From: dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot)
Subject: Summary of Ideas (was Re: list)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.160546.1@cc.helsinki.fi> eperkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.175914.1@opie.bgsu.edu>, bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
> > All of the sudden, everybody is having all kinds of great ideas.  Some of 
> > these ideas are _really_ interesting, and I was wondering:  Has anybody 
> > been keeping track of them, compiling them, etc?
>     ...
> > Has anybody out there been doing this, or should I start?
> 
> Once upon a time there was an effort in this direction.  It was a file
> on proposed means of destruction, the reasons why many of them couldn't
> possibly work and the pros and cons of the rest.  As I recall, it was meant
> to be a periodic publication, but it has been unheard of since its first
> appearance.  I think the writer was Francis A. Uy, who fell silent soon
> afterwards for reasons unknown, and hasn't been heard of since to the best
> of my knowledge.

I wrote three articles summarizing major ideas way back in April of this
year, at the request of Francis Uy.  Since then, I have concluded that most
ideas (read: all ideas thus far) fall somewhere into the following categories:

    1) Scientifically or physically impossible with technology available
          within a reasonable time frame

       Example: Crashing the moon into the Earth, since the moon is much
                to massive to be moved (with technology available...)

    2) Lacking the ability to destroy (forever) all life (or all intellegent
          life or even all surface life)

       Example: Nuking every square inch of the planet surface, since deep
                sea life will survive with the forseeable ability to re-evolve
                into intellegent, space-faring surface life with years and
                years to spare before the sun engulfs the earth.

    3) Too complicated to guarantee success

       Example: Use of off-planet robotic machines which manufacture nukes
                and periodically hurl them at the earth in an effort to
                maintain a planetary state without intellegent surface life
                by trying to make sure the only living creatures around are
                deep sea organisms, since this idea neglects the issues of
                robot maintenance and periodic failure over the billion-some
                years before the sun engulfs the earth--two issues which
                complicate the solution emmensely.

The purpose of the three summary articles was essentially to tell readers,
"don't ever mention any of these ideas again, since they won't work and
here's why," but they also served nicely as an informative listing of ideas
which had been suggested.  I have not maintained a current summary, since ideas
of the past five or months or so have all been looked at, thought about, and
forgotten due to their uselessness.  A repost of the summary articles
wouldn't serve any productive purpose--since all the ideas within are somehow
flawed--however, it would serve the purpose of shutting up some of the newer
readers who post ideas before really thinking about them.

If the demand is high enough, I'll repost the summaries.

BTW, I'd like to see more category three articles--they're fun to dissect
even if they are marred by their unworkability.

- - - - -_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         |     _
        (|avid |)roudfoot              dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
               |                      Harvey Mudd Engineering c/o 1995