HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:57:39 GMT

In article <rwallace.726282358@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
|> stop a smaller fraction of the bombs. This is one reason for living in a
|> space habitat rather than on a planet; a space habitat is a *lot* easier
|> to defend.

On the other hand, the consequences of even _1_ breakthrough by the attacking forces
are much more severe.

Can't recall the story I read some years back (series that ran in Analog, about the
captain of various freighters (Shuster?) who eventually ends up in the company's space
operation), when talking about why the space base should be on the Moon rather than in orbit
(the quote is not exact):

"It can't be shot down.  Over my dead body is the company gonna invest my hard-earned
money in a billion dollar clay pigeon."

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
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 13:49:23 GMT

In article <rwallace.726800685@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}In <1993Jan11.153049.26594@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <rwallace.726538409@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}>}In <1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
}>}>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
}>}>>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:
}>}>>>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).
}>}>>
}>}>The carnot cycle gives us the maximum possivle efficiancy for any
}>}>reactor. Get the watter hot enough and all of a sudden your big
}>}>expensive (or small expensive) nuclear reactor gives you Zero power
}>}>output. You have to radiate the heat.
}>}
}>}Sure, but the water tank is only a temporary buffer while the radiators
}>}are damaged or overloaded; a total reserve of maybe 1,000,000 tons of
}>}water is not going to overheat in that time. If it does, you could buy
}>}time by venting steam into space.
}
}>A cubic mile of rock would do better.  Ibid an ocean.  You are presenting
}>options by which, through their specific utilization, planets are better.
}
}A cubic mile of rock would not do at all, rock being a very poor
}conductor of heat. An ocean would do brilliantly, except that if you've
}got an ocean, that means you've got an atmosphere, which means you've
}got to put your weapons in orbit, which means they're going to be
}incredibly expensive to build and maintain, plus you can't use the ocean
}as a heat sink, you've got to haul up large radiators or heat absorbers
}(i.e. thousands of tons of water), which makes your weapons systems even
}more incredibly expensive than they already were.

Which also means that it can absorb damage - without harm to the people - 
that could vaporize the habitat... Why defend the entire planet?  Unlike the
habitat, if a few cubit miles of random rock gets vaporized it really doesn't
matter that much.

BTW:  Why would these "weapons in orbit" be deamed so absurd because they
are, in your words "incredibly expensive to build and maintain" when they
would be much, much less expensive to build and maintain than your habitat?

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: wielinga@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Bruce Wielinga)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:42:46 GMT


|> An ocean would do brilliantly, except that if you've
|> got an ocean, that means you've got an atmosphere, which means you've
|> got to put your weapons in orbit, which means they're going to be
|> incredibly expensive to build and maintain, plus you can't use the ocean
|> as a heat sink, you've got to haul up large radiators or heat absorbers
|> (i.e. thousands of tons of water), which makes your weapons systems even
|> more incredibly expensive than they already were.
	
	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.
|> 
|> --
|> "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
|> Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
|> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie

Bruce Wielinga.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:55:36 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Dani, I don't think you are correct that nobody has ever calculated the
value of children.  Work has been done on this in Africa and, I believe,
Bangladesh.  I have also seen work on this in India and, I think, parts
of Mexico or Central America.  I don't have my bib with me, but
economically minded sociologists and others have made a lot of estimates
based on actual data.  The accuracy of these is another question, of
course.

Was your post intended to be skeptical or supportive of old age security
reasons for having kids?  The feeling I got was ambiguous.  I think that
ambiguity is in fact the truth about this, by the way.  Men and women
can have different relationships to this question - kids may take less
investment for men than women, hence they may want more and also be able
to expect mroe back.  Different social systems, land tenure, etc., can
also have a major effect.  I don't think you can make simple statements
about these relationships.


-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:00:41 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

In article <C0Hs7G.8t6@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>,
neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) wrote: 
> In article <justinf-060192202205@macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu> justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan04.210113.2515@quest.UUCP>, curt@quest.UUCP (Curtis
> >Gibson) wrote:
> >How about this "low-budget" version? It's not quite as fast or unstoppable,
> >but it's probably easier. All you need is a fusion-powered spaceship (the
> >larger the engine, the better) with the capability to melt down cometary
> >ices, extract the deuterium from them (or just plain H2, depending), and
> >use the residue for reaction mass.
> >
> >Land spaceship on comet in Oort cloud. Attach securely. Push comet into an
> >orbit that will intersect target. Move to next comet, and repeat.
> >
>    You'd never get the granting agencies to fund it, it's too long term.
> The Oort cloud is postulated to exist about 0.5 light years out. If you
> stopped the orbital motion of a comet there and let it fall into the sun
> it would take on the order of 1E5 years, if I remember correctly. 

Good point. If you just build the reactor, etc, on the comet, and leave it
turned on, you'll get better results. If the comet is 5E15 m away and
masses 10^14 kg, and you want it to hit in about 50 years (a rather long
time, I know) with constant accelration, you will arrive at about 2% of c,
with a kinetic energy of about 2E27 joules, or about what the Sun puts out
in 5 seconds (anyone have any idea how much this is in megatons of TNT?).
Unfortunately you need a power output on the order of 10^18 watts, and if
you could do that, you'd have better ways to destroy a planet.

I still think the Von Neuman version would be an effective, if slow,
strategy for "berserker" type robots. 

> -- 
>  Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Entropy isn't what it
>  neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | used to be.
>  utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              |
>  "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |

--
Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)

                         This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Keywords: n
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:42:27 GMT

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?


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:44:26 GMT

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

>In <1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:

>>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>>>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:
>>>
>Sure, but the water tank is only a temporary buffer while the radiators
>are damaged or overloaded; a total reserve of maybe 1,000,000 tons of
>water is not going to overheat in that time. If it does, you could buy
>time by venting steam into space.
Also an interesting way of getting out of people's way....

Eccles

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4078 alt.folklore.science:4598
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:33:40 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:

>I have been thinking about these things for some time,
>and it is not obvious that a population some times 
>larger than today must mean ruin of the world. I also
>think that forcing forcing the population to decrease
>won't be practical, so planning for a future where we
>are at least 20 billion, and have a higher living
>standard than today, is the best thing to do.

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.)

Klaus O K
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4083 alt.folklore.science:4600
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:10:58
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<1993Jan4.130721.7093@cs.rochester.edu> <urf.726170271@sw2001>
	<C0Ft3B.E3L@panix.com> <urf.726404905@sw2001>
	<1993Jan12.123340.22651@odin.diku.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: klaus@diku.dk's message of 12 Jan 93 12:33:40 GMT

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

   urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:

   >I have been thinking about these things for some time,
   >and it is not obvious that a population some times 
   >larger than today must mean ruin of the world. I also
   >think that forcing forcing the population to decrease
   >won't be practical, so planning for a future where we
   >are at least 20 billion, and have a higher living
   >standard than today, is the best thing to do.

   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.)

It's about on a level with the rest of the Club of Rome work.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3935 alt.folklore.science:4564
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
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 21:00:41 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks

Patrick Juola (juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:

>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.

Dream on. Calling slash-and-burn 'self sustaining' it stretching things more
than a little.

Within 5 years the ground is exhausted, and the farmer wanders away to burn
some more forests down.

--
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: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Pulsars as time machines?
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 00:05:49 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Okay, Gavin Miller (shocker@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu) recently mentioned
that someone named John Gribbin had proposed that a neutron star might
work as a Tipler-style time machine. (That is, the Closed Timelike Curves
might occur in the neighborhood of a rapidly rotating neutron star.)
 The Tipler-style 'machine' requires a massive cylinder rotating so that
its surface is moving at more than .5c. A pulsar, not being cylindrical,
might need more speed (or might not work at all). But it must at least
have this minimum speed.
 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.
 My question is, *is* this so? What is an "average" radius and speed of
a pulsar? Can we measure the speeds and sizes of pulsars that aren't
aimed at us, and do any of those fall in the following neighborhood?
Anyone have any buddies on sci.space? (I'm loath to post this there-
they get enough traffic as it is, and most wouldn't care...)

       radius                       rate of revolution

       10 km                        ~40 microseconds
       100 km                       ~400 microseconds
       1000 km                      ~4 milliseconds
       10000 km                     ~40 milliseconds


 Now, assume for the moment that at least some pulsars would act as
natural time machines. Something in the right orbit around it could
move back in time. (Light could be bent to go slightly back in time,
perhaps.)
 What might we see if we looked at one? What sort of astronomical
observations would lead us to beleive that this might be going on?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Keywords: n
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:51:34 GMT

In article <rwallace.726800830@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}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?

