Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_369.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/andrew.cmu.edu.335.0.0>;
          Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23361133.27e14e>;
          Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:05:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00329> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:04:33 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT
    id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #369

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 369

Today's Topics:
         Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
               Re: Berserker hypothesis
    Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)
              Re: Naming the new Shuttle
             more useless trivia
        Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
      Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)
              Re: Why no aliens
       Re: Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 88 14:36:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???


>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.

But the longer we wait, the more technically feasible will be the
solutions.  We don't want to put up the space umbrellas before we
sweep up the space-crap which would blow them to bits!

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.

Remember, before we go dumping ozone into the upper atmosphere, let's
just make DAMN SURE that the Antarctic hole isn't a feature of winter-time
polar weather.

                ... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *    Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
UCL, London, Errrp       *    mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
[e-mail](UK) *    che la diritta via era smarrita.
[e-mail](US) ***********************************************

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

Date: 3 Sep 88 16:09:21 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Knudsen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
>> As a corollary to this, if humans acquired a religion and/or political
>> ideology directing them to spread as much as possible and exterminate all
>> life
>> not required for their own support (and also exterminate all humans not
>> conforming to this religion/ideology), they would count as berserkers, even
>> though they are not machines.
>
>IF what?  The ancient Hebrews, European CHristians, their New World
>descendants (Esp. Brazil), farmers, whalers -- all sorts of human races
>fit this definition perfectly.  The US probably has a copyright
>on it.  No smileys.

    You're entirely right about this -- the reason I said "if" was an
attempt to put across the point (what it takes to be a berserker) without
adding in the additional load of asking readers to see at the same time that
humans are already examples of living berserkers (which might cause people who
disagree with this to miss the point).  I should have pointed this out later
in the message.  In fact, it's enough to be cause for serious questioning of
whether humans are too evil to deserve access to space -- I'm for going into
space, but we had better get our ethical act cleaned up or the rest of the
universe could be in real trouble.

>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 (although not always in exactly the same way, but
recognizably close -- that's human nature for you), but at the time they were
conquered they lacked the means to do what was being done to them, at least to
the same extent.  Also, what would keep a benign species from going across an
ocean or into space, except possibly for nasty species that might get in the
way at too early a stage?

    -- Lucius Chiaraviglio
       [e-mail]
       [e-mail]    (in case the first one doesn't work)
    Seen on a terminal screen at Harvard:
    Vote Nixon in 1988
    when you are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 01:43:12 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Hullender)
Subject: Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
Let's see if we can make this a bit more constructive.  Instead of arguing
over whether the shuttle has been of any use whatsoever (obviously it has
done more than simply provide space-junkets for people like Jake Garn -- I
admit my earlier comment was hyperbole) I'd like to see a discussion of what
areas man-in-space might be useful in.

In cases where the shuttle is simply helping launch something else, I hope
we all agree that it's worse than using expendables.  Does everyone agree
that it costs more?

Construction is the obvious area where people are necessary, but the only
construction job in space I've heard anything about is the space station,
and that just postpones the question.

Repair has also been mentioned, but how often does something go wrong that
CAN be fixed?  Is it really worth the trouble?  (A more complex question
than it seems; if we could depend on some repair service, could we design
and launch superior systems?)

Does this necessarily include anything that needs to be brought back from
space?  The Soviets brought moon samples back with unmanned vehicles, but I
wonder how reliable (and expensive) it would be.
--
        Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
        3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

        My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.

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

Date: 3 Sep 88 15:43:27 GMT
From: att!whuts!homxb!homxc![e-mail]  (M.WEINSTEIN)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

> - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix!

Why???  I believe that NASA's name selection criteria makes much better sense.
Let's not get too cute here.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                    |     Michael A. Weinstein
  More *original* thought from----> |    (att!homxc.att.com!maw)
                                    |     AT&T-BL: Holmdel, NJ
                                    |        [phone]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 03:39:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: more useless trivia


[]

Just dug up a couple on interesting notes here.

First, a while back we were discussing the way the Skylab crews
numbered their missions on the patches, Skylab I, II, II,
and the "official" flight designators of SL 1 (for the unmanned
portion of the OWS), SL 2,3,4 for the manned missions.

I just got a videotape of the network coverage of the Conrad launch.
Pete refers to his mission as "Skylab 2" and so do the newsdudes.


Trivia note #2:

During the CBS coverage of the Apollo 15 splashdown, uncle Walter reported
about a nearby Soviet "fishing trawler". After the crew was safely on board
the Carrier, the trawler supposedly signalled the Carrier something to the
affect : "Could we assist you by boarding the capsule?".



--
               *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 15:06:49 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!mruxb![e-mail]  (Michael R Hall)
Subject: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] states

>In fact, we may have a problem with the size of our gene pool.  There is a
>fine line about when a population's gene pool is large enough and diverse
>enough to continue advancing genetically.  With not enough babies being born,
>we're treading that fine line now, but since we allow so much immigration
>thats not a great problem, yet.  Mexico on the other hand...

>This is off the top of my head from books I've read.  Please correct me if
>some of it is wrong.

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). Seriously. Consider the factors that favor "selection" in the
modern world.  Poor people have more children than financially well-to-do
people, by a long shot.  A gross generalization is that poor people,
on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people.  The key
word is "average"; some poor people are geniuses, some rich people
are retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty,
while stupid rich people lose their wealth to
taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever. Evolution requires only a small amount
of leverage to work its magic. Don't tell me that it takes millenia.
With the proper environmental conditions, a few generations are all
it takes for the effects to become visible.(They had ten kids who
each had ten kids who each had ten kids...)

