HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:04:35 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1993Jan4.225042.24568@netcom.com>, dani@netcom.com (Dani
Zweig) writes (quoting jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder)):
|> >In poor countries with subsistence farming and low industry, children
|> >are early on a net asset, able to help in the fields and home.
|> 
|> I've seen this statement literally dozens of times.  [...]
|> 
|> >Importantly, they are also the only form of "Social Security" parents
|> >will have in their old age.
|> 
|> Another proposition for which I'd like to see some evidence.  Should
|> we take it that in the third world older people with no living children
|> generally starve?

They do, it seems.  Sometimes even more so than those about them.

|>                    Or might they be able to call upon the community or
|> extended family for help?  Or perhaps even to make formal provisions
|> for their old age?  (This last is *not* a modern innovation.  It was
|> not uncommon for medieval peasants, for example, to purchase provision
|> in kind for their old age.)

In a subsistence economy, provision of _anything_ for the future is a
serious problem.

I would be interested to see any references you may have about
purchase, by peasants, of old-age provision in mediaeval times.  It
conflicts with a lot of my (not terribly extensive) reading of
mediaeval history.
--
Robin (Keep Radio 3 != Classic FM) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: xrcjd@assist.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:13:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.160924.20124@mail.cornell.edu> phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.142535.6129@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>|> Depends upon the size of the habitat.  Something the size of Mir or Freedom could be
>|> taken out as you describe.  Something large -- on the order of an O'Neill colony --
>|> the problem would be finding the leak(s).  Those scenes of explosive decompression we
>|> see in SF films are for fairly small structures.
>
>They always struck me as silly.  Any structure which is so poorly designed as to
>blow up if you sneeze at it is _not_ where I'd want to live.
>
>However, finding a lot of holes is something else.  To quote some otherwise
>forgettable movie ad (I think for Deepstar Six), "How long can you hold
>your breath?"

Once again, I suggest you review the relevant literature.



-- 
Chuck Divine
From: damm@diku.dk (Kristian Damm Jensen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:49:41 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <1isib2INNd23@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:
>}A planet and its biosphere are so big and fragile that 1), 2) and 6)
>}are not really an option, and the chances of a single hit coming
>}through are rather large, with unacceptable consequences.

>Why are you assuming that you are using the native biosphere?  The
>moon, for example, does not have such a thing...

Because a base on the moon probably will be the same size and have the
advantages as a spacehabitat.
-- 
Kristian Damm Jensen (damm@diku.dk)
"Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it"
- Tom Lehrer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Keywords: n
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:29:21 GMT

In <1993Jan8.171024.22702@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> johns@ssd.comm.mot.com (Mike Johns) writes:

>Would someone who knows give me some idea just what our "billion ton O'neil
>Colony" is made of and how thick it has to be to hold together and keep the
>locals alive.

It could be made of steel or aluminium, though something like kevlar or
synthetic diamond would probably be available at that stage, and be
stronger weight for weight.

>I can't help but think that assuming a nuclear
>device is necessary to damage it is a bit optimistic.  I would think that a
>moderately speedy two thousand pound bomb with a hard nose would create a
>detectable leak.  A cloud of the things could really ruin your afternoon.

The outer shell would have to be many metres thick to withstand the
tensile stresses and also to shield the colonists from cosmic and solar
radiation, so I don't think a HE bomb is going to do any damage. Also
you can provide sealed compartments for all the colonists to get into
during a raid, and small leaks are easily fixed, so a few small holes
wouldn't cause much of a problem.

>Some of the ideas for defending these things seem to assume that they 
>are weapons of a sort rather than a space habitat.  You can't waste infinite
>resources on a commercial venture on the off chance that godless evil red
>martians (TM) are going to take pot shots at it?

When figuring out how one might attack an O'Neill habitat, I'm assuming
that the citizens have planned for the eventuality that they might be
attacked, and have taken steps to defend themselves. Obviously if they
have no weapons the thing is a foregone conclusion! The same applies to
an attack on a planet, or any other act of war.

