|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#432
April 13th 05, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
*US* wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:25:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...working off a false premise... : Of course you are, because you're not thinking. : When you fail here, you won't succeed elsewhere. Fail? The only failure is one of communication... : Your belief : You don't speak for me. You don't comprehend : what I say. : On 7 Apr 2005 12:50:43 -0700, "Technical Illiterate Jordan" : wrote: : Finally, on the notion that advocates of space exploration want to : "throw away the Earth" and demonstrate this by their actions: : If you can't learn to get by here properly, you've no business : trying to tell yourself you'd improve with travel. : What have you done to help clean up your own messes? : crickets : On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:37:21 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : ... stuck with a Dark Ages : mindset. : : Eric : Yes, you believe in the equivalent of turning lead into gold : without even having the lead. : Your sow's ear isn't going to become a silk purse. : On 4 Apr 2005 12:56:07 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: : ... they _can't_ be until we actually start building : outposts and colonies on other celestial bodies. : Actually, you can't even begin to set up a self-sufficient : biosphere with the safety zone of Earth around it. : That should tell you something, but you seem inattentive. : Because the laws of Nature are uniform, a process which we know : You don't know it well enough to get it right here. : ... it can never be done ... : You're making up stupid comments and trying to : pretend they'd be someone else's. : That's disingenuous of you, at best. : On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Okay, suppose you're right : It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found : by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. : Again, what do you plan on doing about it? : Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing : a lot of learning about this issue long before now. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... have no point! : You never get mine, either. : Totally false claim ... totally : unaware ... : Eric : You like to pretend otherwise, though. : It's not something you can hide. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... my point. : Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, : and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... obviously a troll... : Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute : your inane namecalling for a valid argument. : My points stand. : You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, : as you dream of abandoning it for less. : http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html : On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... the guy who imagines space : colonization to be impossible. : You're imagining things. : If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, : you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. : If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it : here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying : to play "Star Trek". : First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle : biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space : hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds : to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of : wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy : plasma treatment, for example). : To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? : Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or : capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the : whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the : humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life : support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for : instance). : You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way : on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a : year on nothing else. : Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate : the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere : Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more : ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For : instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar : colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every : Earthly ecosystem!) : You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem : you need to stay alive, much less healthy. : Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported : into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would : NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the : technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near : Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead : be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in : detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic : chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's : (most of it since the 1850's). : Where has it been implemented and shown to function? : crickets : Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere : in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining : them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would : require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, : or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological : Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly : suspect he will, before I explain why). : Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. : Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't : doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. : Sixthly and finally, : You're at zero for all. : the argument that we "need to learn to live : sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for : no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain : human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. : You worship in an odd cult. : You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. : If we'd waited to : colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in : Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. : You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's : not even a fitting analogy, do you. : Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite : seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and : rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, : and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to : forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new : achievements will be made over the next couple decades. : The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. : On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... space is different than the earth ... : You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably : here, so you won't be able to do so in space. : On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... confused... : Eric : You sure are. : You can't do in space what you can't do here. : You don't even realize that much. : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : So you didn't vote for Bush? : Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? : Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! : You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, : not a liberal. : My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. : Then who is a Republican that you like? : Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : I'll check it. : Do that. Post if you manage to get it. : Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the : problem? : It isn't solving the problem, and will be made : impossible, eventually, by the problem. : You really need to catch up - you're way behind. : ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... : That explains your failure to reason, anyway. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated no facts ... : You are mistaken, yet again. : I have stated the fact that current agricultural : practices are unsustainable. This is reality of : which many experts are similarly aware. : http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html : http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm : http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ : ...When was the last time you : planted a tree? : I've planted more trees than you could count. : You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. : You poor thing. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...I challenged your beliefs... : Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. : You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. : ...cling to them like a baby does a : blanket. : You sure do. : Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the : Democrats and claim to be a Republican? : You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's : not surprising from you at all. : You imagine you'd not be an overall burden : rather than a benefit to your environment, too. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...Could you be wrong? : You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. : I guess I should stop voting then? : Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless : you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. : Are you ... : I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what : it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies : preoccupy you entirely? : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated your opinion ... : Actually, I've referred to salient facts. : I voted for Kerry. : Your vote will never really count again, as long as : paperless DRE voting systems are in use. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Well it does differ from your undefined definition. : You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate : usage to the standard denotation of the term. : I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. : You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated : and factual responses to your baseless claims. : So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? : Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and : preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real : conservative at all. : His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA : for generations, now. : They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies : of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a : fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. : To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. : My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all : polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of : neural functions. : Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. : Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from : space than you'd have to expend getting there? : Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... : Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country : to pad his pockets? : Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it : takes to become better acquainted with it. : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. : You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning : of the word "evolved". : Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into : space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers : like you. : You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be : able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you : never learn how to survive sustainably. : Learn how the human body reacts in space. : It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. : I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile : of resources confirming it. : manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on : earth. : You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and : you don't even need the horse. : Ask the Germans ... : They say we're repeating their big mistake by : letting a follower of their fuhrer into the : White House. : ... the : nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. : It's unsustainable because it wastes resources : including potable water and topsoil. : soiled and damaged. : Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. : Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. : Thanks for serving as an example. : ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually : be able to 'mine' space. : For what? At what cost? : ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity : on earth. Not possible! : So what? : Those are simulable anyway. : ... one can really only : speak for themself [sic] ... : When you do so, you prove repeatedly that : you're not sufficiently educated. : ... to be closeminded ... : If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends : in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might : even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. : Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. : Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to : teach you how to grow Mars-maize. : The word is "yet". : You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably : here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you : have no business trying to take your show on the road. : Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere : in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource : inherently NOT from Earth. : To what useful purpose? : crickets : Why do you say that? : You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. : Yes we can! : You have never even attempted to support yourself with : a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. : ...closemindedness. : You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. : How do you know that? : What resources would you return from space, and what : would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? : I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. : Those things are available on Earth. : We have been farming for millennia. : You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying : resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem : you'd be starved in a short while. : ...depression ... : If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to : do better with living where you are. : Says you! : I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've : failed to refute what they've taught me. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ...No more food ... : You couldn't even sustain yourself here, : and you want to believe you could farm : on Mars. : Tsk. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... the troll... : You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that : the only valid basis for you to move to another home : is to have taken proper care of your present abode, : and you just can't stand that fact. : particularly : annoying : It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than : do any learning. : ... spamming... : There's yet another word you don't understand, because : in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call : names than deal with the subject. : I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. : Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any : better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should : be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, : inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... : If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. : 1. Oxygen... : Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful : elements... : Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 3. Hydrogen. : Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right : Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive : without extensive additional resources being brought : along from Earth. : .. there's no point in bothering : with ... : You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into : space because you've failed so severely here that you're : going to run and hide. : No surprise there. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : What nonsense. : I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need : they must take with them from Earth. : You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced : to try to lie about it. : The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by : the total resources of the solar system. : Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using : those from Earth. : Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their : supplies. : Actually, it'd be all of them. : You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. : You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. : Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in : space. : Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on : that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. : (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many : environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, : providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new : products.) : Name one. : You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a : farm there. : You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do : so in space. : It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant : of the realities involved. : That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it : will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a : nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have : long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. : Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. : If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt : to eat anything here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources : from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? : Do you honestly believe otherwise? : It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. : Everything they need and use has to be brought with : them and originates here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other : benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. : Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms : of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains : that more people are being forced to get by with less. : You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them : to joyride around in space. : And yet, they're still better off than in the past. : That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them : don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater : proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access : to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the : increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. : What a stupid statement. : I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you : consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, : considering the concept of projection. : http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm : There's some more reality ... : You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in : London a couple centuries ago. : While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of : pollution have in fact worsened. : http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ : Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get : cancer, : So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? : You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? : How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? : "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, : brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by : 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased : 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." : http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html : instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up : with cures. : Such as AIDS? : Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet : come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. : Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places : wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and : stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of : the ad hominem fallacy above. : ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. : Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. : ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... : You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not : honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. : No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. : *plonk* : QED. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : Because it's true? : Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. : Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: : [empty] : Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. : Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, : it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number : of people in a household. : http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html : There are also more people going without healthcare : in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. : People at all levels are living much better than they did a few : decades ago. : I've already supplied links which would help you dispel : your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident : to have a look at them. : It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are : forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but : one example. : Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also : don't qualify as "living much better", either. : People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty : a few hundred years ago. : Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. : http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm : Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a : nature never before seen in history: : http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ : Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to : those who don't have healthcare, too. : By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because : Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. : That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. : I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of : scientific thought here. : You, however, have. You want to believe you could : somehow create sustenance from materials which are : not shown to be useful toward that purpose. : ...wasted bandwidth ... : ... cowardly illogical troll ... : Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because : you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has : been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...nutbaggery ... : That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans : should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. : ... it's only because there are more people : now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest : it's ever been in the history of the world. : Why would anyone believe that? : Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is : increasing, as a matter of fact. : That right there blows your claim out of the water. : Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. : Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't : work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that : there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, : or anywhere else. : Since few people think ... : That's why so many are careless about throwing away : the resources we should sustain here on Earth. : When there was a single attempt and a single failure : That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why : do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a : subject of which you are ignorant? : We do know how to do it properly here. : Why would anyone imagine that? : The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources : which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. : ... illogical nutbaggery ... : What a shame that's all you have. : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" : for four billion years : Give or take a few mass extinctions ... : and humans have been surviving just fine since : Not considering that we're becoming more diseased : and wasting more of our resources just to maintain : a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... : ...We're : continuing to survive just fine. : Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, : potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. : More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. : http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html : Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* : surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible : argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" : (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously : false one. : I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. : Those who want to believe that we can just throw the : Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't : doing the thinking they should. : ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and : work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables : us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it : is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). : When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical : reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one : in space, though. : ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let : alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." : Why would anyone believe that? : It requires : raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, : ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are : abundant in the solar system. : It requires more than that - without, for example, green : plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. : ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing : your home away." : In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea : of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. : When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, : that's throwing it away, too. : The Earth will be here for billions of years, will : most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, : and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. : Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, : besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? : Indeed, many space : enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of : off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on : the Earth. : Name one. : Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the : wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea : would be ridiculous. : That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that : if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. : Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that : we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. : This is just simple common sense. : What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with : less waste and spread. : It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html : You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. : Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by : known facts. : It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing : magical about recycling or growing crops. : On the moon? On Mars? : ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth : until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't : colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. : We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we : can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the : tundra. : That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. : There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. : Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given : the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to : humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable : to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have : that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. : Why would anyone believe that we'd have the : 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in : space, when we don't even know how to do : that properly here, where it's so much easier? : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were : meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". : No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend : more than you can afford to play in space. : I know for a fact that you can't survive properly : here, and that you won't be able to do so on any : other planet if you don't learn how on the one : that spawned you. : You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. : You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. : You want to keep using up resources when if you : had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. : As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is : suicide. : Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet : awaits is ludicrous. : You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's : your suicide. : In short, to survive, it MUST be done... : You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit : throwing your home away as you pretend there'd : somehow be a replacement waiting. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any : environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the : atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've : done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many : orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting : so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the : macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can : maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal : arrogance on our part. : : Brad : Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? : We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. : You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial : period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... : Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra : has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : This explains so much. You think ... : Why don't you? : In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable : environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live : properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an : island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... : You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. : If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment : rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any : other environments to damage. : ...Minds are growing : more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more : thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. : Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering : from the impairments you have know that we must learn : how to live properly here before we have any business : going anywhere else. : On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: : Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? : No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". : ... it's [sic] biological homelands. : You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? : Apparently not ... : ... to expand to new territories ... : You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life : when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. : ... I think ... : Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' : fantasies, you don't ... : On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... to colonize the Solar System... : How very silly: humans haven't even figured out : how to live properly on earth, the one planet : that tends to favor their existence. 
