HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:22:52 GMT

I couldn't resist this doublethink...

In article <rwallace.726802174@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}In <1993Jan11.173953.772@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}>In article <rwallace.726765711@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}>}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.
}>Has it occurred to you that the very advantages you mention that your habitat has
}>over a battleship are the ones that a planet has over your habitat?
}>Your run-of-the-mill planet is a LOT bigger than a habitat, able to
}>absorb more damage, is bigger, and probably more heavily armed (more
}>resources at same/greater tech level).
}
}Ah, but a planet with an atmosphere must put its defenses in orbit,
}which makes them incredibly expensive compared to a habitat's (or indeed
}a battleship's, if the battleship is built in space, with materials
}mined in space ...

The planetary defenses are more expensive than the habitat's
because they are in space.  Which is where the habitat is.  Talk about
doublethink!  They BOTH are in space, so the planet's costs more.
Astounding...

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mppc3@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Duncan White)
Subject: Re: Wreaking a habitat (was Re: Wrecking a Planet
Organization: University of Sussex
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:07:54 GMT

Thomas Koenig (ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan12.041012.3461@Princeton.EDU> jdunning@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes:
: [not about me]
: >Why do you insist on making the planetary space-based defenses so
: >expensive to build and maintain?  Any civilization capable of mounting
: >significant orbital defenses is going to build them in orbit, not
: >planetside.  Of course that means there would have to be one or more
: >habitats nearby to build and maintain the weapons, which would then also
: >become targets in any attack.
: 
: There is, of course, the problem of how localized your defence has to
: be.  Defending about 1.2E14 m^2 of Earth's cross - section is going to
: take defences quite different from defending a typical habitat with maybe
: 1E6 m^2 cross - section, which amounts to a point defence.
: 
: I don't see how you could detect a swarm of black, anti - radar coated
: rocks moving fast enough to do heavy damage before they hit a planet.

Presumably you detect them the same way the habitats would and at about
the same distance. Maybe even at greater distances: the planet, since it
is in a nice predictable orbit can put out cheap detectors at long
range. The habitats detectors will need to be able to move about with
the habitat itself and be more expensive.

Not that I really see expense being a major consideration given a
technology that can build these habitats. Compared to the cost of a
habitat, anything else is going to be stupidly cheap. How much is a
determined attacker going to be willing to spend to kill a habitat (or
planet)? 1 per-cent of the habitats cost? less? more? For this sort of
cost you are going to be able to build a nuclear missile that can
probably dodge any long range defence easily, and you only need a few of
these (probably omly 1 in fact) to kill the habitat.

An attack on a planet may be able to use cheaper weapons, but you need
an awful lot of them to total the planet. These weapons will probaly
need to guided anyway if you want them to either get through defences or
hit specific targets on the planet. You can resort to saturation
attacks, but these aren't terribly efficient, and given the size of the
target they are attacking, the same tactic would work against a habitat
anyway (if you can fill a area of several million or so square
kilometers with dumb projectiles, your 0.01g drive will not get you out
of the way). A very large projectile (eg an asteroid) capable of
trashing a planet in one hit cannot be hidden at any realistic range, if
nothing else it will be spotted by star occultations. This should give
you quite a long time to do something about it (eg ram it with something
capable of deflecting it enough to miss).


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Organization: none at all
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:55:25 GMT

stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:

>I think even 10-15 billion will cause the world to look really fucked up.
>Drawing "a sharp limit" between city and countryside hardly seems
>plausible, considering that's not the way the world works now.

I think even 6 billion is really pushing it, giving that the population
diversity in natural habitats is decreasing at an alarming rate. I think
humans can easily be classed right up there with the fabled Carboniferous
planet-buster for sheer mass genetic destruction, or will be, soon. Or so
the fossil record will indicate.
-- 
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Pulsars as time machines?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:51:42 GMT

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles):
>Now, from what I gather, there are pulsars with radii close to that
>of Earth's, and some revolve at millisecond rates. If so, this would give
>them more than enough speed.

I don't think this is correct.  Pulsars are neutron stars, and they're
not much larger than the corresponding black holes -- on the order of
ten km radius.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   The inability of snakes to count is actually a refusal, on their part,
    to appreciate the Cardinal Number system. -- "Actual Facts"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3934 alt.folklore.science:4563
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:55:58 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks

Paul Dietz (dietz@cs.rochester.edu) wrote:
>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.

You are one sick, sick puppy.

>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.

A global population of 50 billion as sick as the current US society is
something many would die to prevent.

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

Surely even someone of your undoubted erudition can add up? However we much
of the earth we destroy in our efforts to provide for the hungry mouths,
surely you can see that one day, sooner or later we *must* stop. Maybe not
at 5 billion, or 50, but can you really expect that 500 or 5000 billion
people is achievable or in any way desirable.

