From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: Space, the final frontier
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:52:19 GMT

In article <gate.mcckVB1w165w@pil.UUCP> alizard@pil writes:
>altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) write:
>>Newsgroups: alt.pagan
>>Subject: Re: Space, the final frontier
>alizard@pil.uucp writes
>>>
>>You start out with a statement about what we'll call "eco-awareness" and
>>end it with strip mining. Don't you find this a little contradictory? If
>>you look at strip mining, using water jets, sulfuric acid, or just
>>bulldozers, you'll find entire mountains reduced to slag piles, and
>>contaminated groundwater tables -- some of our worst environmental disasters.
>
>Environmental damage requires an eco-system to damage. Show me one in the
>places I am proposing be industrialized.

Maybe at this point you haven't read to the bottom of my message, but you
here indicate that you have missed the point I was making. That is, it's 
not whether we strip mine the moon, but that the real battle for changes
in our consciousness about the earth takes place on the earth. Space 
industrialization is just a continuation of our current exploitive attitudes.

[...]
>>I think the problem here is that you somehow equate environmental
>>awareness and conservation with an anti-technology attitude.
>Wrong. Unless you are trying to say that anyone who favors space
>industrialization lacks ecological awareness. I could equally well state that
>since anyone who opposes space industrialization favors continued generation
>of electrical power on earth with consequent environmental damage
>(conservation will REDUCE the damage. I want to ELIMINATE it.) that you must
>therefore lack anything even resembling environmental awareness. I'm not
>going to, since I don't believe it. I think the problem here is ignorance.
>Which I'm doing my best to cure.

Conservation and a move to alternative, cleaner, and renewable resources
is what most "environmentalists" are calling for, whether they take the
high tech or the low tech approach. 

>>Your replies have tended to skirt around this. I don't think Janis, Ciaran,
>>nor I are anti-technology. I mean, look at our mode of communication. And
>>yet, we all see the rapid destruction of our natural environment, and I have
>>yet to see a favorable argument for space industrialization that is both
>>economically and environmentally feasible.
>
>Removing heavy industry from this planet, replacing fossil fuel, nuclear
>power, and hydro from the power grid isn't environmentally feasible? The
>cheapest part of space industrialization will be solar power satellites.
>As for opposing high tech, I am certain that all of you favor having access
>to high tech. I merely believe that you think that the goods and services you
>like to use can actually be made without environmental destruction and
>that reductions in consumption can be made without anyone suffering. While I
>know this delusion is comforting, it is no longer supportable. Your emperor
>has no clothes.

First of all, it's beginning to sound like we should all sit down for 
coffee and hammer this out. We are not far apart in our views here. I am 
not against high technology approaches to our problems, nor "low" tech
either. I'm for appropriate use of technology, which attempts to take into
account all the factors, including feasibility, cost, environmental impact,
politics, etc. We must also take into account the current attitudes 
towards growth and consumption, which I believe we here are ALL trying to
change.

I repeat my most important point -- _industrialization_ of space involves
both heavy expenditure (heavy industry is what we're talking about, not
communications and exploration) and high environmental impact. If you 
think the cost of shipping heavy industrial materials across the country
by rail or truck costs a lot to the country in both money and pollution,
think what transporting huge payloads into space might cost.

>>>Won't fly. If you think we have sufficient resources to wait around until the
>>>hypothetical day that we are certifiably politically correct for space
>>>industrialization, you really should pay more attention to the news. Desert
>>>Storm was over access to oil.
>>Desert Storm, by most indications, had more to do with maintaining a
>>destabilized Middle East than it did with oil access. Economics, politics,
>>the Christian fear of fundamentalist Muslim solidarity. It was not a simple
>>single issue conflict.
>Oil was irrelevant to desert storm? My reading of history indicates that wars
>are generally fought over economic motivations using ideological
>justifications as something to base propaganda on. Would anyone CARE about
>political stability in the Middle East who didn't live there without the oil?
>Note the prompt military action in Kuwait by the UN under US leadership vs
>the lack of it in Bosnia. One would think that political stability in Europe
>would be considered more critical by the US and particularly by Europeans
>using your analysis. Oil wasn't the only issue. Just the one that counted.
>Would Saddam have bothered to invade Kuwait if there weren't oil under it?