|
|
#433
April 13th 05, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
*US* wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:34:01 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Could you be more vague?!? : I've been totally forthright. I'd say your 5 times wrong! And the language Forth is more on the left, IMO. : It's not my fault you don't get it. : ...just another closed-minded ignorant ... : That's why you haven't even earned a longterm : place here, much less anywhere else. : Your version of farming is not only unsustainable, : it's downright destructive. : You're destined to wear out your welcome here : long before you gain it anywhere else, too. I'm remined of the film "Cool Hand Luke" and the scene where the oft repeated phrase "failure to communicate" is said. "...you just can't get through to some people..." Eric : On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:49:00 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Then what is it about you that has you claiming that we are destroying the : planet? : I deal in reality. : ... How are you not part of the destruction process? : I'm not fantasizing about being Captain Kirk rather than : dealing with immediate realities. : We have already succeeded ... : You have not accomplished ecopoiesis or terraforming : at all, no matter how desperate you are to imagine things. : On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : You claiming not to being human ... : That's your claim. I've said nothing of the sort. : ...technological ignorance ... : Eric : That's what guarantees you'll fail in space, too. : On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Can you even imagine the earth in 2505? : Eric : The way you're going, humans will be extinct. : On 4 Apr 2005 13:06:13 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: : ... on a given planet. : You won't get away with throwing this one out. : You don't have that kind of time or resources. : On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Okay, suppose you're right : It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found : by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. : Again, what do you plan on doing about it? : Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing : a lot of learning about this issue long before now. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... have no point! : You never get mine, either. : Totally false claim ... totally : unaware ... : Eric : You like to pretend otherwise, though. : It's not something you can hide. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... my point. : Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, : and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... obviously a troll... : Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute : your inane namecalling for a valid argument. : My points stand. : You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, : as you dream of abandoning it for less. : http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html : On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... the guy who imagines space : colonization to be impossible. : You're imagining things. : If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, : you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. : If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it : here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying : to play "Star Trek". : First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle : biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space : hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds : to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of : wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy : plasma treatment, for example). : To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? : Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or : capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the : whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the : humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life : support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for : instance). : You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way : on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a : year on nothing else. : Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate : the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere : Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more : ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For : instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar : colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every : Earthly ecosystem!) : You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem : you need to stay alive, much less healthy. : Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported : into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would : NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the : technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near : Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead : be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in : detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic : chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's : (most of it since the 1850's). : Where has it been implemented and shown to function? : crickets : Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere : in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining : them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would : require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, : or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological : Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly : suspect he will, before I explain why). : Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. : Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't : doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. : Sixthly and finally, : You're at zero for all. : the argument that we "need to learn to live : sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for : no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain : human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. : You worship in an odd cult. : You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. : If we'd waited to : colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in : Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. : You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's : not even a fitting analogy, do you. : Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite : seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and : rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, : and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to : forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new : achievements will be made over the next couple decades. : The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. : On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... space is different than the earth ... : You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably : here, so you won't be able to do so in space. : On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... confused... : Eric : You sure are. : You can't do in space what you can't do here. : You don't even realize that much. : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : So you didn't vote for Bush? : Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? : Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! : You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, : not a liberal. : My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. : Then who is a Republican that you like? : Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : I'll check it. : Do that. Post if you manage to get it. : Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the : problem? : It isn't solving the problem, and will be made : impossible, eventually, by the problem. : You really need to catch up - you're way behind. : ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... : That explains your failure to reason, anyway. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated no facts ... : You are mistaken, yet again. : I have stated the fact that current agricultural : practices are unsustainable. This is reality of : which many experts are similarly aware. : http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html : http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm : http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ : ...When was the last time you : planted a tree? : I've planted more trees than you could count. : You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. : You poor thing. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...I challenged your beliefs... : Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. : You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. : ...cling to them like a baby does a : blanket. : You sure do. : Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the : Democrats and claim to be a Republican? : You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's : not surprising from you at all. : You imagine you'd not be an overall burden : rather than a benefit to your environment, too. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...Could you be wrong? : You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. : I guess I should stop voting then? : Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless : you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. : Are you ... : I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what : it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies : preoccupy you entirely? : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated your opinion ... : Actually, I've referred to salient facts. : I voted for Kerry. : Your vote will never really count again, as long as : paperless DRE voting systems are in use. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Well it does differ from your undefined definition. : You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate : usage to the standard denotation of the term. : I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. : You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated : and factual responses to your baseless claims. : So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? : Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and : preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real : conservative at all. : His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA : for generations, now. : They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies : of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a : fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. : To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. : My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all : polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of : neural functions. : Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. : Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from : space than you'd have to expend getting there? : Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... : Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country : to pad his pockets? : Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it : takes to become better acquainted with it. : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. : You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning : of the word "evolved". : Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into : space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers : like you. : You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be : able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you : never learn how to survive sustainably. : Learn how the human body reacts in space. : It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. : I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile : of resources confirming it. : manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on : earth. : You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and : you don't even need the horse. : Ask the Germans ... : They say we're repeating their big mistake by : letting a follower of their fuhrer into the : White House. : ... the : nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. : It's unsustainable because it wastes resources : including potable water and topsoil. : soiled and damaged. : Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. : Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. : Thanks for serving as an example. : ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually : be able to 'mine' space. : For what? At what cost? : ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity : on earth. Not possible! : So what? : Those are simulable anyway. : ... one can really only : speak for themself [sic] ... : When you do so, you prove repeatedly that : you're not sufficiently educated. : ... to be closeminded ... : If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends : in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might : even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. : Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. : Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to : teach you how to grow Mars-maize. : The word is "yet". : You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably : here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you : have no business trying to take your show on the road. : Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere : in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource : inherently NOT from Earth. : To what useful purpose? : crickets : Why do you say that? : You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. : Yes we can! : You have never even attempted to support yourself with : a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. : ...closemindedness. : You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. : How do you know that? : What resources would you return from space, and what : would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? : I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. : Those things are available on Earth. : We have been farming for millennia. : You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying : resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem : you'd be starved in a short while. : ...depression ... : If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to : do better with living where you are. : Says you! : I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've : failed to refute what they've taught me. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ...No more food ... : You couldn't even sustain yourself here, : and you want to believe you could farm : on Mars. : Tsk. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... the troll... : You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that : the only valid basis for you to move to another home : is to have taken proper care of your present abode, : and you just can't stand that fact. : particularly : annoying : It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than : do any learning. : ... spamming... : There's yet another word you don't understand, because : in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call : names than deal with the subject. : I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. : Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any : better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should : be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, : inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... : If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. : 1. Oxygen... : Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful : elements... : Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 3. Hydrogen. : Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right : Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive : without extensive additional resources being brought : along from Earth. : .. there's no point in bothering : with ... : You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into : space because you've failed so severely here that you're : going to run and hide. : No surprise there. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : What nonsense. : I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need : they must take with them from Earth. : You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced : to try to lie about it. : The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by : the total resources of the solar system. : Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using : those from Earth. : Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their : supplies. : Actually, it'd be all of them. : You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. : You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. : Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in : space. : Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on : that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. : (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many : environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, : providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new : products.) : Name one. : You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a : farm there. : You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do : so in space. : It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant : of the realities involved. : That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it : will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a : nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have : long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. : Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. : If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt : to eat anything here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources : from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? : Do you honestly believe otherwise? : It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. : Everything they need and use has to be brought with : them and originates here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other : benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. : Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms : of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains : that more people are being forced to get by with less. : You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them : to joyride around in space. : And yet, they're still better off than in the past. : That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them : don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater : proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access : to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the : increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. : What a stupid statement. : I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you : consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, : considering the concept of projection. : http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm : There's some more reality ... : You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in : London a couple centuries ago. : While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of : pollution have in fact worsened. : http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ : Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get : cancer, : So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? : You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? : How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? : "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, : brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by : 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased : 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." : http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html : instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up : with cures. : Such as AIDS? : Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet : come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. : Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places : wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and : stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of : the ad hominem fallacy above. : ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. : Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. : ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... : You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not : honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. : No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. : *plonk* : QED. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : Because it's true? : Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. : Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: : [empty] : Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. : Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, : it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number : of people in a household. : http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html : There are also more people going without healthcare : in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. : People at all levels are living much better than they did a few : decades ago. : I've already supplied links which would help you dispel : your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident : to have a look at them. : It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are : forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but : one example. : Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also : don't qualify as "living much better", either. : People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty : a few hundred years ago. : Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. : http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm : Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a : nature never before seen in history: : http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ : Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to : those who don't have healthcare, too. : By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because : Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. : That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. : I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of : scientific thought here. : You, however, have. You want to believe you could : somehow create sustenance from materials which are : not shown to be useful toward that purpose. : ...wasted bandwidth ... : ... cowardly illogical troll ... : Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because : you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has : been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...nutbaggery ... : That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans : should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. : ... it's only because there are more people : now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest : it's ever been in the history of the world. : Why would anyone believe that? : Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is : increasing, as a matter of fact. : That right there blows your claim out of the water. : Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. : Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't : work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that : there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, : or anywhere else. : Since few people think ... : That's why so many are careless about throwing away : the resources we should sustain here on Earth. : When there was a single attempt and a single failure : That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why : do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a : subject of which you are ignorant? : We do know how to do it properly here. : Why would anyone imagine that? : The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources : which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. : ... illogical nutbaggery ... : What a shame that's all you have. : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" : for four billion years : Give or take a few mass extinctions ... : and humans have been surviving just fine since : Not considering that we're becoming more diseased : and wasting more of our resources just to maintain : a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... : ...We're : continuing to survive just fine. : Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, : potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. : More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. : http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html : Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* : surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible : argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" : (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously : false one. : I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. : Those who want to believe that we can just throw the : Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't : doing the thinking they should. : ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and : work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables : us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it : is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). : When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical : reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one : in space, though. : ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let : alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." : Why would anyone believe that? : It requires : raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, : ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are : abundant in the solar system. : It requires more than that - without, for example, green : plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. : ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing : your home away." : In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea : of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. : When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, : that's throwing it away, too. : The Earth will be here for billions of years, will : most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, : and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. : Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, : besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? : Indeed, many space : enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of : off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on : the Earth. : Name one. : Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the : wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea : would be ridiculous. : That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that : if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. : Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that : we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. : This is just simple common sense. : What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with : less waste and spread. : It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html : You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. : Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by : known facts. : It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing : magical about recycling or growing crops. : On the moon? On Mars? : ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth : until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't : colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. : We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we : can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the : tundra. : That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. : There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. : Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given : the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to : humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable : to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have : that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. : Why would anyone believe that we'd have the : 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in : space, when we don't even know how to do : that properly here, where it's so much easier? : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were : meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". : No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend : more than you can afford to play in space. : I know for a fact that you can't survive properly : here, and that you won't be able to do so on any : other planet if you don't learn how on the one : that spawned you. : You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. : You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. : You want to keep using up resources when if you : had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. : As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is : suicide. : Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet : awaits is ludicrous. : You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's : your suicide. : In short, to survive, it MUST be done... : You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit : throwing your home away as you pretend there'd : somehow be a replacement waiting. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any : environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the : atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've : done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many : orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting : so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the : macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can : maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal : arrogance on our part. : : Brad : Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? : We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. : You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial : period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... : Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra : has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : This explains so much. You think ... : Why don't you? : In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable : environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live : properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an : island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... : You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. : If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment : rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any : other environments to damage. : ...Minds are growing : more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more : thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. : Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering : from the impairments you have know that we must learn : how to live properly here before we have any business : going anywhere else. : On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: : Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? : No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". : ... it's [sic] biological homelands. : You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? : Apparently not ... : ... to expand to new territories ... : You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life : when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. : ... I think ... : Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' : fantasies, you don't ... : On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... to colonize the Solar System... : How very silly: humans haven't even figured out : how to live properly on earth, the one planet : that tends to favor their existence.
|
|
#434
April 13th 05, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
*US* wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:28:17 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : The human species is ... : You're using up resources without : finding alternatives, in fact. : Apparently you're not bright enough : to figure out the upshot of that. 'Cool Hand Luke', a brutal scene really. "Failure to communicate". May it haunt you, espeically the laughing guy. OUT! Eric : On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:52:00 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Jordan correctly pointed out that oxygen, hydorgen and the other elements : are the same throughout the solar system and most probably the universe. : Nobody had stated otherwise, though. You're spewing fallacies. : ... caught up in the fiction. : Eric : That must be why you're not dealing with the reality that you can't : even keep yourself alive properly here on earth, much less anywhere : else. You're not weaned off the tit of unsustainability. : On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:53:49 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : When Columbus came to the New World : It wasn't a place without air, water, and food. : Can't you even figure that much out? : ...religious dogma... : Eric : You'll have to quit worshipping your Captain Kirk : fantasies if you're ever to become a scientist. : You need objectivity and the ability to determine : what models need to become confirmable. : On 5 Apr 2005 13:18:44 -0700, "Technological Illiterate Jordan" : wrote: : Another one of Technological Illiterate's weird assumptions is that : You can't even survive sustainably here, and you want to assume, : weirdly, that you'd be able to survive elsewhere with any semblance : of sustainability. Without it, you have problems you merely haven't : yet considered. : elements such as hydrogen, oxygen etc. are somehow different on other : planets than they are on the Earth. : You must be really stupid to say such things. : ...Nobody has ever used any hydrogen [etc.] that didn't come : from the Earth.. : Nobody but you said that. You should try reading what actually : was said, without those idiotic voices going in your head. : On 5 Apr 2005 13:10:36 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: : Where did you get the notion that space colonization advocates want to : "throw the Earth out?" : Actions speak louder than words: it's what you're doing. : We want to have the Earth ... : Really? : Prove it. : crickets : On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Can you even imagine the earth in 2505? : : Eric : The way you're going, humans will be extinct. : On 4 Apr 2005 13:06:13 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: : ... on a given planet. : You won't get away with throwing this one out. : You don't have that kind of time or resources. : On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Okay, suppose you're right : It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found : by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. : Again, what do you plan on doing about it? : Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing : a lot of learning about this issue long before now. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... have no point! : You never get mine, either. : Totally false claim ... totally : unaware ... : Eric : You like to pretend otherwise, though. : It's not something you can hide. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... my point. : Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, : and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. : On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... obviously a troll... : Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute : your inane namecalling for a valid argument. : My points stand. : You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, : as you dream of abandoning it for less. : http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html : On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... the guy who imagines space : colonization to be impossible. : You're imagining things. : If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, : you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. : If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it : here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying : to play "Star Trek". : First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle : biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space : hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds : to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of : wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy : plasma treatment, for example). : To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? : Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or : capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the : whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the : humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life : support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for : instance). : You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way : on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a : year on nothing else. : Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate : the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere : Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more : ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For : instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar : colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every : Earthly ecosystem!) : You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem : you need to stay alive, much less healthy. : Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported : into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would : NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the : technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near : Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead : be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in : detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic : chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's : (most of it since the 1850's). : Where has it been implemented and shown to function? : crickets : Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere : in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining : them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would : require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, : or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological : Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly : suspect he will, before I explain why). : Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. : Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't : doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. : Sixthly and finally, : You're at zero for all. : the argument that we "need to learn to live : sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for : no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain : human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. : You worship in an odd cult. : You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. : If we'd waited to : colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in : Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. : You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's : not even a fitting analogy, do you. : Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite : seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and : rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, : and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to : forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new : achievements will be made over the next couple decades. : The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. : On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... space is different than the earth ... : You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably : here, so you won't be able to do so in space. : On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... confused... : Eric : You sure are. : You can't do in space what you can't do here. : You don't even realize that much. : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : So you didn't vote for Bush? : Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? : Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! : You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, : not a liberal. : My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. : Then who is a Republican that you like? : Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? : On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : I'll check it. : Do that. Post if you manage to get it. : Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the : problem? : It isn't solving the problem, and will be made : impossible, eventually, by the problem. : You really need to catch up - you're way behind. : ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... : That explains your failure to reason, anyway. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated no facts ... : You are mistaken, yet again. : I have stated the fact that current agricultural : practices are unsustainable. This is reality of : which many experts are similarly aware. : http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html : http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm : http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ : ...When was the last time you : planted a tree? : I've planted more trees than you could count. : You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. : You poor thing. : On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...I challenged your beliefs... : Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. : You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. : ...cling to them like a baby does a : blanket. : You sure do. : Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the : Democrats and claim to be a Republican? : You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's : not surprising from you at all. : You imagine you'd not be an overall burden : rather than a benefit to your environment, too. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ...Could you be wrong? : You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. : I guess I should stop voting then? : Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless : you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. : Are you ... : I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what : it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies : preoccupy you entirely? : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You have stated your opinion ... : Actually, I've referred to salient facts. : I voted for Kerry. : Your vote will never really count again, as long as : paperless DRE voting systems are in use. : On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Well it does differ from your undefined definition. : You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate : usage to the standard denotation of the term. : I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. : You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated : and factual responses to your baseless claims. : So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? : Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and : preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real : conservative at all. : His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA : for generations, now. : They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies : of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a : fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. : To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. : My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all : polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of : neural functions. : Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. : Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from : space than you'd have to expend getting there? : Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... : Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country : to pad his pockets? : Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it : takes to become better acquainted with it. : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. : You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning : of the word "evolved". : Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into : space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers : like you. : You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be : able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you : never learn how to survive sustainably. : Learn how the human body reacts in space. : It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. : I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile : of resources confirming it. : manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on : earth. : You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and : you don't even need the horse. : Ask the Germans ... : They say we're repeating their big mistake by : letting a follower of their fuhrer into the : White House. : ... the : nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. : It's unsustainable because it wastes resources : including potable water and topsoil. : soiled and damaged. : Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. : Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. : Thanks for serving as an example. : ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually : be able to 'mine' space. : For what? At what cost? : ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity : on earth. Not possible! : So what? : Those are simulable anyway. : ... one can really only : speak for themself [sic] ... : When you do so, you prove repeatedly that : you're not sufficiently educated. : ... to be closeminded ... : If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends : in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might : even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. : Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. : Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to : teach you how to grow Mars-maize. : The word is "yet". : You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably : here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you : have no business trying to take your show on the road. : Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere : in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource : inherently NOT from Earth. : To what useful purpose? : crickets : Why do you say that? : You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. : Yes we can! : You have never even attempted to support yourself with : a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. : ...closemindedness. : You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. : How do you know that? : What resources would you return from space, and what : would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? : I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. : Those things are available on Earth. : We have been farming for millennia. : You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying : resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem : you'd be starved in a short while. : ...depression ... : If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to : do better with living where you are. : Says you! : I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've : failed to refute what they've taught me. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ...No more food ... : You couldn't even sustain yourself here, : and you want to believe you could farm : on Mars. : Tsk. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ... the troll... : You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that : the only valid basis for you to move to another home : is to have taken proper care of your present abode, : and you just can't stand that fact. : particularly : annoying : It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than : do any learning. : ... spamming... : There's yet another word you don't understand, because : in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call : names than deal with the subject. : I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. : Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any : better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should : be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, : inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... : If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. : 1. Oxygen... : Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful : elements... : Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : 3. Hydrogen. : Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't : originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of : technology that'd make that reality obsolete. : Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously : require that more resources be removed from Earth. : These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right : Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive : without extensive additional resources being brought : along from Earth. : .. there's no point in bothering : with ... : You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into : space because you've failed so severely here that you're : going to run and hide. : No surprise there. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : What nonsense. : I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need : they must take with them from Earth. : You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced : to try to lie about it. : The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by : the total resources of the solar system. : Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using : those from Earth. : Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their : supplies. : Actually, it'd be all of them. : You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. : You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. : Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in : space. : Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on : that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. : (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many : environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, : providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new : products.) : Name one. : You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a : farm there. : You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do : so in space. : It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant : of the realities involved. : That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it : will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a : nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have : long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. : Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. : If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt : to eat anything here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources : from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? : Do you honestly believe otherwise? : It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. : Everything they need and use has to be brought with : them and originates here on Earth. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other : benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. : Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms : of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains : that more people are being forced to get by with less. : You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them : to joyride around in space. : And yet, they're still better off than in the past. : That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them : don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater : proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access : to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the : increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. : What a stupid statement. : I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you : consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, : considering the concept of projection. : http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm : There's some more reality ... : You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in : London a couple centuries ago. : While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of : pollution have in fact worsened. : http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ : Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get : cancer, : So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? : You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? : How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? : "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, : brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by : 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased : 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." : http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html : instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up : with cures. : Such as AIDS? : Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet : come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. : Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places : wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and : stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of : the ad hominem fallacy above. : ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. : Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. : ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... : You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not : honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. : No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. : *plonk* : QED. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : Because it's true? : Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. : Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: : [empty] : Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. : Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, : it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number : of people in a household. : http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html : There are also more people going without healthcare : in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. : People at all levels are living much better than they did a few : decades ago. : I've already supplied links which would help you dispel : your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident : to have a look at them. : It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are : forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but : one example. : Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also : don't qualify as "living much better", either. : People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty : a few hundred years ago. : Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. : http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm : Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a : nature never before seen in history: : http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ : Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to : those who don't have healthcare, too. : By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because : Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. : That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. : I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of : scientific thought here. : You, however, have. You want to believe you could : somehow create sustenance from materials which are : not shown to be useful toward that purpose. : ...wasted bandwidth ... : ... cowardly illogical troll ... : Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because : you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has : been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. : On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...nutbaggery ... : That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans : should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. : ... it's only because there are more people : now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest : it's ever been in the history of the world. : Why would anyone believe that? : Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is : increasing, as a matter of fact. : That right there blows your claim out of the water. : Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. : Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't : work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that : there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, : or anywhere else. : Since few people think ... : That's why so many are careless about throwing away : the resources we should sustain here on Earth. : When there was a single attempt and a single failure : That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why : do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a : subject of which you are ignorant? : We do know how to do it properly here. : Why would anyone imagine that? : The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources : which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. : ... illogical nutbaggery ... : What a shame that's all you have. : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: : No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" : for four billion years : Give or take a few mass extinctions ... : and humans have been surviving just fine since : Not considering that we're becoming more diseased : and wasting more of our resources just to maintain : a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... : ...We're : continuing to survive just fine. : Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, : potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. : More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. : http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html : Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* : surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible : argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" : (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously : false one. : I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. : Those who want to believe that we can just throw the : Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't : doing the thinking they should. : ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and : work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables : us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it : is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). : When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical : reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one : in space, though. : ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let : alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." : Why would anyone believe that? : It requires : raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, : ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are : abundant in the solar system. : It requires more than that - without, for example, green : plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. : ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing : your home away." : In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea : of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. : When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, : that's throwing it away, too. : The Earth will be here for billions of years, will : most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, : and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. : Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, : besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? : Indeed, many space : enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of : off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on : the Earth. : Name one. : Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the : wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea : would be ridiculous. : That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that : if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. : Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that : we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. : This is just simple common sense. : What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with : less waste and spread. : It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html : You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. : Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by : known facts. : It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing : magical about recycling or growing crops. : On the moon? On Mars? : ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth : until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't : colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. : We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we : can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the : tundra. : That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. : There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. : Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given : the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to : humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable : to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have : that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. : Why would anyone believe that we'd have the : 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in : space, when we don't even know how to do : that properly here, where it's so much easier? : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) : wrote: : You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were : meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". : No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend : more than you can afford to play in space. : I know for a fact that you can't survive properly : here, and that you won't be able to do so on any : other planet if you don't learn how on the one : that spawned you. : You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. : You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. : You want to keep using up resources when if you : had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. : As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is : suicide. : Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet : awaits is ludicrous. : You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's : your suicide. : In short, to survive, it MUST be done... : You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit : throwing your home away as you pretend there'd : somehow be a replacement waiting. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any : environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the : atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've : done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many : orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting : so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the : macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can : maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal : arrogance on our part. : : Brad : Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? : We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. : You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. : On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: : ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial : period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... : Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra : has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : This explains so much. You think ... : Why don't you? : In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable : environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. : On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: : You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live : properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an : island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... : You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. : If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment : rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any : other environments to damage. : ...Minds are growing : more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more : thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. : Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering : from the impairments you have know that we must learn : how to live properly here before we have any business : going anywhere else. : On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: : Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? : No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". : ... it's [sic] biological homelands. : You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? : Apparently not ... : ... to expand to new territories ... : You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life : when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. : ... I think ... : Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' : fantasies, you don't ... : On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: : ... to colonize the Solar System... : How very silly: humans haven't even figured out : how to live properly on earth, the one planet : that tends to favor their existence.
|
|
#435
April 14th 05, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:32:05 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko)
wrote: ... indeed a troll that has gotten his last day! Eric Thanks for confirming your failure and desperate attempt to call names rather than continue to address the subject. Your survival here will fail unless you learn to do it better, and that will stop you from going anywhere else. You don't even have an inkling of the extent and costs of your ignorance. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:20:50 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: People like you ... That's because I tell them the truth. They don't like the way you lie. don't pay enough tax dollars... can't learn. ... so far have added nothing of value, ...being a wasteful human being ... No one had asked about you. The fact remains that you don't take proper care of yourself, you can't sustain yourself, and you're merely a blight on the planet. If you weren't, you might have a place here, even if not anywhere else. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:40:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...THAT fragile ... Eric No wonder you're so resistant to learning anything. I hope my tax dollars aren't being wasted on you. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:26:54 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... your's [sic]... You really ought to get someone to help you read what I've written for comprehension. You can't take the exam without having done your homework, unless you prefer to fail. On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:05:21 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...deluded... You cherish your delusions and disdain reality, in fact. ...hatred ... You even hate yourself, when you refuse to learn. On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:17:05 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: I'm glad ... You've missed yet another point, but you're all tickled. I was telling you about the fact that your lifestyle is unsustainable, and I proved it, and you're still merely so very confused. ... If we go down, you're coming with us. You must be so filled with hate to go there that way, hate even for yourself. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:25:08 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Nothing in the article says going into space That's not what it's about. Why did you imagine otherwise? It's about how you're going to kill off your chances here long before you get to space. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... the one with silly claims. I'm ... Eric You're the one getting your silly claims exposed as such. You can't sustain your life on the planet which originated it, and you want to try to pretend you could live elsewhere. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=22049 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:02:25 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... "****ing and moaning"... Well at least you have two 'skills'. ... one can't leave their home unless it is perfect... You're the only one making that silly claim. On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:34:45 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: No, I'm here refuting ... You've misspelled "lying and whining". My point stands: when you can't properly sustain your life here, you've no other home. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:39:49 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Not one of the links you listed mentions space in any way. If you weren't such an idiot, you'd realize they're about the unsustainability of current agricultural methods, as I'd pointed out constitutes a preventive to terraforming or ecopoiesis. ... a troll. You try to tell that lie because you're weak. ...Or do you really believe that the the notion of terraforming is the bane of the human race? That's just your straw man. I've said nothing of the sort. Please do spell out... I've done that. Learn to read. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: I'll check it. Do that. Post if you manage to get it. Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the problem? It isn't solving the problem, and will be made impossible, eventually, by the problem. You really need to catch up - you're way behind. ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... That explains your failure to reason, anyway. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated no facts ... You are mistaken, yet again. I have stated the fact that current agricultural practices are unsustainable. This is reality of which many experts are similarly aware. http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ ...When was the last time you planted a tree? I've planted more trees than you could count. You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. You poor thing. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...I challenged your beliefs... Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. ...cling to them like a baby does a blanket. You sure do. Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the Democrats and claim to be a Republican? You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's not surprising from you at all. You imagine you'd not be an overall burden rather than a benefit to your environment, too. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...Could you be wrong? You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. I guess I should stop voting then? Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. Are you ... I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies preoccupy you entirely? On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated your opinion ... Actually, I've referred to salient facts. I voted for Kerry. Your vote will never really count again, as long as paperless DRE voting systems are in use. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Well it does differ from your undefined definition. You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate usage to the standard denotation of the term. I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated and factual responses to your baseless claims. So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real conservative at all. His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA for generations, now. They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of neural functions. Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from space than you'd have to expend getting there? Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country to pad his pockets? Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it takes to become better acquainted with it. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning of the word "evolved". Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers like you. You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you never learn how to survive sustainably. Learn how the human body reacts in space. It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile of resources confirming it. manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on earth. You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and you don't even need the horse. Ask the Germans ... They say we're repeating their big mistake by letting a follower of their fuhrer into the White House. ... the nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's unsustainable because it wastes resources including potable water and topsoil. soiled and damaged. Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. Thanks for serving as an example. ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually be able to 'mine' space. For what? At what cost? ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity on earth. Not possible! So what? Those are simulable anyway. ... one can really only speak for themself [sic] ... When you do so, you prove repeatedly that you're not sufficiently educated. ... to be closeminded ... If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to teach you how to grow Mars-maize. The word is "yet". You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you have no business trying to take your show on the road. Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource inherently NOT from Earth. To what useful purpose? crickets Why do you say that? You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. Yes we can! You have never even attempted to support yourself with a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. ...closemindedness. You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. How do you know that? What resources would you return from space, and what would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. Those things are available on Earth. We have been farming for millennia. You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem you'd be starved in a short while. ...depression ... If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to do better with living where you are. Says you! I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've failed to refute what they've taught me. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ...No more food ... You couldn't even sustain yourself here, and you want to believe you could farm on Mars. Tsk. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... the troll... You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the only valid basis for you to move to another home is to have taken proper care of your present abode, and you just can't stand that fact. particularly annoying It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than do any learning. ... spamming... There's yet another word you don't understand, because in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call names than deal with the subject. I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. 1. Oxygen... Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful elements... Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 3. Hydrogen. Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive without extensive additional resources being brought along from Earth. .. there's no point in bothering with ... You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into space because you've failed so severely here that you're going to run and hide. No surprise there. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: What nonsense. I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need they must take with them from Earth. You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced to try to lie about it. The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by the total resources of the solar system. Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using those from Earth. Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their supplies. Actually, it'd be all of them. You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in space. Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new products.) Name one. You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a farm there. You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do so in space. It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant of the realities involved. That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt to eat anything here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? Do you honestly believe otherwise? It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. Everything they need and use has to be brought with them and originates here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains that more people are being forced to get by with less. You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them to joyride around in space. And yet, they're still better off than in the past. That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. What a stupid statement. I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, considering the concept of projection. http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm There's some more reality ... You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in London a couple centuries ago. While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of pollution have in fact worsened. http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get cancer, So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up with cures. Such as AIDS? Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of the ad hominem fallacy above. ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. *plonk* QED. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Because it's true? Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: [empty] Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number of people in a household. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html There are also more people going without healthcare in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. People at all levels are living much better than they did a few decades ago. I've already supplied links which would help you dispel your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident to have a look at them. It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but one example. Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also don't qualify as "living much better", either. People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty a few hundred years ago. Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a nature never before seen in history: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to those who don't have healthcare, too. By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of scientific thought here. You, however, have. You want to believe you could somehow create sustenance from materials which are not shown to be useful toward that purpose. ...wasted bandwidth ... ... cowardly illogical troll ... Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...nutbaggery ... That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. ... it's only because there are more people now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the world. Why would anyone believe that? Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is increasing, as a matter of fact. That right there blows your claim out of the water. Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, or anywhere else. Since few people think ... That's why so many are careless about throwing away the resources we should sustain here on Earth. When there was a single attempt and a single failure That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a subject of which you are ignorant? We do know how to do it properly here. Why would anyone imagine that? The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. ... illogical nutbaggery ... What a shame that's all you have. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" for four billion years Give or take a few mass extinctions ... and humans have been surviving just fine since Not considering that we're becoming more diseased and wasting more of our resources just to maintain a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... ...We're continuing to survive just fine. Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously false one. I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. Those who want to believe that we can just throw the Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't doing the thinking they should. ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one in space, though. ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." Why would anyone believe that? It requires raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are abundant in the solar system. It requires more than that - without, for example, green plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing your home away." In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, that's throwing it away, too. The Earth will be here for billions of years, will most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? Indeed, many space enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on the Earth. Name one. Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea would be ridiculous. That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. This is just simple common sense. What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with less waste and spread. It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by known facts. It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing magical about recycling or growing crops. On the moon? On Mars? ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the tundra. That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. Why would anyone believe that we'd have the 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in space, when we don't even know how to do that properly here, where it's so much easier? On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend more than you can afford to play in space. I know for a fact that you can't survive properly here, and that you won't be able to do so on any other planet if you don't learn how on the one that spawned you. You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. You want to keep using up resources when if you had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is suicide. Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet awaits is ludicrous. You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's your suicide. In short, to survive, it MUST be done... You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit throwing your home away as you pretend there'd somehow be a replacement waiting. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal arrogance on our part. Brad Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: This explains so much. You think ... Why don't you? In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any other environments to damage. ...Minds are growing more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering from the impairments you have know that we must learn how to live properly here before we have any business going anywhere else. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". ... it's [sic] biological homelands. You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? Apparently not ... ... to expand to new territories ... You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. ... I think ... Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' fantasies, you don't ... On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... to colonize the Solar System... How very silly: humans haven't even figured out how to live properly on earth, the one planet that tends to favor their existence.
|
|
#436
April 14th 05, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:33:57 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko)
wrote: Fail? The only failure is ... Your limited perspective aside, your major failure is to sustain your life on earth properly. You can't do it here, you can't do it anywhere else. You can't even comprehend the issue. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:25:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...working off a false premise... Of course you are, because you're not thinking. When you fail here, you won't succeed elsewhere. Your belief You don't speak for me. You don't comprehend what I say. On 7 Apr 2005 12:50:43 -0700, "Technical Illiterate Jordan" wrote: Finally, on the notion that advocates of space exploration want to "throw away the Earth" and demonstrate this by their actions: If you can't learn to get by here properly, you've no business trying to tell yourself you'd improve with travel. What have you done to help clean up your own messes? crickets On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:37:21 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... stuck with a Dark Ages mindset. Eric Yes, you believe in the equivalent of turning lead into gold without even having the lead. Your sow's ear isn't going to become a silk purse. On 4 Apr 2005 12:56:07 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: ... they _can't_ be until we actually start building outposts and colonies on other celestial bodies. Actually, you can't even begin to set up a self-sufficient biosphere with the safety zone of Earth around it. That should tell you something, but you seem inattentive. Because the laws of Nature are uniform, a process which we know You don't know it well enough to get it right here. ... it can never be done ... You're making up stupid comments and trying to pretend they'd be someone else's. That's disingenuous of you, at best. On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Okay, suppose you're right It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. Again, what do you plan on doing about it? Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing a lot of learning about this issue long before now. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... have no point! You never get mine, either. Totally false claim ... totally unaware ... Eric You like to pretend otherwise, though. It's not something you can hide. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... my point. Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... obviously a troll... Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute your inane namecalling for a valid argument. My points stand. You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, as you dream of abandoning it for less. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... the guy who imagines space colonization to be impossible. You're imagining things. If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying to play "Star Trek". First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy plasma treatment, for example). To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for instance). You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a year on nothing else. Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every Earthly ecosystem!) You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem you need to stay alive, much less healthy. Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's (most of it since the 1850's). Where has it been implemented and shown to function? crickets Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly suspect he will, before I explain why). Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. Sixthly and finally, You're at zero for all. the argument that we "need to learn to live sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. You worship in an odd cult. You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. If we'd waited to colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's not even a fitting analogy, do you. Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new achievements will be made over the next couple decades. The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... space is different than the earth ... You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably here, so you won't be able to do so in space. On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... confused... Eric You sure are. You can't do in space what you can't do here. You don't even realize that much. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: So you didn't vote for Bush? Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, not a liberal. My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. Then who is a Republican that you like? Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: I'll check it. Do that. Post if you manage to get it. Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the problem? It isn't solving the problem, and will be made impossible, eventually, by the problem. You really need to catch up - you're way behind. ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... That explains your failure to reason, anyway. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated no facts ... You are mistaken, yet again. I have stated the fact that current agricultural practices are unsustainable. This is reality of which many experts are similarly aware. http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ ...When was the last time you planted a tree? I've planted more trees than you could count. You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. You poor thing. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...I challenged your beliefs... Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. ...cling to them like a baby does a blanket. You sure do. Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the Democrats and claim to be a Republican? You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's not surprising from you at all. You imagine you'd not be an overall burden rather than a benefit to your environment, too. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...Could you be wrong? You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. I guess I should stop voting then? Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. Are you ... I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies preoccupy you entirely? On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated your opinion ... Actually, I've referred to salient facts. I voted for Kerry. Your vote will never really count again, as long as paperless DRE voting systems are in use. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Well it does differ from your undefined definition. You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate usage to the standard denotation of the term. I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated and factual responses to your baseless claims. So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real conservative at all. His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA for generations, now. They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of neural functions. Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from space than you'd have to expend getting there? Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country to pad his pockets? Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it takes to become better acquainted with it. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning of the word "evolved". Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers like you. You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you never learn how to survive sustainably. Learn how the human body reacts in space. It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile of resources confirming it. manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on earth. You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and you don't even need the horse. Ask the Germans ... They say we're repeating their big mistake by letting a follower of their fuhrer into the White House. ... the nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's unsustainable because it wastes resources including potable water and topsoil. soiled and damaged. Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. Thanks for serving as an example. ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually be able to 'mine' space. For what? At what cost? ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity on earth. Not possible! So what? Those are simulable anyway. ... one can really only speak for themself [sic] ... When you do so, you prove repeatedly that you're not sufficiently educated. ... to be closeminded ... If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to teach you how to grow Mars-maize. The word is "yet". You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you have no business trying to take your show on the road. Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource inherently NOT from Earth. To what useful purpose? crickets Why do you say that? You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. Yes we can! You have never even attempted to support yourself with a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. ...closemindedness. You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. How do you know that? What resources would you return from space, and what would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. Those things are available on Earth. We have been farming for millennia. You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem you'd be starved in a short while. ...depression ... If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to do better with living where you are. Says you! I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've failed to refute what they've taught me. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ...No more food ... You couldn't even sustain yourself here, and you want to believe you could farm on Mars. Tsk. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... the troll... You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the only valid basis for you to move to another home is to have taken proper care of your present abode, and you just can't stand that fact. particularly annoying It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than do any learning. ... spamming... There's yet another word you don't understand, because in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call names than deal with the subject. I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. 1. Oxygen... Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful elements... Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 3. Hydrogen. Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive without extensive additional resources being brought along from Earth. .. there's no point in bothering with ... You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into space because you've failed so severely here that you're going to run and hide. No surprise there. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: What nonsense. I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need they must take with them from Earth. You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced to try to lie about it. The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by the total resources of the solar system. Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using those from Earth. Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their supplies. Actually, it'd be all of them. You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in space. Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new products.) Name one. You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a farm there. You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do so in space. It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant of the realities involved. That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt to eat anything here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? Do you honestly believe otherwise? It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. Everything they need and use has to be brought with them and originates here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains that more people are being forced to get by with less. You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them to joyride around in space. And yet, they're still better off than in the past. That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. What a stupid statement. I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, considering the concept of projection. http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm There's some more reality ... You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in London a couple centuries ago. While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of pollution have in fact worsened. http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get cancer, So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up with cures. Such as AIDS? Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of the ad hominem fallacy above. ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. *plonk* QED. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Because it's true? Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: [empty] Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number of people in a household. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html There are also more people going without healthcare in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. People at all levels are living much better than they did a few decades ago. I've already supplied links which would help you dispel your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident to have a look at them. It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but one example. Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also don't qualify as "living much better", either. People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty a few hundred years ago. Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a nature never before seen in history: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to those who don't have healthcare, too. By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of scientific thought here. You, however, have. You want to believe you could somehow create sustenance from materials which are not shown to be useful toward that purpose. ...wasted bandwidth ... ... cowardly illogical troll ... Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...nutbaggery ... That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. ... it's only because there are more people now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the world. Why would anyone believe that? Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is increasing, as a matter of fact. That right there blows your claim out of the water. Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, or anywhere else. Since few people think ... That's why so many are careless about throwing away the resources we should sustain here on Earth. When there was a single attempt and a single failure That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a subject of which you are ignorant? We do know how to do it properly here. Why would anyone imagine that? The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. ... illogical nutbaggery ... What a shame that's all you have. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" for four billion years Give or take a few mass extinctions ... and humans have been surviving just fine since Not considering that we're becoming more diseased and wasting more of our resources just to maintain a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... ...We're continuing to survive just fine. Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously false one. I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. Those who want to believe that we can just throw the Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't doing the thinking they should. ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one in space, though. ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." Why would anyone believe that? It requires raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are abundant in the solar system. It requires more than that - without, for example, green plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing your home away." In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, that's throwing it away, too. The Earth will be here for billions of years, will most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? Indeed, many space enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on the Earth. Name one. Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea would be ridiculous. That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. This is just simple common sense. What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with less waste and spread. It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by known facts. It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing magical about recycling or growing crops. On the moon? On Mars? ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the tundra. That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. Why would anyone believe that we'd have the 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in space, when we don't even know how to do that properly here, where it's so much easier? On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend more than you can afford to play in space. I know for a fact that you can't survive properly here, and that you won't be able to do so on any other planet if you don't learn how on the one that spawned you. You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. You want to keep using up resources when if you had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is suicide. Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet awaits is ludicrous. You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's your suicide. In short, to survive, it MUST be done... You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit throwing your home away as you pretend there'd somehow be a replacement waiting. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal arrogance on our part. Brad Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: This explains so much. You think ... Why don't you? In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any other environments to damage. ...Minds are growing more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering from the impairments you have know that we must learn how to live properly here before we have any business going anywhere else. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". ... it's [sic] biological homelands. You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? Apparently not ... ... to expand to new territories ... You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. ... I think ... Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' fantasies, you don't ... On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... to colonize the Solar System... How very silly: humans haven't even figured out how to live properly on earth, the one planet that tends to favor their existence.
|
|
#437
April 14th 05, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:39:08 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko)
wrote: I'd say your [sic] 5 times ... Anyone could note that you're not competent even with the language. That's why you fail to comprehend the severity of your unsustainability problem here, among other things. You also know no better than to try to substitute fallacy for valid debate, which would embarrass you, were you aware of it. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:34:01 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Could you be more vague?!? I've been totally forthright. It's not my fault you don't get it. ...just another closed-minded ignorant ... That's why you haven't even earned a longterm place here, much less anywhere else. Your version of farming is not only unsustainable, it's downright destructive. You're destined to wear out your welcome here long before you gain it anywhere else, too. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:49:00 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Then what is it about you that has you claiming that we are destroying the planet? I deal in reality. ... How are you not part of the destruction process? I'm not fantasizing about being Captain Kirk rather than dealing with immediate realities. We have already succeeded ... You have not accomplished ecopoiesis or terraforming at all, no matter how desperate you are to imagine things. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You claiming not to being human ... That's your claim. I've said nothing of the sort. ...technological ignorance ... Eric That's what guarantees you'll fail in space, too. On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Can you even imagine the earth in 2505? Eric The way you're going, humans will be extinct. On 4 Apr 2005 13:06:13 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: ... on a given planet. You won't get away with throwing this one out. You don't have that kind of time or resources. On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Okay, suppose you're right It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. Again, what do you plan on doing about it? Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing a lot of learning about this issue long before now. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... have no point! You never get mine, either. Totally false claim ... totally unaware ... Eric You like to pretend otherwise, though. It's not something you can hide. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... my point. Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... obviously a troll... Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute your inane namecalling for a valid argument. My points stand. You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, as you dream of abandoning it for less. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... the guy who imagines space colonization to be impossible. You're imagining things. If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying to play "Star Trek". First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy plasma treatment, for example). To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for instance). You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a year on nothing else. Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every Earthly ecosystem!) You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem you need to stay alive, much less healthy. Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's (most of it since the 1850's). Where has it been implemented and shown to function? crickets Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly suspect he will, before I explain why). Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. Sixthly and finally, You're at zero for all. the argument that we "need to learn to live sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. You worship in an odd cult. You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. If we'd waited to colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's not even a fitting analogy, do you. Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new achievements will be made over the next couple decades. The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... space is different than the earth ... You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably here, so you won't be able to do so in space. On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... confused... Eric You sure are. You can't do in space what you can't do here. You don't even realize that much. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: So you didn't vote for Bush? Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, not a liberal. My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. Then who is a Republican that you like? Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: I'll check it. Do that. Post if you manage to get it. Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the problem? It isn't solving the problem, and will be made impossible, eventually, by the problem. You really need to catch up - you're way behind. ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... That explains your failure to reason, anyway. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated no facts ... You are mistaken, yet again. I have stated the fact that current agricultural practices are unsustainable. This is reality of which many experts are similarly aware. http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ ...When was the last time you planted a tree? I've planted more trees than you could count. You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. You poor thing. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...I challenged your beliefs... Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. ...cling to them like a baby does a blanket. You sure do. Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the Democrats and claim to be a Republican? You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's not surprising from you at all. You imagine you'd not be an overall burden rather than a benefit to your environment, too. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...Could you be wrong? You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. I guess I should stop voting then? Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. Are you ... I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies preoccupy you entirely? On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated your opinion ... Actually, I've referred to salient facts. I voted for Kerry. Your vote will never really count again, as long as paperless DRE voting systems are in use. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Well it does differ from your undefined definition. You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate usage to the standard denotation of the term. I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated and factual responses to your baseless claims. So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real conservative at all. His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA for generations, now. They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of neural functions. Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from space than you'd have to expend getting there? Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country to pad his pockets? Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it takes to become better acquainted with it. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning of the word "evolved". Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers like you. You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you never learn how to survive sustainably. Learn how the human body reacts in space. It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile of resources confirming it. manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on earth. You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and you don't even need the horse. Ask the Germans ... They say we're repeating their big mistake by letting a follower of their fuhrer into the White House. ... the nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's unsustainable because it wastes resources including potable water and topsoil. soiled and damaged. Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. Thanks for serving as an example. ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually be able to 'mine' space. For what? At what cost? ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity on earth. Not possible! So what? Those are simulable anyway. ... one can really only speak for themself [sic] ... When you do so, you prove repeatedly that you're not sufficiently educated. ... to be closeminded ... If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to teach you how to grow Mars-maize. The word is "yet". You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you have no business trying to take your show on the road. Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource inherently NOT from Earth. To what useful purpose? crickets Why do you say that? You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. Yes we can! You have never even attempted to support yourself with a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. ...closemindedness. You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. How do you know that? What resources would you return from space, and what would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. Those things are available on Earth. We have been farming for millennia. You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem you'd be starved in a short while. ...depression ... If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to do better with living where you are. Says you! I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've failed to refute what they've taught me. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ...No more food ... You couldn't even sustain yourself here, and you want to believe you could farm on Mars. Tsk. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... the troll... You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the only valid basis for you to move to another home is to have taken proper care of your present abode, and you just can't stand that fact. particularly annoying It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than do any learning. ... spamming... There's yet another word you don't understand, because in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call names than deal with the subject. I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. 1. Oxygen... Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful elements... Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 3. Hydrogen. Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive without extensive additional resources being brought along from Earth. .. there's no point in bothering with ... You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into space because you've failed so severely here that you're going to run and hide. No surprise there. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: What nonsense. I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need they must take with them from Earth. You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced to try to lie about it. The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by the total resources of the solar system. Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using those from Earth. Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their supplies. Actually, it'd be all of them. You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in space. Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new products.) Name one. You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a farm there. You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do so in space. It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant of the realities involved. That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt to eat anything here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? Do you honestly believe otherwise? It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. Everything they need and use has to be brought with them and originates here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains that more people are being forced to get by with less. You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them to joyride around in space. And yet, they're still better off than in the past. That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. What a stupid statement. I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, considering the concept of projection. http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm There's some more reality ... You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in London a couple centuries ago. While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of pollution have in fact worsened. http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get cancer, So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up with cures. Such as AIDS? Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of the ad hominem fallacy above. ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. *plonk* QED. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Because it's true? Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: [empty] Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number of people in a household. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html There are also more people going without healthcare in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. People at all levels are living much better than they did a few decades ago. I've already supplied links which would help you dispel your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident to have a look at them. It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but one example. Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also don't qualify as "living much better", either. People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty a few hundred years ago. Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a nature never before seen in history: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to those who don't have healthcare, too. By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of scientific thought here. You, however, have. You want to believe you could somehow create sustenance from materials which are not shown to be useful toward that purpose. ...wasted bandwidth ... ... cowardly illogical troll ... Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...nutbaggery ... That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. ... it's only because there are more people now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the world. Why would anyone believe that? Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is increasing, as a matter of fact. That right there blows your claim out of the water. Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, or anywhere else. Since few people think ... That's why so many are careless about throwing away the resources we should sustain here on Earth. When there was a single attempt and a single failure That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a subject of which you are ignorant? We do know how to do it properly here. Why would anyone imagine that? The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. ... illogical nutbaggery ... What a shame that's all you have. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" for four billion years Give or take a few mass extinctions ... and humans have been surviving just fine since Not considering that we're becoming more diseased and wasting more of our resources just to maintain a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... ...We're continuing to survive just fine. Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously false one. I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. Those who want to believe that we can just throw the Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't doing the thinking they should. ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one in space, though. ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." Why would anyone believe that? It requires raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are abundant in the solar system. It requires more than that - without, for example, green plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing your home away." In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, that's throwing it away, too. The Earth will be here for billions of years, will most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? Indeed, many space enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on the Earth. Name one. Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea would be ridiculous. That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. This is just simple common sense. What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with less waste and spread. It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by known facts. It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing magical about recycling or growing crops. On the moon? On Mars? ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the tundra. That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. Why would anyone believe that we'd have the 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in space, when we don't even know how to do that properly here, where it's so much easier? On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend more than you can afford to play in space. I know for a fact that you can't survive properly here, and that you won't be able to do so on any other planet if you don't learn how on the one that spawned you. You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. You want to keep using up resources when if you had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is suicide. Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet awaits is ludicrous. You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's your suicide. In short, to survive, it MUST be done... You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit throwing your home away as you pretend there'd somehow be a replacement waiting. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal arrogance on our part. Brad Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: This explains so much. You think ... Why don't you? In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any other environments to damage. ...Minds are growing more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering from the impairments you have know that we must learn how to live properly here before we have any business going anywhere else. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". ... it's [sic] biological homelands. You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? Apparently not ... ... to expand to new territories ... You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. ... I think ... Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' fantasies, you don't ... On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... to colonize the Solar System... How very silly: humans haven't even figured out how to live properly on earth, the one planet that tends to favor their existence.
|
|
#438
April 14th 05, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:41:47 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko)
wrote: ... espeically [sic] ... OUT! Eric Well, you're out of it indeed when you can't comprehend the significance of the sustainability issue to human life. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:28:17 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: The human species is ... You're using up resources without finding alternatives, in fact. Apparently you're not bright enough to figure out the upshot of that. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:52:00 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Jordan correctly pointed out that oxygen, hydorgen and the other elements are the same throughout the solar system and most probably the universe. Nobody had stated otherwise, though. You're spewing fallacies. ... caught up in the fiction. Eric That must be why you're not dealing with the reality that you can't even keep yourself alive properly here on earth, much less anywhere else. You're not weaned off the tit of unsustainability. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:53:49 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: When Columbus came to the New World It wasn't a place without air, water, and food. Can't you even figure that much out? ...religious dogma... Eric You'll have to quit worshipping your Captain Kirk fantasies if you're ever to become a scientist. You need objectivity and the ability to determine what models need to become confirmable. On 5 Apr 2005 13:18:44 -0700, "Technological Illiterate Jordan" wrote: Another one of Technological Illiterate's weird assumptions is that You can't even survive sustainably here, and you want to assume, weirdly, that you'd be able to survive elsewhere with any semblance of sustainability. Without it, you have problems you merely haven't yet considered. elements such as hydrogen, oxygen etc. are somehow different on other planets than they are on the Earth. You must be really stupid to say such things. ...Nobody has ever used any hydrogen [etc.] that didn't come from the Earth.. Nobody but you said that. You should try reading what actually was said, without those idiotic voices going in your head. On 5 Apr 2005 13:10:36 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: Where did you get the notion that space colonization advocates want to "throw the Earth out?" Actions speak louder than words: it's what you're doing. We want to have the Earth ... Really? Prove it. crickets On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:39:26 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Can you even imagine the earth in 2505? Eric The way you're going, humans will be extinct. On 4 Apr 2005 13:06:13 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: ... on a given planet. You won't get away with throwing this one out. You don't have that kind of time or resources. On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Okay, suppose you're right It's not about me. I've posted the facts as found by qualified scientists. They're right. Deal with it. Again, what do you plan on doing about it? Were you not helpless/clueless, you could be doing a lot of learning about this issue long before now. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:33:33 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... have no point! You never get mine, either. Totally false claim ... totally unaware ... Eric You like to pretend otherwise, though. It's not something you can hide. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:41:06 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... my point. Apparently it's that you can't distinguish fallacy from valid debate, and you've confirmed as much yourself, albeit unwittingly. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:34 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... obviously a troll... Obviously you're merely a liar, and trying to substitute your inane namecalling for a valid argument. My points stand. You're running out of any chance at survival on earth, as you dream of abandoning it for less. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/scien...447921,00.html On 30 Mar 2005 13:19:04 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... the guy who imagines space colonization to be impossible. You're imagining things. If you can't properly sustain your life here, however, you have no chance at doing it elsewhere. If you're smart enough, you'll figure out how to do it here, but if you're not, you won't get smarter for trying to play "Star Trek". First of all, it is not necessary to create a complete closed-cycle biosphere in order to maintain life support indefinitely in a space hab. This is because it is possible to import elements and compounds to compensate for leakage, combination into hard-to-recycle types of wastes (ones which would require extensive chemical or high-energy plasma treatment, for example). To what degree? At what cost? Do you claim you can afford it? Secondly, the life support system of a hab need not be as complex or capable of supplying as many kinds of compounds as the ecosystem of the whole Earth. All it has to do is to be capable of supporting the humans aboard, and those living things which are part of the life support system (such as hydroponics farming or air treatment units, for instance). You can't even accomplish adequate sustenance of humans that way on Earth. Get back to me when you can keep yourself alive for a year on nothing else. Thirdly, the failure of the Biosphere Two project does _not_ indicate the impossibility of space hab life support systems, since Biosphere Two was (a) a first effort at its type of technology, and (b) more ambitious than the actual requirements of early space habs. (For instance, the kind of space habs we would need to begin Lunar colonization would not need to duplicate in miniature almost every Earthly ecosystem!) You don't seem to have any idea just how much of the ecosystem you need to stay alive, much less healthy. Fourthly, the elements and compounds which would need to be imported into a space hab to periodically recharge the life support system would NOT need to be imported all the way from the Earth, as the technological illiterate imagines. If the hab was located on or near Luna or Mars, most of the required elements and compounds could instead be found ON Luna or Mars. Zubrin, among others, have outlined in detail how to do this as early as the 1990's, and the entire basic chemical engineering required has been known since at least the 1950's (most of it since the 1850's). Where has it been implemented and shown to function? crickets Fifthly, water and oxygen are the easiest substances to find, anywhere in the Solar System from the Earth's orbit outward. Neither obtaining them nor refining them into a form suitable for human consumption would require any technologies beyond those known by bright high-schoolers, or in some cases JUNIOR high-schoolers. (I'll let Mr. Technological Illiterate make a fool of himself by arguing this point, as I strongly suspect he will, before I explain why). Let's see you live on water and oxygen alone. Hint: your water's running out right here, and you aren't doing anything to slow, much less stop, that problem. Sixthly and finally, You're at zero for all. the argument that we "need to learn to live sustainably on Earth" before colonizing other worlds is absurd, if for no other reason that whether or not we learn how to do such certain human factions _will_ colonize other worlds. You worship in an odd cult. You don't have the resources, and they're dwindling fast. If we'd waited to colonize North America until we "learned to live sustainably in Europe," Western Civilization would have never spread to the New World. You have no idea why that's a non sequitor, or why it's not even a fitting analogy, do you. Oh, and the Chinese and Japanese ambitions should be taken quite seriously. Both countries have the economic, technological, and rocketry base to put a Lunar colony down within the next 10-20 years, and the task gets easier as technology progresses. Nobody's going to forget what Von Braun or Zubrin have already achieved, and new achievements will be made over the next couple decades. The Chinese own you, but they're not that well off, either. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:04:02 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... space is different than the earth ... You can't even keep yourself alive sustainably here, so you won't be able to do so in space. On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:36:32 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... confused... Eric You sure are. You can't do in space what you can't do here. You don't even realize that much. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:42:20 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: So you didn't vote for Bush? Why do you assume all Republicans must vote for Bush? Liberal Republicans are the ones that smoke pot. Gotcha! You're mistaken: I'd already mentioned that I'm a conservative, not a liberal. My, but you become so confused so easily, you poor thing. Then who is a Republican that you like? Why would that be in any way relevant to this thread? On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:40:19 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: I'll check it. Do that. Post if you manage to get it. Does anyone state that going into space is adding to the problem? It isn't solving the problem, and will be made impossible, eventually, by the problem. You really need to catch up - you're way behind. ... keep coming back like an addict to dope. I ... That explains your failure to reason, anyway. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:14 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated no facts ... You are mistaken, yet again. I have stated the fact that current agricultural practices are unsustainable. This is reality of which many experts are similarly aware. http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/07-T...iron-Prob.html http://www.wam.umd.edu/~deutsch/eesg...l2003talks.htm http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/sustainableagriculture/ ...When was the last time you planted a tree? I've planted more trees than you could count. You can't even tell why that's irrelevant, though. You poor thing. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...I challenged your beliefs... Correction: I stated facts you can't refute. You seem desperate to keep telling your lies. ...cling to them like a baby does a blanket. You sure do. Promoting clean elections is bad for Republicans, why do you support the Democrats and claim to be a Republican? You can't see beyond partisanship, but that's not surprising from you at all. You imagine you'd not be an overall burden rather than a benefit to your environment, too. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ...Could you be wrong? You certainly haven't refuted any of the facts I've stated. I guess I should stop voting then? Bad guess: you can act to promote clean elections, unless you're too incompetent/lazy/frightened. Are you ... I'm not the subject. Are you going to figure out what it happens to be anytime soon, or will your fallacies preoccupy you entirely? On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:40:03 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You have stated your opinion ... Actually, I've referred to salient facts. I voted for Kerry. Your vote will never really count again, as long as paperless DRE voting systems are in use. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:31:56 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Well it does differ from your undefined definition. You are mistaken: I am comparing your inappropriate usage to the standard denotation of the term. I believe your [sic] mistaken given your understanding of the terms. You are mistaken. I have posted only substantiated and factual responses to your baseless claims. So, you don't support the conservative Republican in office? Real conservatives support fiscal responsibility and preservation of the environment. Bush is not a real conservative at all. His family hasn't been on the same side as the USA for generations, now. They've been siding with the Nazis and other enemies of the USA, for fun and profit, ever since they made a fortune helping Hitler kill Americans all through WWII. To some degree yes, but to a larger degree no. My statement stands: your air, water, and food are all polluted, and with toxins which diminish the quality of neural functions. Get resources and it will serve as a more economical means. Why would anyone believe that you'd get more from space than you'd have to expend getting there? Again, it will happend [sic] despite ... Despite your fuhrer Bush bankrupting your country to pad his pockets? Reality is your friend: I suggest you do whatever it takes to become better acquainted with it. On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:38:38 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: ... we have evolved in the last 500 years. You seem to have no comprehension of the meaning of the word "evolved". Your belief again. We have managed to survive as a species and get into space. That is ALL that is needed to continue forward despite naysayers like you. You're not seeing the entire pictu you will never be able to achieve terraforming or ecopoiesis when you never learn how to survive sustainably. Learn how the human body reacts in space. It asphyxiates and freezes to death rather promptly. I already knew that, though, no need to waste a pile of resources confirming it. manufacturing will exist to make things that cannot be a [sic] pure as made on earth. You're already manufacturing pure horse****, and you don't even need the horse. Ask the Germans ... They say we're repeating their big mistake by letting a follower of their fuhrer into the White House. ... the nature of agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's unsustainable because it wastes resources including potable water and topsoil. soiled and damaged. Your air, water, soil, and food are all polluted. Some of those pollutants damage neural functions. Thanks for serving as an example. ... when in-space manufacturing begins we will actually be able to 'mine' space. For what? At what cost? ...You cannot have zero atmosphere or microgravity on earth. Not possible! So what? Those are simulable anyway. ... one can really only speak for themself [sic] ... When you do so, you prove repeatedly that you're not sufficiently educated. ... to be closeminded ... If you weren't, you'd learn why current trends in agriculture aren't sustainable. Then you might even realize the implications wrt space colonization ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:58 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Yep, just like Columbus brought everything from Europe. Actually, he found humans who fed him when he arrived. Perhaps you imagine there would be Martians waiting to teach you how to grow Mars-maize. The word is "yet". You have "yet" to figure out how to exist sustainably here on Earth, and until and unless you do so, you have no business trying to take your show on the road. Actually, we have used mircogravity [sic] and no atmosphere in several experiments (See IML Spacelab missions), which is a resource inherently NOT from Earth. To what useful purpose? crickets Why do you say that? You can't grow food in locations where food won't grow. Yes we can! You have never even attempted to support yourself with a garden, and you couldn't do so if you tried. ...closemindedness. You're afraid to deal with your soiled and damaged home. How do you know that? What resources would you return from space, and what would you claim it'd cost to retrieve them from there? I can do two: micorgravity[sic], no atmoshere [sic]. Those things are available on Earth. We have been farming for millennia. You are not farming sustainably. You're destroying resources at such a rate that in a smaller ecosystem you'd be starved in a short while. ...depression ... If you get well from that perhaps you'll be able to do better with living where you are. Says you! I've learned from the knowledgeable, and you've failed to refute what they've taught me. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ...No more food ... You couldn't even sustain yourself here, and you want to believe you could farm on Mars. Tsk. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:43 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ... the troll... You are lying: I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out that the only valid basis for you to move to another home is to have taken proper care of your present abode, and you just can't stand that fact. particularly annoying It's your own doing that you get annoyed rather than do any learning. ... spamming... There's yet another word you don't understand, because in your cowardice and dishonesty you'd rather try to call names than deal with the subject. I have in no way done any spamming, or trolling, whatsoever. Your continuing errors are again noted. If you can't do any better than that, there's no way good taxpayer dollars should be wasted on your escapist fantasies, of course. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: ... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly, inconceivably, stupidly wrong ... If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state. 1. Oxygen... Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful elements... Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. 3. Hydrogen. Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of technology that'd make that reality obsolete. Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously require that more resources be removed from Earth. These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive without extensive additional resources being brought along from Earth. .. there's no point in bothering with ... You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into space because you've failed so severely here that you're going to run and hide. No surprise there. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: What nonsense. I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need they must take with them from Earth. You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced to try to lie about it. The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by the total resources of the solar system. Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using those from Earth. Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their supplies. Actually, it'd be all of them. You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth. You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency. Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in space. Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on that investment in such artificially-supplied resources. (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth, providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new products.) Name one. You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a farm there. You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do so in space. It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant of the realities involved. That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance. Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness. If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt to eat anything here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this? Do you honestly believe otherwise? It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there. Everything they need and use has to be brought with them and originates here on Earth. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc. Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains that more people are being forced to get by with less. You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them to joyride around in space. And yet, they're still better off than in the past. That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them. What a stupid statement. I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable, considering the concept of projection. http://www.organicconsumers.org/scho...erty100504.cfm There's some more reality ... You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in London a couple centuries ago. While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of pollution have in fact worsened. http://www.debate-central.org/topics...n-Significant/ Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get cancer, So why do you claim they're up among wildlife? You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too? How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers? "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent, brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..." http://www.cancer-articles.com/cance...icle-6853.html instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up with cures. Such as AIDS? Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of the ad hominem fallacy above. ...health-care plan simply didn't cover it. Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you. ...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ... You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected. No doubt you make all that noise as you run away. *plonk* QED. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Because it's true? Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it. Here's a space reserved for you to do just that: [empty] Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true. Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary, it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number of people in a household. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/p...orshansky.html There are also more people going without healthcare in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population. People at all levels are living much better than they did a few decades ago. I've already supplied links which would help you dispel your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident to have a look at them. It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but one example. Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also don't qualify as "living much better", either. People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty a few hundred years ago. Actually, many of the poor don't live at all. http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a nature never before seen in history: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/susta...n_and_poverty/ Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to those who don't have healthcare, too. By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because Samual Langley's aerodrome failed. That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said. I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of scientific thought here. You, however, have. You want to believe you could somehow create sustenance from materials which are not shown to be useful toward that purpose. ...wasted bandwidth ... ... cowardly illogical troll ... Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...nutbaggery ... That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans should colonize extra-terrestrial locations. ... it's only because there are more people now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the world. Why would anyone believe that? Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is increasing, as a matter of fact. That right there blows your claim out of the water. Which has zero relevance to anything in particular. Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon, or anywhere else. Since few people think ... That's why so many are careless about throwing away the resources we should sustain here on Earth. When there was a single attempt and a single failure That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a subject of which you are ignorant? We do know how to do it properly here. Why would anyone imagine that? The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment. ... illogical nutbaggery ... What a shame that's all you have. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout wrote: No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly" for four billion years Give or take a few mass extinctions ... and humans have been surviving just fine since Not considering that we're becoming more diseased and wasting more of our resources just to maintain a substandard quality of life for most of our population ... ...We're continuing to survive just fine. Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically, potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term. More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now. http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not* surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly" (whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously false one. I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed. Those who want to believe that we can just throw the Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't doing the thinking they should. ... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here). When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one in space, though. ... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable." Why would anyone believe that? It requires raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations, ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are abundant in the solar system. It requires more than that - without, for example, green plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve. ...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing your home away." In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies. When it becomes too contaminated to support our life, that's throwing it away, too. The Earth will be here for billions of years, will most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come, and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem. Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real, besides waste scarce resources and create pollution? Indeed, many space enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on the Earth. Name one. Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea would be ridiculous. That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it. Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place. This is just simple common sense. What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with less waste and spread. It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._sprawl27.html You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false. Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by known facts. It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing magical about recycling or growing crops. On the moon? On Mars? ...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling. We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the tundra. That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why. There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that. Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us. Why would anyone believe that we'd have the 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in space, when we don't even know how to do that properly here, where it's so much easier? On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were meant to fly, then God would have given him wings". No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend more than you can afford to play in space. I know for a fact that you can't survive properly here, and that you won't be able to do so on any other planet if you don't learn how on the one that spawned you. You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings. You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done. You want to keep using up resources when if you had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle. As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is suicide. Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet awaits is ludicrous. You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's your suicide. In short, to survive, it MUST be done... You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit throwing your home away as you pretend there'd somehow be a replacement waiting. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal arrogance on our part. Brad Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans? We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here. You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: ...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial period or up into the tundra, with no technology ... Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed? On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: This explains so much. You think ... Why don't you? In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" wrote: You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area..... You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you. If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any other environments to damage. ...Minds are growing more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute. Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering from the impairments you have know that we must learn how to live properly here before we have any business going anywhere else. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner wrote: Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge? No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna". ... it's [sic] biological homelands. You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you? Apparently not ... ... to expand to new territories ... You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would. ... I think ... Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek' fantasies, you don't ... On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" wrote: ... to colonize the Solar System... How very silly: humans haven't even figured out how to live properly on earth, the one planet that tends to favor their existence.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
| The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
| The apollo faq | the inquirer | Astronomy Misc | 11 | April 22nd 04 06:23 AM |
| significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |
| significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | UK Astronomy | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |
Linear Mode
