|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On 25 Mar 2004 22:24:28 -0800, in a place far, far away, (Christopher M. Jones) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: OK, you said that twice the current population would be overpopulation. That's equally nonsense. I said that we *could* double our population, but at the cost of a substantial portion of our remaining wildlife habitat. That's not necessarily true. Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air. There's lots of room out there. Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty. For a very whacked definition of "empty" The majority of Califorinia is under production as agriculture. So it's not all City, but it's not "empty". The San Joaquin(sp?) and Imperial valleys are the vegetable bread basket of the US (for a whacked metaphor). The Sacramento river delta is the rice production center of the west coast. The only really empty parts are the ones there isn't water to irrigate (or urbanize) and the mountains. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air. There's lots of room out there. Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty. For a very whacked definition of "empty" The majority of Califorinia is under production as agriculture. So it's not all City, but it's not "empty". Empty of humans and animals. The San Joaquin(sp?) and Imperial valleys are the vegetable bread basket of the US (for a whacked metaphor). The Sacramento river delta is the rice production center of the west coast. That's not the part I'm talking about. The only really empty parts are the ones there isn't water to irrigate (or urbanize) and the mountains. Yes, and there's a lot of that. Most of the state, in fact. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
Rand Simberg wrote: On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air. There's lots of room out there. Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty. This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured up. Room for urban expansion is not the issue and nobody has ever said it was. And anybody who can read a map, or watches television, knows that a large percentage of the continental US - approx. 95% - is rural land, so the charge that somebody doesn't know what's "out there" cannot be literally true of anybody who has not been institutionalized their entire life. (Just for the record, I have driven the length and breadth of California dozens of times, and flown over almost every region of the country. I always get a window seat and spend virtually the entire flight looking out the window. Wilderness preservation is one of my main interests, so I have detailed topographic maps of almost every state in the West and have studied them thoroughly. I've also hiked into some of the wildest places in the continental US. Last summer I hiked into the Thorofare River in Yellowstone, which is the farthest point from a road in the continental US - 21 miles or more in all directions. I know what is out there.) For a very whacked definition of "empty" The majority of Califorinia is under production as agriculture. So it's not all City, but it's not "empty". Empty of humans and animals. The San Joaquin(sp?) and Imperial valleys are the vegetable bread basket of the US (for a whacked metaphor). The Sacramento river delta is the rice production center of the west coast. That's not the part I'm talking about. The only really empty parts are the ones there isn't water to irrigate (or urbanize) and the mountains. Yes, and there's a lot of that. Most of the state, in fact. Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM - "Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on the land as it will support). Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There is no way that that would be economically competetive with more traditional agriculture. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:01:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air. There's lots of room out there. Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty. This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured up. "The right"? Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM - "Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on the land as it will support). Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There is no way that that would be economically competetive with more traditional agriculture. At current technology levels. Technology levels are not static. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?
Rand Simberg wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:01:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick Morris made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:51:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Robert" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Someone's obviously never seen the US from the air. There's lots of room out there. Or even driven. California by itself is for the most part empty. This is one of the more curious strawmen that the right has conjured up. "The right"? Places like the High Sierra and the Mojave Desert have very little to contribute to human sustenance. The Coast Range, OTOH, is mostly tree farming from the Bay area north, so it's no more "empty" of humans than the agricultural areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A large fraction of the land in the West is in fact being fully utilized to the limit of it's carrying capacity. Even desert areas, though they may look empty, may be supporting a limited amount of grazing (the BLM - "Bureau of Livestock and Mining" - does tend to put as many cattle on the land as it will support). Places like LA, or San Fransisco can be densely populated only because there is a lot of land that isn't, and increasing the carrying capacity of places like the Mojave Desert by, for example, irrigating crops with desalinated seawater, would be very capital and energy intensive. There is no way that that would be economically competetive with more traditional agriculture. At current technology levels. Advanced technologies may also enhance the competetiveness of conventional agriculture. Technology levels are not static. Energy prices are also not static, and they seem to be going in the wrong direction right now. As we pass the peak in oil production, prices are likely to rise even further. Desalinization plants are also rather pricey, in addition to being energy intensive, and advanced technology (more energy efficient) plants may be even more so. It would take an enormous investment just to make up for the loss of ground water for irrigation as aquifers depleted in many areas around the world. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |