to-the-surface ores, the coal, the oil - we've used it up. Now it >takes high-tech energy-intensive machinery to extract the resources needed >to keep the high-tech machinery going. We can keep going like this for >a little while longer, but if we give up high-tech we won't be able to >start again. We would have to wait for continental drift to expose new >ores, which would take a hundred million years or so, and by that >time - you guessed it - runaway greenhouse effect. I'm confused -- do you have a high faith in scientific and technical advancement, or a very low one? It seems you adopt either point of view to suit your convenience. >So, if we back off now, we are putting a permanent, irrevocable ceiling on >the number of human individuals who will ever live. One billion people >for 100 million years means at most five times ten to the fifteenth people >will ever live. > >If, on the other hand, we spread Earthlife to the stars, then the next >100 million years will see the birth of at least ten to the twenty-fourth >humans, plus unguessable numbers of intelligent descendents of the gorillas, >dolphins, octopodes, etc. Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy somewhere else? Why is there so much unmitigated bullbleep on net.space? Is this some kind of obscure religious cult I haven't heard about? I thought space colonization was a possibility technology could offer us -- if we used our knowledge and planning ability. Some of you seem to think you are going to wish yourself to Epsilon Eridani. "If you wish upon a star ... " ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "There are no differences but differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference"
KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") (02/26/86)
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith)
I'm confused -- do you have a high faith in scientific and technical
advancement, or a very low one? It seems you adopt either point of view
to suit your convenience.
High technology without space colonization cannot save us. If we
get all our energy by burning fuels which put carbon dioxide into the
Earth's atmosphere, we can't then simply remove the carbon dioxide
and convert it back into oxygen and carbon. If we mine all our raw
materials here on Earth, forests and other ecosystems will suffer. If
our increasing population all lives on Earth, there will be less room
for other creatures. If all our wastes are left on Earth, we will
have a horrible pollution problem. This is true no matter how good
our technology.
Oooh --- it sounds so easy! We'll just roll out to the stars (THATS not
hard) and live forever. Why do I find it strange to think that if you have
just proven it impossible to do on the earth, it should be so easy
somewhere else?
Nobody said it would be easy.
It's not a matter of 'somewhaere else' but of 'everywhere at once'.
The solar system alone can support a population of over ten to the
twentieth. The galaxy, perhaps ten to the thirtieth.
... Some of you seem to think you are going to wish yourself to
Epsilon Eridani. "If you wish upon a star ... "
Nobody said star travel would be easy. Just preferable to the
alternatives.
...Keithjef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA (02/26/86)
In regard to Mr. Gene Ward Smith's flaming response to my essay on long-term viability... Mr. Smith repeatedly and completely misses the entire point about colonizing the stars. He seems to think that all of humanity will move en masse from Sol system to some other star, then settle in as a single-planet species again. I'm not going to bother pointing out what a silly idea this is. Mr. Smith says I'm wrong about the Earth going into an irreversable inorganic greenhouse effect in only 100 million years. Well, if Mr. Smith's message had been about differences of scientific opinion, then I would have been happy to supply references supporting my view. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith's message was about flaming. Mr. Smith says he is confused about whether I have a high faith in science and technology, or a low one. My message did not contain anything about faith, since I have none in anything. I submit that Mr. Smith is merely confused. Mr. Smith also advises me to learn some astronomy. Well Mr. Smith, I took my first astronomy course in 1973. I was teaching astronomy a year later. What were you doing in 1973, Mr. Smith? If I was into giving advice, I might advise Mr. Smith to learn some manners. A little spelling and punctuation practice wouldn't hurt either - ambulence? thats? I might also advise Mr. Smith that it's considered polite to give proper credit for quotes. The quote Mr. Smith closed his message with, "There are no differences but differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference", was penned by William Blake after a trip on nitrous oxide. I'm not sure what Mr. Smith was trying to tell us with this quote - maybe that he wrote his message while on drugs? I would not be surprised. Mr. Smith and I agree on one thing - that net.space contains a lot of bull. But he picked the wrong message to use as an example. He should have looked closer to home... --- Jef
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (02/26/86)
In article <37378.509789512@lbl-rtsg.arpa> jef@LBL-RTSG.ARPA writes: >In regard to Mr. Gene Ward Smith's flaming response to my essay >on long-term viability... It *was* excessively rude. Sorry about that. >Mr. Smith repeatedly and completely misses the entire point about >colonizing the stars. He seems to think that all of humanity will >move en masse from Sol system to some other star, then settle in as >a single-planet species again. I'm not going to bother pointing out >what a silly idea this is. Don't bother, that isn't what I thought. >Mr. Smith says he is confused about whether I have a high faith in >science and technology, or a low one. My message did not contain >anything about faith, since I have none in anything. I submit that >Mr. Smith is merely confused. I submit that the highly emotional tone of both your original posting and this response shows that my analogy does have some degree of appositeness. I propose, and am quite serious about this, that there is a kind of hysterical quasi-religious cult feeling about some of the postings to this newsgroup (a minority, I should hasten to add). >Mr. Smith also advises me to learn some astronomy. Well Mr. Smith, >I took my first astronomy course in 1973. I was teaching astronomy >a year later. What were you doing in 1973, Mr. Smith? I have also taught astronomy, although I am not an astronomer. I thought *and still think* that Mr. Jef's remarks about Sirius were preposterous. Incidently, in 1956 at the age of eight I became the youngest member of the Minneapolis amateur astronomy club. Where were you in 1956? This kind of argument is silly. >If I was into giving advice, I might advise Mr. Smith to learn some >manners. A little spelling and punctuation practice wouldn't hurt >either - ambulence? thats? My manners are bad; so is my spelling. On the other hand, the "when in doubt, attack the spelling" school of argument is worse than my spelling. >I might also advise Mr. Smith that it's considered polite to give >proper credit for quotes. The quote Mr. Smith closed his message >with, "There are no differences but differences of degree between >degrees of difference and no difference", was penned by William Blake >after a trip on nitrous oxide. I'm not sure what Mr. Smith was >trying to tell us with this quote - maybe that he wrote his message >while on drugs? I would not be surprised. First the spelling, then the signature file? If you want, I'll send you pictures of my mother's dog and you can tell the whole network how ugly it is. I thought the quote was funny. I also thought it was by Aldous Huxley, but wasn't sure. Hence my lack of attribution. The emotional tone of this paragraph and your entire response (as well as the posting I originally responded to) illustrate the point I am trying to make. I believe this is a technical issue in a newsgroup that should be devoted to such issues. Your effusions do not seem to me to be well thought out. > >Mr. Smith and I agree on one thing - that net.space contains a lot >of bull. But he picked the wrong message to use as an example. He >should have looked closer to home... Siriusly? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward