Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 01:07:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8809210807.AA05576@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #370

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 370

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
	  Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
	  Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
		Re: Overpopulation is not our problem
		 Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
	  Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
		 Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB
		     Space Digest - Re:Berserkers
		       Re: Berserker hypothesis
			  Re: Why no aliens
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 88 19:24:54 GMT
From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In article <679@mruxb.UUCP>, hall@mruxb.UUCP (Michael R Hall) writes:
> If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT
> advancing genetically; rather we are devolving 

[ further citations about higher birthrates among poor, medically-
assisted survival of individuals with heritable defects ]

For some valuable historical perspective on this topic, step into
any sizable library and look up ``eugenics'' in the card catalog.
With luck, you will find a generous collection of titles from the
period 1900-1920. You will be amazed at some of this stuff. Back then
people were not afraid to come out and say what they were thinking.
After WWII and the Nazi atrocities we swung to the other extreme,
where the individual became entirely a product of his/her environment,
and massive social spending (rather than selective breeding) became
the acceptable curative.

The intelligentsia in the eugenics movement around the turn of the
century was alarmed at the high birthrates among the poor and
uneducated (an odd attribute of industrial societies -- in ancient
times the strongest and smartest men would multiply wives for
themselves and sire numerous offspring). Well, here we are 80 years
later. Is the average IQ higher or lower now than it was then? I have
read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours.
Average IQ may not be significant, however; the important indicator
of success is probably the number of people _significantly_ above
average, as these are the source of much creativity and inventiveness.

I personally doubt that devolution can be a significant feature in the
destruction of civilizations, since the timeframe for assuming control
of biological development is so short. In another hundred years, surely
our knowledge of genetics and our information- and nanotechnologies will
be so powerful that we will no longer be at the mercy of random
experiments in procreation. That just isn't long enough for us to
breed ourselves into sickly idiots, even if we tried. Keep in mind that
our population is enormously higher now than it was in the good ol' days,
when men were men, etc. Even though I can get along OK now with myopia
that would have killed me in a hunter-gatherer society, I'll bet the
absolute number of prime physical specimens (if not the proportion) is
as high as it ever was. People are fairly tough and resourceful, too.
After all, most primitive societies have serious health problems,
especially in the tropics.

For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching Morons_.
It's an SF short story that takes these fears to their logical extreme.
I can't recall the author just now, but I hope his view of the future
is wrong.

Dan Mocsny

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 04:57:57 GMT
From: thorin!ra!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In article <679@mruxb.UUCP> hall@mruxb.UUCP (Michael R Hall) writes:
>If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT
>advancing genetically; rather we are devolving (we are not men, we are
>DEVO).
>... we may devolve completely (back to apes or
>on something new?) before we find a "cure".

    'Evolution' and 'advancing genetically' are by no means the same
thing. Good eyesight etc. is no longer being selected for; that
doesn't mean we're 'inferior' to our ancestors who may have had better
eyesight, any more than whites are inferior to blacks because they
don't have as high melanin content in their skin.

    Followups to sci.bio.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe,
      why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''
	- Stephen Hawking

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 10:04:05 GMT
From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In article <195@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng (daniel mocsny) writes:
>								I have
>read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours.

You (and thousands of others on Usenet) have now read that the two
averages would be made equal were you to emigrate to Japan.

>For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching
>Morons_.  I can't recall the author just now, [...]

Cyril Kornbluth

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 88 19:42:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net  (P. G. Cutting)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <44600017@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes:
>Which is expanding the most, technological competance or environmental
>damage?  Obviously they are not independent - our technology is causing
>most of this pollution.  But if pollution can be kept to a minimum,
>then one day we should be able to deal with it without doing more
>harm than good. Hopefully before it is too late.  
>				... Bill

So , 'is it too late?' we ask ourselves. There are a large number of
extinct wildlife who ,if they could talk, might say yes.

Also, will we ever know that its too late before it IS TOO LATE.
Id rather start now.

ARPA	: Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
JANET	: Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle
UUCP	: PGC@cheviot.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 88 19:51:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net  (P. G. Cutting)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem

>You bet - the U.S. has a population distribution problem, not an
>overpopulation problem. Ever driven from Iowa through South Dakota,
>Montana, Idaho south through Nevada and or Utah into Arizona and much
>of California? You could count the people on the fingers of one hand. 

What about all the resources that 200,000,000 people require.  This years
harvest failure should indicate that something is wrong. Why push things
to the limit. If we lived 'within ourselves' it would not be necessary
to squeeze the last drop out of a diminishing world.

ARPA	: Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
JANET	: Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle
UUCP	: PGC@cheviot.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 88 19:34:42 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net  (P. G. Cutting)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

In article <101270001@hpcvlx.HP.COM> bturner@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Bill Turner) writes:
>> On the serious side though, I believe that it is incredibly sad that mankinds
>> first attempts at terraforming will be on the Earth just to keep it
>> habitable.  I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of
>> global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more
>> drastic it will be.
>
>If you wish to look at it this way, we HAVE been terraforming Earth for quite
>a while now.  Whether for good or not, you must admit that the environment has
>been effected substantially by our activities.  And what is terraforming, other
>than changing the environment?
>
>--Bill Turner

I think that there is a big difference between what humanity has done to
the environment and terraforming. The first is  typically, initially the 
unforeseen result of some other primary activity. Ignorance and/or sheer 
bloody mindedness are the usual culprits.

The second ,assuming we achieve it , is the changing of the environment
by desire , hopefully with full knowledge of all the consequences.


