No colonies in space - safeguard the Earth instead

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 27 Apr, 16:00, Joe Strout wrote:
: In article .com,
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
: must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
: colonization.
:
: The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
: do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?".
:
: Why? That seems silly to me. What's so special about humanity ON EARTH
: as opposed to humanity anywhere else?
:
: If we were to have space colonies
: politicians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
: military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
: give a list here.
:
: 1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
: produced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
: amount of colonies would save us.
:
: Read a lot of SF, do you?
:
:There was in fact a black project. What they actually did is a
:mystery. Perhaps the really big secret is that they were taken in by
:somebody.

Again, cite? If you can say "there was in fact" you must have some
facts you can point to.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"smallpond" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 27, 6:59 am, Ian Parker wrote:
While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

- Ian Parker

"Stephen Hawkins" earns you +5, but I stopped reading there.
-- S
That's ok, Hawking gets +1000 for attempting to impersonate
a physicist, Ian Parker is small fry. Perhaps now Hawking will
have another bet and lose to Newton.

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 27 Apr, 16:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
: :must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
: :colonization.
: :
: :The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
: :do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?". If we were to have space colonies
: oliticians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
: :military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
: :give a list here.
: :
: :1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
: roduced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
: :amount of colonies would save us. The fact that the chance of success
: :was nanoscopic does not alter the breathtaking arrogance.
:
: Cite? Oh, it was SECRET. So how do you know about it?
:
:Various things leak out from time tio time. The real secret is that
eople were taken in by the likes of Startrek

Yes, and Elvis' alien love child lives in Syracuse. Hey, it said so
in the Enquirer so it must be true.

That's at least as solid as your "things leak out" 'proof'.

: The word 'poppycock' comes to mind.

Was that too many syllables? How about 'bull****'? More
comprehensible?

:
: :2) Smallpox - The Pentagon claims that stocks are needed to provide
: :vaccines. This is total nonsense, vaccines for smallpox are produced
: :from related organisms. Jenner in the 18th century used cowpox. In
: :fact the word "vaccination" is derived from the Latin "vacca" cow. In
: :fact the sole reason for keeping stocks is to wage aggressive war.
:
: DoD is not the agency that is holding those stocks. Modern vaccines
: were NOT made out of 'related organisms'.
:
:Oh - they have no influence then. I find that hard to believe.

I'm sure there are a lot of things you find hard to believe that
people who actually know better know to be true.

Those samples are held, I believe, by the CDC. Last I knew they
didn't answer to DoD.

:Could I
:tell you how "modern" vaccines are made. recombinant DNA at some
oint. The old vaccines against Smallpox are perfectly adaquate, the
nly thing they do not protect against is a recombinant
:strain.Jenner's vaccine was perfectly adaquate. The only thing us
:moderns would need to do with it would be to make it of consistent
:quality, and more attenuated.

I'm sorry, but you're a raving loony at this point.

:The carrying out of recombinant research in any form on smallpox must
:be fraught with perils. First question - What do you need a vaccine
:for? Best way is to destroy the lot - then you won't need to vaccinate
:with anything. The US and Russia currently hold stocks.

No, they don't hold 'stocks'. They hold *samples*. It's not the same
thing at all.

:If the US were
:to propose destruction I am sure Russia would not stand in the way.

Of course not. They don't care if we destroy ours.

How about the folks with undeclared samples? That list is currently
believed to include North Korea, Russia (in addition to their declared
samples), and France.

:No
:the reason why you would need a vaccine is to combat a recombinant
:strain - something that you yourself have created.

Now you've made your way to foaming raving loony.

Are you ***SURE*** smallpox is gone? It's been declared extinct, but
then so was the coelacanth - until somebody found one.

*THAT* is why there are a few HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS that hold smallpox
samples.

:
: :3) Recombinant DNA - Whenever civilians want to conduct research they
: :have to go through goodness knows what in the shape of ethics
: :committees. If you are military and you specifically want to kill
: eople you can construct black projects and bypass all ethics
: :committees.
:
: Which has nothing at all to do with recombinant DNA. Is it your claim
: there are DoD-sponsored projects looking at recombinant DNA weapons?
:
:How do you propose to have a "modern" smallpox vaccine - and what
:would you need it for?

See above. Also, smallpox came from somewhere originally and
relatives of it still exist. Nothing that says another 'wild' strain
couldn't spring up or that some unknown reservoir of the stuff isn't
out there in nature someplace. Remember the coelacanth...

Let me try the question you dodged again.

Is it your claim there are DoD-sponsored projects looking at
recombinant DNA weapons?

:The Israelis have done research on the genetic differences between
:themselves and the Arabs, with the thought of develping a selective
:biological weapon. Mind the nations in the modern world are very mixed
:genetically - they will have a job.

And just what does that have to do with smallpox?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Apr 27, 1:59 pm, kT wrote:
smallpond wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:59 am, Ian Parker wrote:
While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.
"Stephen Hawkins" earns you +5, but I stopped reading there.

No, my understanding is that he gets five free points, regardless.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html


You are correct. My mistake.
--S

smallpond wrote:
On Apr 27, 1:59 pm, kT wrote:
smallpond wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:59 am, Ian Parker wrote:
While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.
"Stephen Hawkins" earns you +5, but I stopped reading there.
No, my understanding is that he gets five free points, regardless.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. My mistake.

Now that I reread it, you did qualify that with +5, so that's fine.

He may have gone on to get a few +10s or more, but since I didn't read
it either, I'll never know. It will just have to remain another unsolved
mystery of the universe.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

All undeclared smallpox samples MUST have come directly or indirectly
from the two authorized holders. If Russia has given samples, stocks
or however you put it to N Korea this surely underlines my point. In
fact there is no evidence of anyone else holding stocks. No terrorist
group has any.

Had the CDC intead of the twin towers been attacked on 9/11 the death
toll could well have been considerably higher. The CDC must be
considered to be a prime terrorist target. Just how well protected is?

- Ian Parker

On 27 Apr, 16:11, Hop David wrote:

Long term: self sustaining space settlements will come to pass. And our
eggs will no longer all be in the same basket.

If earthly life were in several baskets, a warlord would have less
disincentive to exterminate a planet. I believe that is a good point.
Regardless, I still hope for self sustaining space settlements.

I think deep down I probably agree with you. I think we should have a
Type 1 aspiration which will, long term, involve colonies in space. I
perhaps put this rather badly when I talked about Venus. Still I would
put a high technological hurdle on space colonization - Only with type
1 aspiration.

There are one or two other things at the back of my mind. A point
which springs immediately to mind is "how are colonists going to be
selected?". At present Asrtonauts have to be perfect pysical
specimans. You have to be GENETICALLY perfect. If you have had laser
eye surgery you will be turned down no matter how well you can
actually see.

All this rings some unconfortable bells. The Nazis had stud farms
where perfect physical specimans could breed. To me any thought of an
"insurance policy" makes Mars (in effect) into a stud farm. If we are
in a situation where anyone who wants to can settle in space - fine.
If you want to live on Mars there is not, nor should there be,
anything to stop you. OK fine. If you have to be sponsored by a
goverment and/or be a perfect physical speciman NO WAY. Heil Bush -
Nazi style politicians and generals could well think in terms of a
repoulation of Earth with perfect physical specimans. Like Rob Arndt's
"vierte Reich" (4th Reich).

Would Mars be a threat or an insurance? Martians are likely to regard
themselves as being an élite. This is potentially very dangerous. The
people likely to go to Mars are perfect physical specimans who are
also gullible. The sort of people whose corpses littered the Soviet
Union. A demogogic Martian leader could well lead humanity to
disaster.


- Ian Parker

On 27 Apr, 18:04, "T Wake" wrote:

Earth has survived for 4.5 billion years. There have been complex
multicelluar organisms for the last 600 million. It is unlikely to be
any NATURAL catastophe that would not be covered by a food dump.

Hmm. I am sure that it is unlikely that _any_ natural catastrophe will wipe
out *all* life on Earth. However, I got the impression this thread was
concerned about *Human* life on Earth, which is a different kettle of fish
all together. Two years supply of food (for how many people, BTW?) is not
very long. How would it be distributed? How would /you/ decide who gets to
eat it? (etc.)- Hide quoted text -

How will Martian colonists be chosen? If you look at my reply to Hop
David I have explained how they will be chosen. In terms of food I
would envisage the entire polulation of Earth. People say there is a
shortage of food. In fact this is not true. The mountains and lakes of
the EU are legendary. What we lack is the means of distributing food.
The Third World lacks tradable goods. Iraq in the time of Hammurabi
produced 3 crops a year. In fact food is currenly rather cheap. Taking
2 years to Antarctica or tinning is well within resources.

OK the difficulties are political. We should try to solve these
differences. To me space means writing off the people of Zimbabwe for
example rather than attemting to solve the problems. South Africa
might need to invade - hard call. Space however is a complete cop out.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote, in part:
The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?". If we were to have space colonies
politicians and generals would take bigger risks.
..
I think I said in a previous post that the only planet we should
consider colonizing was Venus. This would represent a commitment to
becoming a Type 1 civilization. Unless you have a commitment to Type
1, any colonies would simply constitute a bolt hole for generals and
politicians. If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike, or a VEI 8 eruption, the logical solution (far less expensive
than a colony on Mars) would be to stockpile 2 years supply of food in
either frozen (large cavities, particularly in the Arctic or
Antarctic, would be quite energy efficient) or tinned.
..
It is true that the overwhelming majority of human beings, and their
descendants, will be living on Earth for the foreseeable future. Thus,
a colony on Mars or one in orbit around the Moon would, indeed, be a
refuge for a fortunate few in the event of a problem on the Earth.

How, then, and on what basis, could such space colonization be
justified?

An asteroid strike or a large volcanic eruption is a natural event,
which may produce great evils, but which acts without malice. Thus, an
isolated Antarctic base could indeed ride out the immediate effects of
such an event.

However, if there were human survivors whose local sources of food
were wiped out, one could envisage them taking boats to Antarctica if
they knew where that base was.

Voyaging beyond Earth to other worlds in the Solar System is something
challenging even to the governments of the world, on the other hand.

An Antarctic base would have little chance of holding out for
centuries, or even millenia, against a determined world-enveloping
dictatorship. The political and economic problems faced by the Earth
do not necessarily *have* a solution. It may be that the Western
democracies will be overcome in a world racked by plague and famine,
and that, therefore, their achievements in liberty and technology
could be lost in a new dark age.

What is wanted is indeed a very secure "bolt hole"; not for generals
and politicians, but for the culture, civilization, and democratic
values which generals and politicians fight for. Secure enough so that
even if the Earth is taken over by religious fanatics, or by dictators
managing a population on the edge of starvation with an iron fist,
outside the Earth, space resources enable *continued technological
advance* and *population growth*, so that at some point, if there are
persecuted remnants of the American people still on the Earth, or of
other groups belonging to Western civilization, they can be rescued or
liberated.

We hope for a peaceful future, where the democracy and prosperity
enjoyed by the United States and similar countries, such as Israel,
Taiwan, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, and so on, will be shared by the
whole Earth. This future, however, can be disrupted by events other
than natural disaster. It can be disrupted by human agency.

The People's Republic of China has still proclaimed the intention of
engaging in actions disrespectful of the sovereignity of Taiwan, one
of our fellow democracies. Terrorist movements such as al-Qaeda,
Hamas, and Hezbollah have proclaimed the defeat of Israel, another one
of our fellow democracies, as a goal.

Just the other day, in Russia, Vladimir Putin made an announcement in
regards to a treaty on troop levels in Europe that shows that he does
not regard the past Communist regime in Russia in the same light as
the past Nazi regime in Germany is regarded: as an utter evil which
shows that the country which harbored it should, in future, until it
has gained much experience in democracy, not presume to dispute the
positions of countries that have not recently emerged from abominable
tyrranies, but which have been democratic for the long term, such as
Britain, France, and the United States.

I know this kind of goal might make some people uncomfortable.
Ensuring the ultimate victory of democracy and Western civilization
also would appear to mean ensuring the ultimate victory of ancilliary
characteristics of its carriers. All of America is democratic, and so
using tax money for a space colony to preserve democracy over the long
term is legitimate.

Not everyone in the United States, however, necessarily has an
interest in making the hegemony of white Christians an eternal thing
on the Earth. Well, we could always invite participation from Israel,
Taiwan, South Korea, Botswana, and Japan; I'm sorry that the
democratic club is not more inclusive at present, but I don't think we
have time to wait.

John Savard

The Israelis have done research on the genetic differences between
themselves and the Arabs, with the thought of develping a selective
biological weapon.

This appears to be an urban myth. (Or "poppycock", or "complete crap").