From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:51:38 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <JOSHUA.92Dec12054747@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec12.002631.8867@u.washington.edu> 
>grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
>
>>   In article <JOSHUA.92Dec11143746@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> 
>>   joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>>   >In article <1992Dec11.182521.19366@u.washington.edu> 
>>   >grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
>
>>   >>   The problem is this.  [john states the problem of diminishing
>>   >>   resources and expectations].
>
>>   >[I point out (first) the probability of exploitation of extraterrestrial
>>   >resources and (second) the possibilities of new technologies (specific-
>>   >ly nanotechnology and generation of electricity through nuclear fusion).
>
>john answers my second point first:
>
>>   Ah, technological band-aids.  I probably should have addressed this point 
>>   up front some time ago.  Since about the 1950's, when people first started
>>   noticing the disastrous long-term consequences of what were then emerging 
>>   trends, there's been a spate of what I suppose could be caled "techno-
>>   optimism" -- claims that some technology, or combination of same, would
>>   prevent the otherwise inevitable overshoot and crash.  
>
>why not? what was the invention of agriculture? or the invention of industry?
>the development of agricultiure, in particular, happened shortly after the
>time that the dominant technology (big game hunting) had burnt itself out
>('we are killing too many mammoths; when they are all dead we will not be 
>able to sustain the current population; we are all going to die').
>
>>							   The first one I
>>   know of was "clean, cheap" nuclear power.  Do you recall the slogan,
>>   "power too cheap to meter"?
>
>in point of fact (I know I am getting into religious territory here, and I
>promise not to sustain the argument (at least on this newsgroup) beyond
>today), generation of power by nuclear fission is cleaner than generation
>of same using fossil fuels. also the human toll is much lower (how many
>people die in coal mines every year?). and it probably would be cheaper
>if it were possible to set up nuclear power plants without having tree
>huggers whining at their legislators and parading outside your office 
>frothing at the mouth and howling for blood at the slightest sign of
>a new power plant.
>
>>   We've seen the downside of that one pretty thoroughly.  Now it's fusion 
>>   that's the rage.  We've been being promised fusion energy on a commercial
>>   basis since the mid-1950's.  Check into some of the estimates being put
>>   together by people outside of the fusion-research industry (and I'm
>>   not referring to the ecological fringe), suggesting on pretty good
>>   grounds that a commercial fusion reactor using developments of current
>>   technology would produce only about as much power as a fission plant,
>>   but cost roughly ten times as much to build...
>
>yes, well, perhaps the first one would. but the second? the tenth? the
>hundredth?
>
>>   I can't speak directly to nanotechnology; I haven't read up on it.  But
>>   I remain highly skeptical of any claim that some technological gimmick
>>   is going to pull our nuts out of the fire.  I wish one would...but in
>>   the meantime, it might make sense to prepare some fallback plans in
>>   case it doesn't happen.
>
>well, you should. nanotechnology (working with materials on a molecular
>level) would be a revolution much greater than the introduction of
>agriculture. it is also much closer than you might think (electric motors
>smaller than the diameter of a human hair have been built, for instance).
>
>>   (Large-scale exploitation of extraterrestrial resources is another 
>>   matter entirely; there are enormous resources available offworld, and
>>   that could definitely do the trick, in the same way that the discovery
>>   and exploitation of the resources of the Americas pulled Europe out
>>   of its backwater status and stopped a spiral of famine, depopulation
>>   and disease that had been going on since about 1300.  Unfortunately,
>>   the space program in the US and CIS both is creeping ahead at a snail's
>>   pace, hamstrung by budget cuts and the pork-barreling that has made
>>   the Space Station Freedom project such an embarrasment.  (Wasn't it
>>   supposed to be functioning by this year?)  If we don't get offworld in
>>   a big way very soon indeed, these resources may not come on line soon
>>   enough to help -- and I'm not at all sure we have fifty years to spare.)
>
>and the japanese? the europeans? the chinese? the indians? I didn't say it
>would necessarily be an american thing (or a russian, though if russia pulls
>out of the current morass, I think large scale russian exploitation of space
>is very likely).
>
>josh
>
>
>


Re: Nanotech; 
It is useless untill A.I. advances sufficiently to make the little buggers
self-replicating. The resources requires to make ONE nano-machine using
the best methods are, to put it lightly, rather large. We need self-replicating
critters to overcome the entropic difficulties.

Re: russian colonization of space!
They cannot even feed themselves. As I said before, no large scale moving
of mass to earth orbit (nevermind the asteroid belt where these alleged
resources are) is impossible using rocketry. Better would be a system whereby
most or all of the energy needed would be imparted on the earth's surface;
i.e. mass-driver tech. 
Best of all would be a completely passive system; the "space elevator" which
is basically a big pole stuck to the earth at the equator & "fixed" at an
L-5 point. Can't do it with todays tech. Maybee we can never do it.
I would REALLY be interested in a reason why the russians would be "up for"
a large scale move into space....

-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.magick