ARPA	: Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
JANET	: Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle
UUCP	: PGC@cheviot.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 17:04:35 GMT
From: umigw!umbio!amossb@handies.ucar.edu  (A. Mossberg)
Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In <195@uceng.UC.EDU>, <dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU> wrote:
>The intelligentsia in the eugenics movement around the turn of the
>century was alarmed at the high birthrates among the poor and
>uneducated (an odd attribute of industrial societies -- in ancient
>times the strongest and smartest men would multiply wives for
>themselves and sire numerous offspring). Well, here we are 80 years
>later. Is the average IQ higher or lower now than it was then? I have
>read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours.
>Average IQ may not be significant, however; the important indicator
>of success is probably the number of people _significantly_ above
>average, as these are the source of much creativity and inventiveness.

Well, it is the number above average you'd be looking at.  You'd look at
the median score (where the majority of people fall).  Assuming, of
course, you believe in IQ scores, which are inaccurate measurements of
intelligence, and are unfair to large segments of the population (poor,
disadvantaged with regard to educational opportunities, those new or
outside of the cultural environment in which the test is devised, etc)

>For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching Morons_.
>It's an SF short story that takes these fears to their logical extreme.
>I can't recall the author just now, but I hope his view of the future
>is wrong.

I don't have it handy, (actually it's packed away), but I think it was a
story by Harry Harrison.


aem


-- 
a.e.mossberg    -    aem@mthvax.miami.edu    -    aem@mthvax.span (3.91)
Speak in French when you can't think of the English for a thing.
						      - Lewis Carroll

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 88 00:01:08 GMT
From: apple!dan@rutgers.edu  (Dan Allen)
Subject: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB

Does anyone know the scoop on being able to go on base at Edwards AFB
for the Shuttle landing in October or whenever it is going to land?  I
went to a landing in 1982 there but did not make any of the details.  I
have heard a rumor that the public is not allowed on base any more for
landings.  Any truth to this rumor?

Dan Allen
Apple Computer
dan@apple.COM

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 15:40:56 EDT
From: saunders%QUCIS.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu
Subject: Space Digest - Re:Berserkers

Concerning the 'Berserker' debate - there is a very good David Brin short
story, entitled 'Lungfish' (in the _River of Time_ short story collection)
that makes the point that 1)these probes are a form of life, and will evolve
and 2)if this is going on for awhile, wierdness has occured - the probes could
very well have extremely complex 'moitivations'.  Brin lists many types of
probes - Berserkers, Disamsemblers (take apart everthing for resources....),
Seeders, Protectors, etc.  The basic premise is that some species, somewhere,
built probes to go kill the other probes (if only to keep from being bothered),
and this introduced an element of competition into the whole thing, hence
evolution.
   The explanation this produces for the Great Silence is that using radio is
DANGEROUS; there is no way to tell if the Berserkers, Cleaners, or Protectors
(or the Missionaries!!) will get there first - so, whoever gets there first,
artifical radio sources have a short lifetime.  If the average broadcast time
of a race is ~250 years, it does bad things to the chances of us hearing
anything.

50 years is a very short time; there could be a (or several) frenzied debate(s)
on what to do about the race that sends such strange signals going on now.
The relief agency ship (or the battle fleet, or the traders, or the two
competing fleets from 1 or more races...) could be about to launch, at
turnover, decelerating...  There is an sf writer (Varley) who has a ficton
which postulates that humanity was kicked off earth by a bunch of gas giant
dwellers (who showed up to colonize Jupiter) for abusing the whales and
dolphins.  This sounds silly, but there have been cultures that took
percautions when going out at night to ward off the demons - we can't tell,
we can only speculate.  Speculating is fun, but we are making a great deal of
stew from a virtual oyster.

As far as alien motivations go, we will have to wait and see. "Space is deep" is
the sum total of our knowledge right now. It will take a long time to fix that,
too - a century or so to get a good start.


Graydon Saunders [saunders@qucis.bitnet] || My boss has his own opinions - this
                                            bunch are my own fault.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 10:12:13 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net  (Adrian Hurt)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

In article <2216@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> 
> >Unfortunately, benign races don't bother going across the ocean, let
> >alone into space, Vulcans notwithstanding.
> 
> 	How do you know?  We haven't found any "benign races" to test your
> theory on.  The victims of colonization have on the whole been just as malign
> as their conquerors

How far do whales travel? O.K., that's under, not across the ocean :-)
What about Arctic Terns, which migrate from the Arctic to the Antarctic? And
other birds perform lesser feats of endurance during their migrations. I
wouldn't class any of these as malign.

-- 
 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 10:01:39 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net  (Adrian Hurt)
Subject: Re: Why no aliens

In article <191@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:

> If you want my advice on how to attack Mars (or even if you don't want
> my advice) we could probably find a fairly hefty Mars-grazing
> asteroid. Instead of nuking the Martian surface, we send those nukes
> to the asteroid and give it the ever-so-slight shove necessary to
> send it careening into the Martian surface on the next lap.

This will probably show what I know about the mechanics of space flight (zilch)
but anyway...

Take some sort of propulsion and control/guidance system. And enough fuel to
drive it for, say, a month continuously. Put this lot onto a small asteroid,
and move them to a suitable distance. Now switch it on, and let it accelerate
continuously towards the target planet. Now, for example, let's say we have
10 m s-2 acceleration, plus corrections for guidance control.
One month = 31 days = 31*24*60*60 = 2678400 seconds.
Final velocity = 26784000 m s-1. Which is just under 1 percent of lightspeed.

Could this be done? What would happen to the target planet when something hit
it that hard?

-- 
 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #370
*******************