Note however that a habitat is vastly cheaper to defend than the Earth.
You can build fixed-mount weapons right next to your population and
industry, rather than trying to maintain them in orbit. And the habitat
will have lots of civilian spaceships which could easily be armed and
used as interceptors; from the Earth's point of view, spaceships are
much more expensive to operate, and much more of the total lift capacity
must be used just getting into orbit.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3916 alt.folklore.science:4544
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:07:21 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <Geoff.6lb0@equinox.gen.nz> Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan) writes:

>150 billion... Would you *want* to live in a world that full of people? Does
>quality of life count for anything, or just quantity?
>
>Just because we're capable of breeding ourselves and the rest of the world
>to extinction doesn't mean we have to.


Yes, I would.  More people means more interesting things happening.
More interesting books will be written.  More R&D can be justified
because of larger markets.  A global population of 50 billion as rich
as the current US could spend 100x more on space, for example.

The quality of life now is much better than it was 10,000 years ago,
even though the world is much more crowded.  A neolithic hunter might
be aghast at agriculture, but that's hardly a reason to change
our lifestyle.  You might be aghast at how people live in 200 years,
but you'll not even be a memory, so why should they care?

"Breeding ourselves to extinction" is just a vacuous slogan.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:38:33 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Organization: none whatsoever
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan7.060018.14385@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) wrote:
> In article <justinf-060192205025@macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu> justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> > On a different note, it may be possible to have an Earth with 150 billion
> > people, all enjoying a high standard of living... but you take a good look
> > around and tell me the possibility of achieving that.
> 
> I'd say the chances are a hell of a lot better than for these
> halfassed eugenic schemes.  At least most people want to be rich...
> 
> (BTW: the earth's population will not be 150 B anytime in the next
> century; UN projections have the population at around 10-14 B by
> 2100.  Your mileage may vary.)

The UN prediction I've seen assumes that 1990 growth rates remain constant,
and winds up with 46 billion in 2076 (and 6.94E9 in 2150!). Granted, this
is a "worst case" scenario.

I don't even think we can reach 10-15 billion without major problems, since
most of the population growth is in poor, uneducated, unindustrialized
Third World countries which show little chance of getting better without
massive, and unlikely, outside assistance, and which have trouble
supporting themselves now. After all, the world produces enough food to
feed everyone now... but people still starve. 

A massive education and industrialization program in the Third World,
combined with the resultant drop in birth rates due to improvements in
womens's rights, availbility of birth control, etc. *might* result in
manageable population growth. Will such a thing happen in the near future?
No.
 
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)

                         This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking an O'Neill (Was: Re: Wrecking a Planet)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:42:12 GMT

In <1993Jan08.205052.5002@quest.UUCP> curt@quest.UUCP (Curtis Gibson) writes:

>Senearo 1.
>We attack from sunward to mask ourselves in the powerful signal of
>the sun.  Their IR and radar is blinded.

Would an attack from the Sun be invisible to radar? Does the Sun put out
that much in the microwave spectrum?

Even if so, the habitat simply deploys a couple of satellites at
distances such that something between the habitat and the sun will not
be between one of the satellites and the sun, therefore visible to the
satellite. Or make a mutual defense agreement with other habitats to
watch each other's blind sectors.

>starts to hit.  Then a window explodes! followed by the other
>2 windows.  Guess what happens when a big chunk of missile
>penetrates the habitat going hypersonic?  The shock wave will blow
>out your windows as sure as an explosion.

>I submit that O'Neill habitats are not invulnerable.  They got windows.

What are you assuming the windows are made of, stained glass??? How
about the stuff they use for police riot shields? That's reasonably
transparent, good tensile strength and shatterproof. Remember, the
windows would have to be made shatterproof in case of a meteor impact,
even if they hadn't been designed with missile attack in mind.

Also, a habitat need not necessarily have windows; it could be totally
enclosed and use fusion power instead. It comes down to, at what
distance from the sun will mirrors large enough to collect enough solar
energy, become more expensive than the equivalent fusion generation
capacity? (This of course depends on the actual costs of mirrors and
fusion generators.) Far enough out, fusion will be more economic; and if
the windows really do make the habitat more vulnerable, fusion would be
used in closer to the sun as well.

