|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ Do Mars
For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could
electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
On Jul 21, 12:43*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we keep colonising new planets? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
darwinist wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote: For the money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate system & motor off the grid. What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we keep colonising new planets? What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we control population? .. .. -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
On Jul 20, 10:56*pm, darwinist wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:43*pm, Bret Cahill wrote: For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we keep colonising new planets? And that of our Selene/moon? ~ BG |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
On Jul 20, 11:44*pm, "David P." wrote:
darwinist wrote: Bret Cahill wrote: For the money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate system & motor off the grid. What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we keep colonising new planets? What if life *is* sustainable here, but only if we control population? How true, by getting rid of everyone that's not a Zionist Nazi or one of their brown-nosed minions would certainly improve the odds. Is that what you mean? Having a planet of Ponzi Madoff(s) would also be terrific, in that we could all live large regardless of the consequences. ~ BG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
On Jul 20, 7:43*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill For 10% of what our mutually perpetrated cold war has cost us (including its space race), we'd have nailed a cure fior all forms of cancer, and the entire world would have had an affordable surplus of clean energy to go right along with your electrified Interstate Highway system, as well as the ten fold improved national energy grid to boot. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ Do Mars
BradGuth wrote
Bret Cahill wrote For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Makes a hell of a lot more sense to replace coal fired power stations with nukes, use electricity from nukes to heat our houses etc and use the natural gas no longer wasted on heating in cars and trucks. For 10% of what our mutually perpetrated cold war has cost us (including its space race), we'd have nailed a cure fior all forms of cancer, Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim. and the entire world would have had an affordable surplus of clean energy to go right along with your electrified Interstate Highway system, Makes a hell of a lot more sense to replace coal fired power stations with nukes, use electricity from nukes to heat our houses etc and use the natural gas no longer wasted on heating in cars and trucks. as well as the ten fold improved national energy grid to boot. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ Do Mars
"Rob Dekker" wrote in message ... "Bret Cahill" wrote in message ... For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill Your comment does not directly reflect the subject of your post, although it hints at maximizing energy efficiency, which is a good start for sustainable living in the long run. Looking at the rate that the human race has been devours this planet's resources over the past 100 years, while growing exponentially in numbers, it is not hard to imagine that our planet will show it's limits in the near future. Will the era of homo sapiens (man, the thinker) go into history as the greatest devastation that the planet ever went through, or will we go through this period of exponential growth and find some form of sustainable lifestyle with intelligence and technology still intact ? If we make it though, we may have enough time to kickstart sustainable colonies on other planets, first in our own solar system and much later in neighboring systems. If that works, we may be able to colonize the local neighborhood, and ultimately the entire Galaxy. If anyone has the thought that colonizing the Galaxy is likely or even inevitable given our self-proclaimed superior intelligence and ability to adapt, then maybe the Fermi paradox would offer a humbling realization : we would be the first in this Galaxy of 300 billion star systems to do so, in the 13 billion years that this Galaxy exists. If the counterthought would be that we are alone or unique in some way, and that we are the first in this Galaxy to make it to this point, then this should be reason enough to be very careful with what we are doing. Very careful with this planet, with it's resources and with it's ability to serve us with food, energy and natural resources in a suustainable fashion. After all, as far as we know, among the countless planets around the 300 billion stars in this Galaxy alone, Earth is the only planet with any life at all. Rob Buzz Aldrin suggested anyone we send to Mars should be left there, it'll be cheaper. I tend to agree. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_ DoMars
On Jul 22, 4:55Â*am, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Bret Cahill" wrote in message ... For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Bret Cahill Your comment does not directly reflect the subject of your post, although it hints at maximizing energy efficiency, which is a good start for sustainable living in the long run. Looking at the rate that the human race has been devours this planet's resources over the past 100 years, while growing exponentially in numbers, it is not hard to imagine that our planet will show it's limits in the near future. •• Cahill and Dekker lost on the dark side of the moon or up **** creek without a paddle. Why don't you children try to provide proofs for your nonsense. NO RealClimate.org is not a valid source. ––Â*–– There are three types of people that you can_not_talk into behaving well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1-The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they don't agree, then you'll never be able to change their mind. 2- the religious fanatic 