Slight illumination:  subject to the constraints in the original question
("naturally habitable planet") why ask such a stupid terraforming question?


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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:13:29 GMT

In <1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:

>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>>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:
>>
>>>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).
>>
>The carnot cycle gives us the maximum possivle efficiancy for any
>reactor. Get the watter hot enough and all of a sudden your big
>expensive (or small expensive) nuclear reactor gives you Zero power
>output. You have to radiate the heat.

Sure, but the water tank is only a temporary buffer while the radiators
are damaged or overloaded; a total reserve of maybe 1,000,000 tons of
water is not going to overheat in that time. If it does, you could buy
time by venting steam into space.

>>If an amount of nuclear explosives equivalent to a Dinosaur Killer hit
>>the Earth, that would cause a lot of inconvenience to everyone. Plus
>>that megatonnage aimed at say Europe would kill quite a lot of people.
>>Even not aimed at specific targets.

>So what happens when the emp from a near miss with a nuclear device
>fries every single electronic component in your colony?

First, nuclear explosions produce little or no EMP in vacuum. Second,
the EMP is not going to penetrate the metres-thick shell of the habitat.
And the inhabitants presumably will have the wit to shield external
electronic components.



--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
Keywords: rainforest
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:19:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1993Jan6.213020.17918@sfu.ca> shihy@fraser.sfu.ca (Shih Yap) writes:

> Excuse my ignorance but .. if not for the vast tracts of forests
> (rainforests or temperate or otherwise) supplementing, if not
> contributing a very large part to the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle, I
> doubt any of us would have a comfortably breathable atmosphere in the
> future. Besides of which, forests acts as water catchment areas,
> giving us greater access to fresh water rather "cheaply".

I forgive your ignorance, but let me correct it...

There is this myth that rainforests are a great source of oxygen.  In
fact, rainforests produce very little net oxygen.  This is because, in
equilibrium, the carbon fixed by photosynthesis is balanced by the
carbon oxidized by respiration and decay of detritus.  (For the same
reason, rainforests fix very little net carbon, although clearly they
*contain* considerable carbon.)

So, why does the earth have oxygen?  Because some carbon, mostly fixed
in oceans by phytoplankton, does not get reoxidized, but instead gets
trapped in oceanic sediments.  The effect is to maintain a gradient in
the oxidation level between the solid earth (which is more reduced,
more so deeper in the planet) and the atmosphere.  Tectonics carries
some of this material down into the mantle.

Oxygen is ultimately removed by reaction with reduced compounds
exposed by erosion, seeps and by volcanic activity (and by human
activity).  These compounds include organic compounds, elemental
carbon, sulfur and sulfides, and reduced transition metal ions (like
Fe(II)).

Only about 0.2% of the carbon fixed by photosynthesis ends up in long
term sequestration in sediments.  If every last living thing on earth
were to be killed tommorrow, it would take millions of years for the
oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to be depleted.  This shows that if
we wanted to exert long term control on the amount of oxygen in the
atmosphere, we would need to bury only a (relatively) small amount of
biomass or other reduced material (or, exhume a certain amount of
reduced material).   Our influence on atmospheric CO2 is much
greater, as the atmosphere contains much less CO2 than it does
oxygen.

It is an interesting open problem of why the atmosphere contains the
amount of oxygen it currently does, rather than some lesser or greater
amount.  No obviously correct feedback mechanism has been identified
that would stabilize it at current levels.  Conceivably, it's been
stable through geologic time just by chance -- if it had gone too low,
aerobic organisms might have been wiped out, and we would not be here
(an example of the anthropic principle).  There is some discussion
that the Permian-Triassic mass extinction was associated with a global
decline in atmospheric oxygen.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu