From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:33:20 GMT

In article <135940@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.145918.14933@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>You mean ignoring any possible consequences of ozone loss and maybe even
>>global warming? Let's even completely ignore increasing risks of nuclear
>>war (from non-NATO development) or from nuclear disaster.  We can also ignore
>>steady expansionism of the populace.
>
>Yep. Ignore it. Contrary to Chicken Little Opinion, we don't understand
>global warming very well and unless you're planning to move to Antarctica,
>I wouldn't get in a tizzy about the "ozone hole." [see Physics Today, Dec
>'91 for a discussion of the polar stratospheric cloud mechanism for ozone
>depletion by CFC's].

Yep. How did PSCs get there... What are they *made* of... Also see Science
about six issues ago where ozone loss and resulting uv increases are killing
phytoplankton in the antarctic ocean affecting the food chain there. Probably
funded by chicken littles. George must also be a Chicken Little because
he's getting a little sweaty there and rushing the CFC ban date. I never saw
him as a bunny hugger before.

I'm keeping quite abreast of CFC ozone depletion as much of that research
is being done here.

>As for the "increasing risk of nuclear war" due to nuclear proliferation,
>Nonsense. The threat of all-out thermonuclear war *is gone* (huzzah!).

Hmm, might want to inform Hussein about that. You must have personally inspected
every third world country for nuclear weapons research. How does Israel feel
today... Turkey? China!

> The
>threat of despotic countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons *is* real,
>and requires more stringent efforts in UN inspections, non-proliferation
>research, and development of both a defense against limited strikes and
>the abililty to disable a "terrorist bomb."  Complaining about the "global
>threat" won't make it go away.

Nope, neither will ignoring it.

I suprised to hear that you think the present state of apparent nuclear threat
is permanent.


>>Even if you ignore all the globe-threatening issues, *population* growth,
>>which you can *count on*, will still be one of our greatest challenges.  It
>>will keep growing until it simply *can't* and that only happens when world
>>resources, particularly in food stuffs, become steadily taxed. Don't
>>kid yourselves, this is *going* to happen whether you like it or agree with
>>it.
>
>Haven't we had about enough of this in the last 200 years?? Ever since
>Malthus first came up with the idea, we've been in Imminent Peril of
>choking the planet with people. Fortunately, there have been enough people (!)
>cleverer than ol' Tom that we've managed well enough. Try telling the
>people in Singapore, Japan, or Taiwan that high population densities
>guarantee abject poverty and starvation. Ever stop to think there might be
>more to it than that?

Hmm. You're right. I feel better now. What's another 5 billion people anyway.
I'm sure everything will be allllll right.

>
>--
> Dr. Donald W. Roberts
>   University of California                                      Physicist
>   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory         Recreational Bodybuilder
>   dwr@llnl.gov                                           Renaissance Dude
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whoa!




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu