From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:42:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Sep11.042246.22983@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.172900.4108@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.145918.14933@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>>You mean ignoring any possible consequences of ozone loss and maybe even
>>>global warming? Let's even completely ignore increasing risks of nuclear
>>>war (from non-NATO develpment) or from nuclear disaster.  We can also ignore
>>>steady expansionism of the populace.
>>
>>Hey, and I bet you were kvetching about the Evil Stockpiles of Nuclear War
>>between the United States and the Soviet Union a couple of years ago. 
>
>Now why would *I* mind having half of my tax dollars go to a mass of weapons
>that could eliminate all life on Earth several times over? I doubt that the
>stockpiles were actually evil. Maybe the pentagon invested in exorcists for
>them too?
>
>I'll be you knew alllll along that the evil empire wasn't so evil, didn't you.

Obviously, I need to spell things out for you. 

You were one of the ones whining for a "nuclear freeze" in the early 80s. 
Surprise, it didn't happen. Now, we'll end up CUTTING TOTAL EXISTING WEAPONS in
half. But, instead of being happy because the United States and the Former
Soviet Union are going to CUT weapons. We are off of "hair-triggers" on both
sides. You'd have to work really really hard to go back to the way things were,
with bombers on pad alert, loaded with gravity bombs and SRAM and ALCMs ... 

Nope. Can't celebrate that. Instead, you've (re)discovered the creeping
proliferation, so now that's the BIG threat and oh-my-gawd it's actually MORE
possible to have a nuclear war because NATO is not developing? 

>>It's also laughable to look at "global warming" when a single volcanic eruption
>>kicks enough enough ash to DROP temperatures despite our many years of
>>unregulated environmental engineering, hmm? 
>
>You are clearly not well read on the subject. You cannot extract enough
>information on that subject from a headline to discuss it intelligently.

>>Another Club of Rome member. <yawn>
>
>Huh?

Hm. Suggest you become well-read on Club of Rome, _Limits to Growth_ and other
various pop-mythos.

>>We also don't have enough of a dataset on our world to show what the "real" 
>>temperature should be. I kid you not. Would you like to average in the ice ages
>>and the time before the DinosaurKiller impacted? 
>
>But the theory that dinosaurs were killed by a meteor impact is only a theory,
>right?

No, the point is, based upon roughly 100-150 years of "good" factual reporting,
you can't really project anything other than the fact we don't know too much :)

>You are correct about global warming. We have no conclusive evidence. On the
>other hand if it is truly happening, and we just cannot figure it out, we're
>fucked. 

Nope. We're not. It is known that the earth goes through various climatic
phases. Can you say "Ice Age"? Thank you. Man will adapt. It may be beneficial
because you'll be able to grow more food in Siberia and other colder areas. 

> Ozone loss, on the other hand, is quite real and quite anthropogenic,
>or will you now call me a bunny hugger because I liked ozone the way it was?
>
>I urge you to fight against the chicken littles of the world and stop
>wearing sun screen just to prove you're right.

We know there are two holes in the ozone layer. We know these holes fluctuate
in size. We do not know if these holes are dramatically affected by man's
activity, or by sunspot cycles. 

>>I didn't know we had gone to world goverment. Now, who in the third world is
>>going to come and tax US, hmm? 
>
>There is effectively a world government, Yes. You misinterpreted the context of
>the word 'taxed'.

If you're referring to the U.N., it is not a "world government." At least not
in the sense of government which you seem to have the hots for. It's more along
the lines of a mutual cooperation society by individual member-states. It does
not collect taxes. It does not build infrastructure. It does not elect a
Congress to live off the largess of taxes :-). 

>>Besides, population growth is self-correcting.
>Ultimately, yes, but you won't like the way it corrects itself.

Let me key you in: Starvation in Ethopia and Somalia is due to political
warfare and strife, not because there's a lack of food production. We're not
going to starve ourselves off the planet. 

>> People who have nothing better
>>to do start little piss-ant wars and end up killing themselves off. 
>
>When the global population saturates, you will not be thinking 'piss ant' 
>wars anymore. I don't have to try to convince you either because all you 
>have to do is wait and remember somebody mentioned it to you.

When? Malthus and each successive generation of doom-sayers has picked a 
magical date where population growth was supposed to exceed the support limits
of the world ecosystem. Funny, those numbers keep on going and going and
going... just like that Energizer Bunny. (Hm, does he wear shades to be cool,
or to avoid too much UV? ooooh, how subtle ...) 

>>We've been running out of fossil fuels for 100 years. Before that, there was a
>>fear of a great shortage of whale oil, due to overhunting. 
>
>No, we will *run out* of fossil fuels in less than fifty years.

Allegedly. Before we run out, the price on a barrel of oil will go up. 

What happens when the price of oil goes up? People start to conserve,
industries develop new technologies to extract oil more efficiently, and
alternatives are developed which are price competitive to substitute for oil. 

Pretty soon, the price of oil drops, not because of any magic, but due to the
basic laws of supply and demand. More oil produced and less demand for it. 

Oh, I think you'll find we were supposed to run out of oil by 2010 or so,
if you look at the "estimates" of the '70s. You're saying we're going to run
out by 2040. Your son will, no doubt, be saying we're going to run out by
2060-2080. 

Or nobody will really give a damn, because we'll be using a combination of
other things to do what we use oil for now. 

>>Could you tell me what the current demand for whale oil is? 
>
>Ah, you're right. Somebody will think of something before there is a problem.
>Let's have a beer.

Let's cry wolf. Makes a lot of money for certain parts of the population via
booksales, lecture tours, and the like. If you scream loud enough, you can
probably find a way to make a buck too, hm?

>When we do run out of fossil fuels, I'm sure I won't see you shoving to get
>an electric car because you were so convinced it wouldn't be an issue. I hope
>you like the bus.

Naw, I'll be drivin' my Saturn III (GM, not NASA product:) past your raggy
eco-bike with my "John DeArmond for President" bumpersticker in your face. 
:->

>>Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>>Technological Innovation is not static,
>
>Not at all, I'm frankly quite excited about our government

You mean your mythical world goverment, right? Not the U.S. government..
>launching space
>based mirrors and dumping millions of tons of methane into the stratosphere
>to correct the ozone hole caused by, er, technology.

And just which loonie is suggesting we do this? Not that your fixes will only
aggreviate the situtation due to the pollution they cause... 

> Well, heck, that was
>just one *teensy* error that I'm *certain* can't happen again 'cuz we're
>technologically *advanced* now! (makes me feel safe all over)  Probably
>we can stuff acid rain (bunny hugger fantasy I'm sure), love canal neighbor-
>hoods, and pcbs in penguins in that lot too. CONSPIRACY!!!

Gradual fixes to gradual problems. I know that's scary to consider.

>> B) Free-market economies stimulate the
>>development of more efficient use of resources and substitutes. 
>
>Right. Go Bush!  "I love what you do for me!" (and the ecomomy) "But this time
>I *promise* not to raise taxes, those damn democrats made me do it"  "Hey,
>'merika! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! (not that trick again..) Nuttin
>up my sleeve.... PRESTO!"

Uh, excuse me. Earth to Dave. Someone pass him some O2. This has nothing to do
with George Bush, but basic resource economics. It's a 300 level course.
Maybe you should consider taking it.

>>Naw, you'd better line up now to put Saturn's rings off-limits to Szabo's Ice
>>Mining, Inc. And then prepare to go out there and enforce your law, hm?
>
>I'll have some of what you're smoking! ;-)

I respect Mr. Szabo <ack, gag> in certain areas, despise him in others. If he
got a couple of billion dollars, he might be able to do some of what he has
proposed in messages on here. 

Like I said, Saturn's rings are off-limits, and I'll add Halley's comet to the
protected list :) 

>>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia
>
>Didn't you just imply there was no world government?

There isn't a world goverment. There's an organization to coordinate
cooperation between nations. Big difference. I know, it's a little bit subtle
for you to figure out, but I'm sure if you examine the role of the U.N. in the
past 40 years, you'd figure it out. 

>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem, 
>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.

Sounds good. Prove to me there is a problem. 

Now, if population growth is such a bad thing, will you be the first one to
castrate yourself so as to slow the rate of growth? Will you be the first to
hang yourself in order to save the ecosystem? 

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space