Modern medicine and science also plays a role in the devolution of
Man.  My own fiance would not have survived without civilization,
because she is practically blind without glasses or contacts.  We
are becoming more and more blind.  My asthmatic friend would have
died without modern medicine.  We are becoming more and more
sickly.

Note that I am NOT suggesting that we necessarily do anything about
this, so hold your flames.

What does this have to do with space?

Well, I would propose it as yet another solution to the Fermi
paradox; no alien race has been able to maintain its genetic
integrity long enough to dominate a large portion of the galaxy. An
obvious possible flaw in this argument is that cloning or genetic
engineering could slow/stop/reverse devolution, but perhaps this is
very hard or impossible for other types of life. After all, we can't
even really do it yet, and we may devolve completely (back to apes or
on something new?) before we find a "cure".

Michael Hall
mruxb![e-mail] or bellcore!mruxb!hall or something like that

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 07:43:58 GMT
From: agate!garnet![e-mail]  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation)

In article <[e-mail]>, hall@mruxb (Michael R Hall) writes:
>               Poor people have more children than financially
>well-to-do people, by a long shot.  A gross generalization is that poor
>people, on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people.

Yup.  Gross is the word.  It sounds like complete utter bullshit,
having zero basis in anything other than random mental farting.

>                               The key
>word is "average";

No, the key word was "gross".

>                   some poor people are geniuses, some rich people are
>retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty, while stupid
>rich people lose their wealth to taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever.

Is this supposed to "cover your ass" intellectually here?  It doesn't
do a very good job.

Do you have any solid facts to justify your "gross" assertions?

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

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 02:57:53 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket![e-mail]  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Why no aliens

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
<>You may be half right, though -- it may be the case that any race "advanced"
<>enough to make contact over interstellar distances always ends up destroying
<>itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it
<>is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet...
<
<Could be done now, probably, if one of the superpowers wanted to spend enough
<money and effort on it.

I seem to recall that in the 60's some thinktank group studied the feasability
of building a "planet-wrecker" type device (ala E. E. Smith). They decide that
was not only possible, but as weapon system, fairly cheap...

I think they may have been considering a *fusion* device in the gigaton range?
Punch a hole thru the crust in a "good" spot (say under a shallow seabed?)
and the results would be on a par with a major asteriodal impact. In short,
good-bye life...
--
Leonard Erickson        ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 23:13:50 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    Since a few of you were kind enough to respond to my survey question
>on Significant Accomplishments in Space, I thought it only fair to let you
>know what my results and responses were. In essence, almost zero! [. . .]
>
>     As a personal comment on my survey, I think it's pretty sad that of the
>estimated 7000 readers of the digest, that only five took the time and
>effort to respond. [. . .]

    Before you get all worked up, consider that maybe your survey didn't
get very far on the net.  Many times I have posted messages, only to find that
they never got beyond the machine on which I posted the messages.  A reposting
might be in order, considering that most of us don't know how to respond to
messages that we haven't received.

    I will briefly give my answer (only approximate -- I'm really not very
good at answering surveys I haven't received) in advance.  First of all, we
had better get off this heap and into space, because if we don't, it is likely
that one day we are going to find that we are off this heap but not in space.
Alternatively, it could happen that the entire world all falls into a
situation like that in George Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, at which point
it will be too late to move into space (because if anyone goes into space the
government(s) will go with them).  But whether natural or human threats are
the worse, continuing to live only on Earth is just plain dangerous.

    Another thing to consider about moving into space is that further
development of our civilization will become increasingly difficult until the
trouble of getting into space is less than the trouble and hazards of trying
to do everything on Earth.  It could be argued with considerable sense that
this is already starting to happen, but even if we are not at the point yet we
should start going into space for the sake of planning ahead for when we do
get to that point.  Remember -- if you absolutely have to do something, and
you haven't prepared for it, the consequences are likely to be more
devastating than the loss of time and resources due to excessive and premature
preparation.  I do not think that space will be economically viable or contain
great habitats for quite a long time, but eventually we are going to have to
make it that way, and if we haven't been preparing for practical use of space
beyond communications satellites beforehand, we aren't going to be able to do
it when we need it.

    Finally, but most importantly, we need to go into space to gain
knowledge and do our part in making as much of the universe as possible a
better place -- these are what make life worthwhile.  As a species, we haven't
been very good at the latter, but we aren't going to be able to do it at all
in areas where we can't reach.

>     ON OTHER SUBJECTS, I think there is one aspect of the SETI discussion on
>'Why aren't they here?" that has been overlooked. Maybe they aren't here
>because
>they ended up taking the same path towards space that it looks like we will,
>which is none. [. . .]

    But nothing forces all intelligent species to take the same path as
us.  Just because our species has a propensity to produce Proxmiroids doesn't
mean that another species with a different evolutionary (not to mention
cultural) history will.  And even some subsets of humans seem to be overcoming
this difficulty.  But if you want to be in on it, you had better be ready to
start learning Russian. . . .

    -- Lucius Chiaraviglio
       [e-mail]
       [e-mail]    (in case the first one doesn't work)
    "You never want to try anything.  You're always afraid to take a risk.
Why'd you ever join Starfleet.  Why didn't you stay in Tennessee and raise
pigs.?"
    "I'm 'fraida pigs."

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #369
*******************