But even if the windows did shatter, it would be an expensive mess, but
not fatal. Remember, to kill the population of a habitat, it is not
sufficient to just put the habitat in vacuum. You must totally
disintegrate it. This is because the population will get into sealed
compartments during alert conditions. And totally disintegrating
something weighing 1 billion tons whose structural shell is composed of
the strongest materials available to 21st century engineering is no mean
feat.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: bt756@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Baxter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: ansibles
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:36:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I just finished Orson Scott Cards Ender trilogy and was fascinating by
the ansible that figures heavily in the plots. It seems to borrow from 
string theory but I'm wondering if anyone out there dcan tell me if it
has any more basis in real physics than that. I also am surprised that I
don't see more discussion of the Ender books on the sci fi boards.

Ken Baxter
e2ubbax@fre.towson.edu
-- 
Ken Baxter
E[D
e2ubbax@fre.towson.edu
Straight Ahead
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:14:48 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU:
>>I've seen this statement literally dozens of times.  Alt.folklore.science
>>is as good a place for it as any.  Beyond "everybody knows", is there any
>>evidence for it?
>
>Check the literature, looking for the subject "demographic transition."

I'll take that for a supercilious "don't know."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3950 alt.folklore.science:4576
From: bush@fermi.physics.upenn.edu (Judith Elaine Bush)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:38:30 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science

I only follow this thread occasionally, but perhaps you'll find this statement
interesting:

Victor Weisskopf stated in a talk he gave at Penn last spring that the birth rate
in a particular district of India  was lower than the national average. He
pointed out that in this district (province? state?) attitudes about the roles of
women were much more liberal.

Similarly, I have read somewhere in _Ms._ that there seems to be a correlation
between birthrate and the empowerment of women. The interpretation is along the
lines of that in a restrictive (AND poor) society, a woman's value (intrinsic, not
necessarily economic) is in her role as a mother. By having children she earns
herself an esteemed place in the community. When there are more options for her
to be of value to her community, having *many* children becomes less important. 

Weisskopf's point seemed to be that if we wanted to reduce population growth we
should take active steps to see that women are given "equal rights" (I don't
think he used that phrase, and certainly the depths of the issues of respect, 
control, and power are hardly sounded in the term, but....) throughout the world.

It was rather heartening to hear such a respected person (both in the global
community and in the nuclear physics community) speak so.    

judith
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:14:08 GMT

In <urf.726404905@sw2001> urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:


>I have been thinking about these things for some time,
>and it is not obvious that a population some times 
>larger than today must mean ruin of the world. 

	I totally agree.  But I think that it is obvious that, given
global economic situations, environmental degradation will be the
inevitable result of the inevitable population rise.  I'm thinking here
of stuff like water tables declining, soils depleting, forests
disappearing, wildlife threatened.  I agree that 20 billion people
probably _could_ live on earth without seriously threatening all these
things.  But I thiink that they _won't_ fail to threaten all these
things.


>I also
>think that forcing forcing the population to decrease
>won't be practical, so planning for a future where we
>are at least 20 billion, and have a higher living
>standard than today, is the best thing to do.

My point too.  Except that I am quite skeptical of the amount of
planning we are actually going to be able to do.  I see the USA going
through major contortions to even make minimal public health and
infrastructure commitments.  If you can't do it here, who is going to do
it in the rest of the world where such steps seem to be much less of a
political priority?
-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: time travel with pulsars
From: <SHOCKER@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 1 Jan 1993 20:15:37 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

The possibility of time travel notwithstanding, how exactly would you go about
doing it? There have been several ideas about this, but one of the most interes
ting to me is the theory of Frank J. Tipler that was given in Physical Review D
 in 1974 under the title "Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global caus
ality violation". Here Tipler shows that if one were to rotate a very large cyl
inder about twice per millisecond it would generate Closed Timelike Lines (CTL)
. John Gribbin has noted that a millisecond pulsar moving at this speed would b
e usable as well. Any ideas on whether this idea is really feasible? Other meth
ods of practical time travel would be appreciated.
    Gavin Miller
    shocker@miamiu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:49:02 GMT
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Date: 7 Jan 1993 04:56:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan2.154427.14159@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu
(Paul Dietz) wrote:
> But I wasn't presented with an argument; I was presented with slogans.
> How about this: list a nonrenewable resource, and I'll argue how it
> can be extended, substituted for, or be made available in effectively
> unlimited amounts.