The Earth's population *will* level off, if not voluntarily then by war,
famine, and disease.

May you live in interesting times.

--
Geoff, Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 [4 Lines]
                               Voice: +64 (3) 3852101
        "Hi. You have just entered the fourth dimension. Small isn't it?"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Keywords: n
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:46:44 GMT


[comments about expense not included :) ]

Think about this as well.... a habitat costs cash to build - how
expensive is having a naturally habitable planet?

eccles
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 22:08:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.154159.19572@mail.cornell.edu> phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:
>In article <rwallace.726413572@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>|> Um, no, I'm not talking about a Skylab-type job here, I'm talking about
>|> an O'Neill habitat with mass maybe 1 billion tons. You're going to need
>|> a high-megaton range bomb to wipe it out.
>
>Poke enough holes in the thing and everyone dies.  No mess, no fuss, and
>your aim doesn't need to be particularly accurate.

How many holes is "enough?"  100?  1000? or 73 trillion?

Seriously, these kind of things have already been worked out.  Do
check out some of the literature on habitats.


-- 
Chuck Divine
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:53:16 GMT

In article <rwallace.726452785@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}In <1993Jan7.183727.26274@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
}
}
}>	Hmmm. If I were trying  to  kill  an O'Neil-type  colony,
}>the  particular subsystem I'd  try  to scrag  is the heat-control
}>system. Cities  and their  associated  industries  tend to  produce
}>a fair bit of  heat, so there  should  sizable radiators  to target.
}>No idea  how long it takes  a city  to  baste itself, I'm afraid.
}
}So you just paint the entire rather large surface area black. If that
}isn't enough you build radiators. If an enemy damages them so what?
}Everyone just turns off their lights and lives off tinned food until the
}few small holes in the radiators are repaired (or maybe don't bother
}:-)). The habitat's water storage tanks can absorb any heat generated in
}the mean time.

You have interesting infinite-capacity water storage tanks.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Pulsars as time machines?
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 08:10:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Obviously, I didn't mean to post this article three times; my apologies.
My newsreader kept crashing.

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu
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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:07:10 GMT

In <1993Jan11.174227.902@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <rwallace.726765669@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}In <damiene.726727604@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles) writes:
>}>Think about this as well.... a habitat costs cash to build - how
>}>expensive is having a naturally habitable planet?
>}
>}It's free, but there's only one of them around.

>As opposed to the number of habitats there are around?

>hint:  if you postulate the existence of one, why not the other?

Slight observation here: you can build habitats. How do you propose
building a habitable planet?

--
"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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:39:53 GMT

In article <rwallace.726765711@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}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.

Has it occurred to you that the very advantages you mention that your habitat has
over a battleship are the ones that a planet has over your habitat?

Your run-of-the-mill planet is a LOT bigger than a habitat, able to
absorb more damage, is bigger, and probably more heavily armed (more
resources at same/greater tech level).
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wreaking a habitat (was Re: Wrecking a Planet
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:45:35 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) states
>In article <rwallace.726452375@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}In <1993Jan7.173125.20305@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>In article <rwallace.726348286@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, your saying so doesn't make it so.  If you have the
>power available to vaporize a planet, the "defense" question is irrelevant.
>A planetside base could have more available, through the same magic you
>are involking.
>
>}>}which can be of almost any desired size and power output, with the
>}>}habitat's full power generating capacity available, and almost unlimited
>}>}heat sink capacity, and the population on hand to maintain it. As
>}
>}>heat sink, yes.  But terribly vulnerable radiators.  So to zap it, dump silver
>}>paint so that it coats the radiator.  And as for the "full power
>}>generating capacity", if it is environmental, you couldn't accelerate
>}>(read "move") and it could be closed down with black paint.  And if it
>}>is internal, so could the planetary base.  
>}
>}Who mentioned radiators? The heat sink for a fusion gun or whatever
>}could simply be the habitat's water reservoir. I think a 10,000-ton
>}water storage takn could soak up quite a lot of heat (with bleeder
>}valves in case the water got too hot).
>
>Wrong.  If your "beam" is enough to vaporize a few megatons of rock,
>with less than 1% of the beam even hitting the particles, you would
>boil your water away long before it worked.  If you happen to have an
>ocean available, or a river (read: planet) this might be a viable argument.
>As is, nope.
>
>Hmmm.  Thought - not only would you have to vaporize the rock, you would have 
>to divert the the vapor (photonic pressure).  Otherwise you would just wind
>up encasing the habitat in vapor-deposited material or STILL destroying
>it with the energy transferred - and again wiping it out.  Getting hit with 
>a cloud at those velocities would not be a terrific improvement...
>
To join the other side of the argument for a moment. Given sufficient
computer power and enough lasers you could use the niven solution, i. e.
boil off part of the rock one one side only, thus causing the vapor
pressure to change the tragectory enough to cause the rock to miss. Thus
wiping out the colony becomes a matter of throwing enough rocks fast
enough to overwhelm the colonys computer, laser network.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola)
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:20:11 GMT

In article <pete.726124773@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>Goodness I never realised I was full of so much dogma.
>
>Okay, let's see if we can piece this together from lego bricks. I'll start
>with a little gedanken ecosystem and you show me where the argument breaks
>down.
>
>Alfalfa grows on gannet droppings. Beetles eat the alfalfa, and gannets eat the
>beetles. The sun shines down and warms them and the night sky sucks the heat 
>away. That temperature differential drives the whole system.
>
>Kill the alfalfa, and everything dies.
>Kill the beetles, and everything dies.
>Kill the gannets, and everything dies.
>
>Now, scaling this up,
      ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Here is where the argument breaks down.  An analogical (and clearly
fallacious) argument along the same lines could be made with a telephone
network.  There is enough redundancy in both telephone networks and ecosystems,
to compensate for all but *massive* trauma.

What is happening with rainforests, &c, is not the destruction of the
ecosystem, but a replacement of one ecosystem with another.  The new ecosystem
is still complex enough to be self-sustaining, or the farmer who created it
would quickly go out of business.  So the effective trauma, on a large scale,
is limited.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:54:43 GMT

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

You act foul.  In a separate post you claimed that defense satellites were
"incredibly expensive to build and maintain".  You want to use that which
you will not allow counter arguments.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:04:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.123340.22651@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:

> The radio news mentioned a new book from the Limits
> to Growth people some months ago. There was an
> interview with one of the authors. She said that
> to maintain a standard of living like that of
> the present USA, you need an energy consumption of
> one quater of that of the present USA. If everyone
> is going to use this much energy, then the earth
> can sustain 8.000.000.000 people. She did not tell
> how they had calculated this, maybe this is in the
> book. (How's that for a reference? No title, and
> no author name.)


Their latest book is called "Beyond the Limits".  I liked the line
from the review in C&EN: "'Beyond the Limits' is beyond belief."  The
methodology certainly is: aggregate economic and environmental effects
into a few variables, pretend that models the world, make up some
equations that purport to connect them, then run lots of "simulations"
and pretend they mean something.

The figures given above seem ridiculous.  Supply 20 TW of energy
(which is what the figures above imply) would require 10,000 2 GW(th)
nuclear reactors, or (if as electricity) half a million square
kilometers of PV arrays.  While both would be expensive, neither is at
any obvious limit.  5e5 km^2, for example, is only a small fraction
of the land area of the earth, or even of the US.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
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: 7 Jan 93 06:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester


In article <justinf-060192205025@macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu> justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:

>> 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.

The earth's surface receives about 100,000 terawatts of sunlight.
Human primary energy use is currently about 10 TW.  Even if we
increase this by 2 orders of magnitude, it's still only 1% of
insolation.  (And note that the added downward IR flux at the surface
from 2x CO2 is estimated to be about 1,500 TW.)


> 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.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder)
Subject: Malthusians are mistaken
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:26:43 GMT

In poor countries with subsistence farming and low industry, children
are early on a net asset, able to help in the fields and home.
Importantly, they are also the only form of "Social Security" parents
will have in their old age.  Birth numbers are also increased to compensate
for early deaths due to disease and injury.

In constrast, children in rich societies are (financially) quite a
drain, are not vital for later survival, and can more reasonably be
expected to live a long life.

Thus, one can expect (and it has been observed) that a sustained
improvement in a society's standard of living will result in a drastic
curtailment of the birth rate.  That is, helping a poor society pull up 
to a reasonable level may be the best way to help it non-coercively
self-regulate its population.

Truly humanitarian aid thus focuses on establishing sustainable and
appropriate technology and local projects that empower populations to
improve their lot (to the benefit of all).

-john elder
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:13:19 GMT

In <1ihehlINNekb@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:

>In article <rwallace.726413334@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a Bussard ramjet can
>>accelerate to no greater a speed than its exhaust velocity, since at
>>that point each ton of hydrogen will slow it down in collection by the
>>same amount it will accelerate it.

>This is indeed correct, provided you do the fusing at rest relative to
>your spaceship.  Having the hydrogen fuse while it is streaming past you
>at relativistic velocities is several orders of magnitude harder, I
>presume, but at least theoretically possible.

I'm not at all sure it is theoretically possible. I'm certain it isn't
for velocities arbitratily close to c. Matter of fact, it isn't even
certain a ship as small as a reasonably cheap Bussard ramjet can fuse
plain hydrogen (as opposed to deuterium) at all.

--
"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