This doesn't counter my argument. Kuwait is by Iraqi claims their territory
(before 1929 (?)) it was) and also their only possible seaport. If you
look at it on a map, Kuwait hardly even constitutes enough land to be 
called a country, and the strategy of its creation was in direct conflict
with Iraq's political, economic, religious and transportation needs.

The reason we did not step in in Yugoslavia is that we had no interest
whatsoever in the outcome of the conflict. On the other hand, my point
re: the US interest in halting Middle Eastern political, economic and
religious solidarity still stands. And BTW, I didn't say oil wasn't the
issue, only not the most important. Remember that Kuwait only supplied
about 3-4% of American oil imports.

>>You here avoid the issue. What won't fly? Our attempts to conserve and
>>clean up the planet?
>No, our ability to survive with a technological civilization when a finite
>and irreplaceable amount of scarce raw material is used in most manufacturing
>process, sooner or later, we will run out of materials that are required to
>keep the gears turning. 100% perfect recycling processes exist in fiction
>only. Conservation will postpone the day. But not indefinitely. Do I need to
>justify doing something environmentally benign about energy?

[some very good points re: moving energy generation to space, as well
as electric autos, etc...  <deleted>]

I'm beginning to see where we split. I have a problem with heavy industry,
such as mining the moon, but I don't have a problem with energy generation
from space. I don't see any more than you WRT current trends continuing.
No, our current levels of consumption and growth cannot be maintained. I
just don't see that even attempting to maintain those growth curves is 
a viable approach. I don't claim to be able to solve the world's problems,
but I do believe that we MUST curb our appetites as well a reach ZPG very
soon.

Approaches to energy conservation and generation that are clean and 
renewable are available without going into space. You may be aware that
much of the research in the past 20-30 years into small-scale cold fusion 
has been squelched by both the oil and fission industries. I believe that
fusion and solar are two very viable options that have not received any-
where near the amount of attention they should. If we spent our research
dollars on fusion and solar, we'd have a completely renewable and clean
source of electricity. Unfortunately, this approach to power generation
is not in the interests of those who currently supply us with power. Do
you think Detroit would retool for electric cars if not forced to?

[...]
>You deny the relationship between affluence and a reduced number of children
>per household? Cite exceptions.

No, you may have misread me. I was making the connection also.

[alizard's comments on approaches to space industrialization, including
pushing development into the private sector...]

I don't have a problem with a great deal of what you've said. I reiterate
that one of the main points of this discussion was the incumbent need for
a change in attitude towards growth and exploitation. I don't see how
moving the arena of development to space addresses this. It only delays
the time when these changes will need to be made.

>>be done in light of environmental issues, but I think primarily the most
>>serious argument against it is its cost. We do have a $3 trillion deficit.
>The role I have discussed for taxpayer money for this process is as a
>catalyst, R&D funding, loan guarantees, and other incentives to encourage
>private sector investment. If you object to private funding for this, what
>makes you think that the private sector will come up with uses for its money
>that will be more to your liking? Or more environmentally benign?
>
[my comments on the increasing class disparity in this country...]
>disparity, ... never mind, I'll wait for the explanation. How is reducing the
>prices of consumer goods (competitive pressures plus a reduction in material
>and resource costs) going to decrease the ability to become affluent?

The entire military-industrial ethos is based on growth. While many jobs
are created in engineering and other high-paying areas, the predominant 
problem is the huge number of people left behind in positions of simple
labor and service industries. I just read an editorial in a local paper
yesterday re: this issue. What to do? We have an ever-expanding number of
unskilled or semi-skilled people who could not possibly land a job in
a high-paying field supported by high tech military or industrial corp's.
And no, I see no solution to this except educational opportunity. This
is the disinfranchised class I was talking about. And this is not a call
for an abandonment of high tech solutions or industry, even if it were
possible.

>I have supported the search for high tech solutions of this sort in almost
>all of my posts on this thread. While postponing resource exhaustion is good,
>it is obviously not a permanent solution. The oil WILL run out.

A summary I agree with entirely. 

>>Blessings to all,
>>Murray
>Blessings...                 A.Lizard

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: alt.pagan