If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it means their death." 3- There is no way to reform evil- Not in a million years 
There is no way to convince the terrorists, anthropogenic global warming alarmists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but that knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil acts. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Let's First See if Human Life Is Sustainable On Earth _Then_Do Mars
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Bret Cahill" wrote in message ... For the kind of money necessary for the Mars mission, we could electrify the entire Interstate Highway system and motor off the grid. Your comment does not directly reflect the subject of your post, although it hints at maximizing energy efficiency, which is a good start for sustainable living in the long run. Looking at the rate that the human race has been devours this planet's resources over the past 100 years, while growing exponentially in numbers, it is not hard to imagine that our planet will show it's limits in the near future. Will the era of homo sapiens (man, the thinker) go into history as the greatest devastation that the planet ever went through, or will we go through this period of exponential growth and find some form of sustainable lifestyle with intelligence and technology still intact ? If we make it though, we may have enough time to kickstart sustainable colonies on other planets, first in our own solar system and much later in neighboring systems. If that works, we may be able to colonize the local neighborhood, and ultimately the entire Galaxy. This entire idea of a sustainable economy is a nonsense term invented by tree huggers. A sustainable economy is easy to describe and it includes animals instead of tractors as a trivial example. One can talk about renewable fuels for the tractors to get some journalism majors to waste their time with you. Fact is once there are tractors the entire chain of technology needed to make tractors and everything that goes into them has to exist. Blacksmiths need not apply. And that technology requires man power, bodies, large populations which cannot be supported by any type of organic farming. But do not worry. Antibiotics and vaccines take an equally wide range of technologies including refrigeration and electricity and shipping and even needles in the millions. That also requires a large population to maintain. Anyone talking about a sustainable economy has to be living in a fantasy world if he does not realize he is describing the technology of the late 18th century minus the steam engine at best. There is a solution and at the present time only one known solution. It is called fission power plants. Without any new technology, and fusion or the equivalent is the only alternative, the choice is nuclear power or the 1700s without steam engines. If anyone takes a serious stance in favor of steam engines, I will concede they are possible but not in the quantities needed to replace all the trucks and cars and refrigerated cars. That still leaves them to be loaded and unloaded with horse drawn wagons. All the ways out that avoid the obvious are impossible Certainly super light and super efficient cars are possible. But they are not possible without a high level of technology at all levels and the people to operate that technology. That requires them to be in production and not on the farm. Farmers cannot feed a population that is 90% in the cities with horse drawn plows. High tech cannot be a solution. I have thought through most of the considerations. Anyone who thinks there is a solution better than the 1700s with or without steam engines please feel free to tell me about it. I do react poorly to handwaving and moral positions and the like. Of course fission has its drawbacks. So does the 18th century. It is not the final solution. It simply replaces fossil fuels. That is important as a few years ago the global melters got together with the peak oil folks and they agreed we would run out of oil before we melt. So this is not something about which there should be any treehugger disagreement. France and Japan are each about 80% nuclear and at least the Japanese do not glow in the dark. You never know about the French. Yes, I know there are problems with decommissioning nuclear power plants. Are they worse than strip mining and disposing of coal ash and all that CO2? Anyway, I don't want to make this a sales pitch for nuclear and I hope it is just an interim step to fusion. The only point I hope to leave is that sustainable has consequences no rational person would propose. Yes, I have read all the wonderland stories of people who are living a sustainable life in their bewildered fantasy life. I have yet to find a story of anyone who really is. A computer powered by wind power? The infrastructure to make computers is not possible. Willing to give that up? How many of those people weave their own cloth to make their clothes and use 18th c. needles? Don't get me started on the shoes. I know there would be division labor and trade in 18th c. terms but those people would not have the free time to brag about being sustainable if they were growing the extra food to trade to those who weave cloth. Preserving food for the winter? Who is making canning jars and pressure cookers? Certainly there are a few things which can be adapted from 19th c. improvements to the 18th c. but not a single thing from the 20th. -- We have learned from the religious riots in Israel that riots are permitted on the Sabboth. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4171 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 Wed Jul 22 20:32:04 EDT 2009 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sun-powered aircraft to support sustainable development | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 7th 05 04:14 AM |
Map of Life on Earth could be used on Mars | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 11th 05 09:13 PM |
Map of Life on Earth could be used on Mars | [email protected] | News | 0 | May 11th 05 09:13 PM |
Would the existance of intelligent extra-terrestrial change the destination and the meaning of human life on earth? | PR11 | Misc | 4 | November 5th 03 09:00 AM |
Rocks Could Reveal Secrets Of Life On Earth - And Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 9th 03 04:13 PM |