From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:35:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <k7vn88l.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <BuFoFx.2Mr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>
>>I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing 
>>population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>>making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me. 
>
>This is the point I've been listening for. It really doesn't matter what
>the reasons for starvation are. It is happening.

Garbage. Ignorant hand-waiving garbage. If you want to provide a solution, you
have to know the causes.

In Ethopia, we would have had to overthrow the (Communist) government and
create a new one. In Somalia, we'd have to hunt down all the warring factions
and install a military presence.

Will you two volunteer to be in the army? Kill people in order to feed
villages. That's about what it takes.

Your arguments are flawed. The fundmental problem is that starvation is caused
by thugs and roving gangs. Period. It is NOT caused because the food has run
out, as the POINT to you which all the Club of Romers seem to think.

>>I see, so In ten years, all those green technologies the crazy tree huggers
>>have been working on are going to be suitably conservative for you to use?
>
>Ten years won't be enough time for the political force to be generated
>to spend the money to build these energy resources on a large wnough
>scale. I am afraid that by the time it it plain enough to the man on the
>street it will already be too late to start.

Oh pleaseeeeee. You patronizing bunch of know-it-alls. As soon as oil becomes
too expensive, other substitutes will become available.

>This whole string relates to space. (Believe it or not) This is
>because a space faring species is one with energy independance of
>a large order. We are who we are mostly because of the cheap and 
>plentiful energy storage that mother nature was so kind to
>leave laying about. This has turned out to be even more plentiful
>then believed in the 50's but is, nevertheless, of a finite nature.
>
>There _are_ means and methods that could greatly reduce the impact
>of a petroleum-less society, but most of these need to be financed
>heavily and soon.

No. We do not. We do not need a Manhatten-like crash project to get rid of oil.
When the price of oil rises enough to discomfort people, other forms of energy
will become price-competitive. It is a simple economic truth. 

The Carter administration tried to fund the synthetic fuels in the late '70s.
Ended up being a big waste of money because the price of oil got cheaper,
rather than more expensive. Plus the waste and inefficency of a
goverment-dictated solution.

> The political enertia of the world's governments
>and the staggering global debts may simply make it impossible for 
>the required steps to be taken in time for any meaningful corrections
>to be made.

If the problem is that horrible, you declare war and usurp resources. When you
declare war, you don't worry about debt but do you damnedest to win by any
means necessary. 

The (alleged) problem is not that bad. 

If we really really needed to, we could rebuild a heavy lift vehicle, and
launch power-sats within ten years.  

No, I am not kidding. 

We got to the moon within 10 years from ground zero. We have the knowledge
base from those experiences. We will build a space station within 10 years on a
slow boat and tight budget. 

If the problem was really really really really bad, we could purchase heavy
lift from the Russians and put up our first power sat within 5 to 7 years. 

IF we needed to. If the money and need was there.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

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