Larry Niven once suggested that one of the ultimate limits on a
civilizations's growth was the amount of waste heat it put out. Eventually
this would grow unmanagable. Niven's (unavailble to us) solution was to
move the planet. You could also move the people into space... but we're
talking about the carrying capacity of Earth.

On a different note, it may be possible to have an Earth with 150 billion
people, all enjoying a high standard of living... but you take a good look
around and tell me the possibility of achieving that. Human greed and
destructiveness are far firmer limits on population growth than resources.
Sure, the Third World could be educated and industrialized, improving
living standards and decreasing birth rates to manageable levels. However,
most of the leaders of said countries seem most interested in lining their
own pockets. And we in the industrialized world seem only to notice and
care when something like Somalia occurs.

> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

--
                         This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:37:05 GMT

In <C0q53B.Lux@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> wielinga@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Bruce Wielinga) writes:


>|> An ocean would do brilliantly, except that if you've
>|> got an ocean, that means you've got an atmosphere, which means you've
>|> got to put your weapons in orbit, which means they're going to be
>|> incredibly expensive to build and maintain, plus you can't use the ocean
>|> as a heat sink, you've got to haul up large radiators or heat absorbers
>|> (i.e. thousands of tons of water), which makes your weapons systems even
>|> more incredibly expensive than they already were.
>	
>	Are you telling me that while you can place 10^10 people in billion
>ton coloneys and I can't afford some simple defence satelites?
>I cry foul.

Sure you can, but you're going to have to have a population and indsutry
base in space to build them with reasonable cost-effectiveness. Probably
the best way to build a defense network around Earth would be with
material mined from the moon, doing the construction and maintenance on
habitats in orbit around Earth. So you're looking at needing space
habitats again. And, you're going to need a LOT of very complex defence
satellites, because the attackers can use 10,000 decoys (silvered
balloons, a few grams each) for every bomb. They can do this because the
Earth can't dodge, therefore no need for terminal guidance systems,
also the bombs can be very difficult to detect, since they don't have to
emit exhaust from an engine.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:21:51 GMT

In <C0ow34.7z7@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>An O'Neill colony begs to be destroyed.  Consider these simple
>weapons, attacking from retrograde solar orbit:

>depleted uranium crowbars, 10 g - 1,000 tonnes @ 40 km/s
>km^2 cross-section deployable wire mesh -- for hacking apart radiators, 
>	solar arrays, tethers, etc. @ 40 km/s

From where is all this weaponry going to be fired? If it's fired from a
long distance, the habitat will have dodged by the time it arrives
(you're talking unguided weaponry, remember). If it's fired from a short
distance, it will have to be fired from a battleship equipped with an
appropriately huge rail gun, plus power supply to match. Meanwhile your
(expensive) battleship is coming under return fire from the habitat,
which is bigger, probably more heavily armed, and able to absorb more
damage.

>Needing billions of tons of shielding, an O'Neill colony will be
>far too expensive, unless it's built in the orbit of an asteroid, from 
>that asteroid.  If we're going to do that, we might as well build 
>Cole/Cox bubble asteroids -- far easier to make than O'Neill colonies, 
>as fully functional as O'Neil colonies, and with tens of meters of 
>nickel-iron armor far more secure than O'Neill colonies.  Even
>then, only the largest asteroids will be secure from attack; 1,000
>tonnes of depleted uranium at 40 km/s is not your typical meteor.

Yes, asteroid colonies are also a good idea; you have your raw material
available on the spot, rather than having to launch it from a moon
somewhere, and as you point out, the residual mass makes for good
shielding (and no construction costs for a structural shell).
Defensively, however, asteroid colonies are at a disadvantage; it's more
difficult to make continual small random changes to the orbit (more mass
to drag around). If you can't do that, then an attacker really could
throw 1,000 tons of projectiles at it from a safe distance away; and
since he is taking no losses in the process, he can keep doing it again
and again. The critical point is that not being able to dodge, even a
little bit, is a huge defensive disadvantage, because it means your
enemy can throw cheap unguided weapons at you from a distance long
enough that his launcher is not vulnerable to return fire. Thus, a
habitat seems to be the most defensible kind of living space there is.


--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie