Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO225.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 05:03:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #225
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 20 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
                       Drop nuc waste into sun
                       Energy supplies (2 msgs)
                           Ethics (3 msgs)
                    Space Digest V15 #222 (2 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 92 02:50:30 GMT
From: Walter Polkosnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well, that nuclear waste might be useful someday! Why throw it away?


--
Walter Polkosnik
Physics Department         [e-mail]
Queens College, CUNY       {cmcl2,apple}!panix!banana

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 23:04:51 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Energy supplies

\This is something of an understatement. It turns out to be both
/difficult and expensive to use geothermal energy. There are a few
\places in the world where Mother Nature has seen fit to provide
/ideal conditions for geothermal power and those places have, for the
\most part, been taken advantage of. Trying to build your own
/geothermal resources is one hell of a lot more difficult then
\talking about it on the net.

I also suspect that much less R & D has been done into geothermal
than in (for instance) the oil industry.

If oil costs reached the cost of producing it in the US
rather than some place where it's still virtually seeping out
of the ground, I could see geothermal power starting to
compete, especially if more R & D gets done.

Part of the reason US oil costs so little compared to Saudi
oil (when you consider how much deeper we're drilling for
the stuff) is that a lot of money was invested in the technology
(which, incidentally, is similar to that used in Sulfur extraction
here in La. and sounds similar to Paul Dietz's idea for magma
energy extraction) of drilling rigs both on land and in the ocean.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 04:18:38 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energy supplies
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>(which, incidentally, is similar to that used in Sulfur extraction
>here in La. and sounds similar to Paul Dietz's idea for magma
>energy extraction) of drilling rigs both on land and in the ocean.

It was not my idea; it's being worked on at Sandia, I think.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 22:03:28 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>>Since you cannot logically conclude
>>that terra-forming Mars is bad, it must be a gut feeling, subject to the
>>whims of your personal interests, digestion, and who knows what else that
>>we can safely ignore.

>Logic tells me that we should treat other areas in the manner with which
>we would like to be treated ourselves. You may prefer to believe that you
>are the only one in the universe and are therefore omnipotent, but I don't

>believe so myself.

In that case, logic also tells you to stop eating, as you must kill to eat,
and you haven't killed yourself (yet?)  Since your 'logic' is based on
a blatant contradiction, it is not logic.  Since ethics is based on logic,
it's not ethics.  That leaves pathos as the best possible emotive cause
of your beliefs.  Maybe it's something else entirely, but it's not ethics.

No, I don't think I'm omnipotent.  I wouldn't know what logic was if I was
omnipotent, as I could easily change your mind against your will...
But, I do recognize some dynamics of ethics that you seem quite blind to.
Only an omnipotent person could believe contradictory things, and also
know that thoughts based on them were sound.

>Your argument sort of reminds me of the Vogon Constructor Fleet line
>from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Why wouldn't any superior
>beings simply destroy anything that is in their way? Because they have
> a sense of ethics that gives other life some rights.

Rights are a legal, not an ethical term.  If we want to pass laws about it,
that's a different case than deciding what is ethical.  I'd agree that it
would be unethical to kill sentient beings, as well as destroy any Mars-life
before understanding, preserving, possibly finding that it won't conflict
with Earth-life.  But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only
conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than
any potential Mars-life.  Hence, terra-forming is at least as good as not
terra-forming, even if it would kill said (non-sentient) Mars-life.

You are free to have a 'sense of ethics' based on contradictions.  But, it
is only a 'sense', not understanding.

>If it is a case of kill or be killed, then blast the non-existant
>Martian life-forms to dust. But the argument here is whether killing
>what is there is ethical simply because some people here would like
>to try the idea out.


The argument is that we are at least as valuable as Mars-life.  From this
value, we can draw conclusions about which life form would be good to
have on Mars, if it's an either-or case.  The only conclusion we can draw,
logically, is that it would be us.  If we killed said life, and then found
that we still couldn't live there, I'd agree it would be unethical.  But,
I'm taking 'terra-formed' to mean 'humanly habitable.'

>You cannot use Mars for population control so that argument is out. You
>can't use it for food production so that argument is out. So, what reason
>would sway the ethical considerations to wantant destruction of a life-form
>that is no danger to mankind?

Didn't you see the argument I posted?  E-mail me, and I'll give it to you.
It only requires that Mars would be more valuable with us than without
us.  The anti-terraforming argument requires that Mars be more valuable
wihtout us than with.  Since that's impossible, as we are as valuable as
anything that is valuable, the anti-T-forming argument hinges on a
contradiction, and is, hence, invalid, not logical, not ethical.

>>>We _know_ that should these groups desist their dangerous behavior
>>>that AIDS would no longer exist as a threat.

>>Not to mention the blatant empirical untruth of your statement...

>I suggest you look up the facts and figures available from the CDC
>before you shoot off about it. I have read the documentation -- many
>times. AIDS is a behaviorally caused disease. Stop the behavior and
>you stop the disease. Period.

1) There are heterosexual, non needle-required-drug using AIDS victims.
2) Since these people's behavior would be unaffected by stopping the
behvior of 'those people', stopping 'their' bahvior will not stop the
disease.  Please aquaint yourself with the facts before shooting off...
3) AIDS has been found in blood samples dating as far back as 1950.
4) There is pretty good evidence that a hepatitis vaccine, administered
to homosexuals and needle-users, in S.Francisco and N.Y., c. 1975, was,
accidentally or deliberately, contaminated with this virus.
5) The fact that AIDS has already reached the peak of it's growth suggests
that it was introduced, not that it has grown only due to 'dangersous people'.
6) Suggesting that carriers (of any disease) are evil will only make
treatment tougher, as they will hide from 'doctors' sent out by people
like you to 'help' them.  Your advocacy is in conflict with your expressed
desire.

>>I'm not sure what you do in your backyard, but mine is pretty clean.

>And we all know how environmentally sound Michigan is.

And we all know how indicative of the entire Great Lakes region MY
backyard is.  Gimme a break.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 22:57:26 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>>So you're claiming to hold the 'anti-life' premise as true?  How do you
>>reconclie your own existence to your belief that life is bad?  I'll bet
>>you watch a lot of TV. :-)

>1)  Anti-life premise?  What gobbledegoog is that, anyway?  You sound like a
>brainwashed fundie christian...

The argument against t-forming requires that you assume life-in-general is
more valuable than Human life.  Since you are a human, you hold a premise
that contradicts your own existence.  Anti-life.

>2)  I say life is good, just that we have no right to destroy others.

Then stop eating, or admit the contradiction in your statement.

>>>Assume:   1)  There is life on Mars
>>>          2)  We understand it _completely_  (how long will that take,
>>>              anyway?)

>>Completely?  Do we understand AIDS completely?  Polio?  That bear that tried
>>to run Daniel Boone down was doubtlessly only slightly understood by him at
>>all, yet you cheered when the bear died.  How about "We understand it so
>>much that no-one wants to spend the time/energy to learn more"?

>The bear that was about to run D.B. down was not the last of its species.

Immaterial.  If the bear was the last, he'd still do it, and you'd still
cheer.

>As to polio and AIDS (etc.)...they aren't a passive life form with respect to
>us. They're a disease, and we have the right to defend ourselves against them.

That right only exists if you think you are more valuable than it.  Thinking
you are more valuable also makes it logically consitent to kill simple,
harmless life, if you value life-in-general, and if it is required for Human
life.

>Hypothetical question for you:  What if there weren't just bacteria on Mars?
>Suppose there is a highly advanced society there, and they object to our
>attempts and come wipe us out.  By your argument, THEY'd be in the right.

My argument, you may recall, referred to 'sentient life' rather than
human life, just to be more general.  So, if it's sentient life on Mars,
we can call them 'human' or 'people', and the unique, people-less situation
on Mars, upon which my argument depends, no longer exists.

>>'Right' is a legal question, not a moral one.  We have no rights on Mars, as
>>Mars is not the jurisdiction of any law-making body.  Neither does any
>>potential Mars-life have rights, as it does not hold citizenship anywhere
>>on Earth.

>And speaking of rights, it IS a moral issue.  If I decided that for me to
>improve my standard of living I had to kill you, wouldn't you be right in
>feeling that this was unjust.  Wrong?  By your arguments I'd be perfectly
>justified in killing you.

Sorry.  My argument does adhere to the general moral principle that it's
conclusions are not based on the station of the person making it.  For that
reason, you cannot justify killing me, while I can still justify killing
some lesser, non-sentient, non-human life;  Your hypothetical situation
will create different conclusions, based on station;  Killer or killed.

>So if we discover intellegent aliens someday they don't have civil rights to
>free speech?  Simply because they weren't born here? That's bigotry.

Hypotheticals are really useless.  Here's mine;  Said intelligent life will
think we're the cats pajamas, and, it turns out, can interebreed with us,
but they are lots smarter, and have all sorts of social innovations that
end forever any problem we've ever had.  Let's stick to the argument, OK.
I never claimed my conclusion applied ANYWHERE but Mars.  You have yet to
refute my argument, as it applies to Mars.

>>So, again, the question is "Is it GOOD to terra-form Mars?"  Unless you
>>contradict your own eixistence by asserting a) that life-in-general is good,
>>regardless of human existence, or b) that values have no realtion to human
>>choice, you must conclude that terra-forming Mars is good, if you beleive
>>that life is good.

>If there is life on Mars, you're contradicting your own statement.  What
>makes their "life" any different than our "life"??  What makes theirs any
>less important than ours?

Difference:  Our life is Us.  Theirs is them.
Relative value:  We are at least as valuable as theirs.  In no logical way
can you show them to be more valuable, as it would contradict your existence.
Importance:  Who said anything about importance?  BTW, doesn't 'importance'
mean 'importance to humans'?

>AHA!  You're an Earth-chauvanist!  :)

Close.  We are all human-centrist, by design.  We can imagine valuing as
non-human.  But, since we can't, I can construct arguments based on this fact.

>>But that's just another argument for terra-forming Mars! (Or any other terra-
>>formable world.)

>But not at the expense of the (non-proven) life already extant there.

Your argument might not support it, but mine does.

>Here's your argument:

>Life is good (given, which I agree with).
>There is life on Mars (assumed for the case of argument)
>Therefore life on Mars is good.  (direct)

>If life is there, it is good.  (Chances are, it'd be different from ours.)

>If life is good, and life on Mars is good, how can you justify wiping it out?
>Especially when there are so many alternatives for spreading "Earth-life" that
>don't call for destroying other life.

I never said T-forming required wiping out life.  I was asuming that, as it
made the argument much harder, but still not impossible.  I can justify
said T-forming because OUR life is AT LEAST AS valuable as Mars-life, so
the anti-T-forming position's strongest possible logical conclusion is that
T-forming is ethically equal to not T-forming.  T-forming is not unethical.

And, BTW, there are several situations, brought up mostly by others, that
tip the ethical question in my favor; hostile-to-us Mars life.  The ability
to preserve said life.  Lack of said life.  Co-existence with said life.
T-forming being useless, no matter what.

>>'Right' is a legal term, not a moral one.

>It is a philosophic one that is the basis of law.

Point taken, but we were speaking of non-humans.  Inalienable rights apply
only to humans.

>>1) There isn't a god.

>Prove it. You ought to be able to do that easily since you are so adamant
>about it.

1) This has no bearing on this thread.  2)  There are 33,000 gods, according
to some, rather than A (single) god.  3)  You define him, I'll refute him.

>>This is an argument against acting without forethought, but not an argument
>>against terra-forming.

>Hey, I'm all for terraforming if you can show me how it's going
>to be done. But of course it is always the same -- we _could_
>do it if only twenty sciences made major breakthroughs.

My argument, about ethics, included IF we could terra-form Mars.  Whether or
not we could (soon) was not part of the argument.

>Just a question: I have been watching people here discuss how
>man is the biggest influence on the planet at present. The mind
>boggles.

>The plankton i the ocean isn't exerting many times more effect on
>the atmosphere? I suggest you look it up.

>The forestation isn't effecting the environment more?

>In central Africa it is a toss up whether man's seeking fuel
>or goats and cattle seeking food are responsible for the desertification.

>One has to wonder about people who would believe that man is the
>controlling interest of the planet.

Man may not be the controlling interest of the planet.  Until you can speak
coherently about the interest of the planet, you are stuck with being
concerned about the interest of Humans, or at least, you.

No, I don't mean that you can't tell me what's good for certain life-forms.
I mean you can't speak of it's value seperate from your own.

>>If you want to continue, try the aesthetics angle.

>Actually, the aesthetic angle was the gist of my post.  I called your
>arguments a "Procrustean formula" because you seem to be trying to
>measure every opposing argument against your "more life is better" theme
>whether it fits or not.  Your response reinforces this observation.

'More life is better' was not my argument.  'Our life must be at least as
good as any other' was.  Please repost your aestheic angle, with an
emphasis on how any aesthetic value of Mars can be higher than the person
doing the valuing.

About formula;  arguments are formulas (based on form) which are either
valid or invalid.  Mine was valid.  Premises are either true or untrue.
Conclusions based on valid forms and true premises are true.

My premises:  Life is good, humans are as good as any life, Mars is T-formable.
My conclusion:  T-forming Mars is not unethical, and, I opine, is ethical.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 20 Sep 92 05:40:20 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>In that case, logic also tells you to stop eating, as you must kill to eat,
>and you haven't killed yourself (yet?)  Since your 'logic' is based on
>a blatant contradiction, it is not logic.  Since ethics is based on logic,
>it's not ethics.  That leaves pathos as the best possible emotive cause
>of your beliefs.  Maybe it's something else entirely, but it's not ethics.

Somewhere I read that the amount of reason in a given statement is inversely
proportional to the number of times the author has to use the word "logic"
to make his point sound rational.

>Rights are a legal, not an ethical term.

So much for "inalienable rights" or "human rights violations" I guess.  If
you think I have no rights until a system of law is imposed to give them to
me I'm sure glad you aren't running for office.

>I'd agree that it
>would be unethical to kill sentient beings, as well as destroy any Mars-life
>before understanding, preserving, possibly finding that it won't conflict
>with Earth-life.

It would have simplified things if you'd mentioned _any_ of these in your
first post.

>But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only
>conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than
>any potential Mars-life.

Actually, one of the things I like about us is that I think some of us could
choose the alien life if it were one or the other.   I can posit a situation
or two (given that you said _any_ type of life) where I think it might not be
such a horrible choice.

>The argument is that we are at least as valuable as Mars-life.  From this
>value, we can draw conclusions about which life form would be good to
>have on Mars, if it's an either-or case.  The only conclusion we can draw,
>logically, is that it would be us.  If we killed said life, and then found
>that we still couldn't live there, I'd agree it would be unethical.  But,
>I'm taking 'terra-formed' to mean 'humanly habitable.'

>It only requires that Mars would be more valuable with us than without
>us.  The anti-terraforming argument requires that Mars be more valuable
>wihtout us than with.  Since that's impossible, as we are as valuable as
>anything that is valuable, the anti-T-forming argument hinges on a
>contradiction, and is, hence, invalid, not logical, not ethical.

Alright Tom, I'll give you three examples of people who, usuing your belief
system, can (I think) rationally decide that terraforming Mars is bad.

Larry is X (where X is your choice of Amish, aborigine, Tibetan nomad,  Eskimo
or miscellaneous hermit).  Larry will not recieve _any_ benefit should you
decide to terraform Mars.  He doesn't give a wet noodle.  He can decide
either way he wants.  He chooses to object because he doesn't want to see
spacecraft zipping across the sky - looking at the stars is one of the things
he likes to do best when Murphy Brown isn't on.

Moe is Y (where Y is any number of religions or philosphies that believe it is
wrong to destroy life).  He may or may not be wrong.  But it doesn't matter.
He's decided that the potential limit to the number of children he can have
(or other people can have) is better than facing the rest of his life knowing
that he supported the destruction of an entire Kingdom (in the biological
sense) of beings.  To him, having a few more people isn't worth destroying
every known member of a species.
      Remember - it's not a question of whether his religion is
right, it's a matter of how much harm it would do him to go against his beliefs.
If you tell him that he's wrong and should support a larger number of humans
then you're "setting yourself up as the pinnacle...deciding right and wrong...
an imperialist population facist."  I'll leave that quote unattributed since
I don't recall who said such things.

Curly doesn't have an "ism."  But he's smart enough to realise that this isn't
a matter of us or them.  He has no doubt in his mind that he's more "special"
than any fungus anywhere.  However, he's a member of the old L5 society and
really wants to build habitats in space.  He doesn't see lack of a habitable
Mars as a problem - in fact, he may see it as a waste of resources.  Even if
he doesn't, he may still object to terraforming on the grounds that he wants
to be able to walk on the surface of an alien planet.  He and his like minded
friends will get much more benefit from Mars as Mars (a nature preserve) than
Mars as Earth (a cheap mail order clone without a warranty)

This is may parting shot into this hypotheical converstaion.  If you have some
pressing things to say (or you just want to flame me) do it over e-mail.
--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
                           miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 22:39:10 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #222

>   Obviously, people with a desire to broadcast will work out a peaceful
>   compromise, rather than muscle each other, intensity-wise, and end
>   up not brodacsting, with a host of civil suits, since the peaceful way
>   is the prosperous one.

>This is a false assumption. Read some history.

I have read some history.  The only time the above solution doesn't work is
when the gov. prevents it from working.  A good example is ground water and
air pollution.  If people could sue polluters for allowing their trash to
get on private property, they would.

The EPA prevents such things, as well as preventing the best source of
pollution control.  Call unwanted radio signals 'pollution', which they
are, if you don't want them messing up your EM field, and the situation is
the same.

Since we were discussing a situation where no law existed, as yet, I quite
simply applied property rights to the question of radio frequencies.
No false assumptions, unless you were referring to the idea that some gov.
agency wouldn't get involved, and trample people's rights, as well as
preventing cheap, fair solutions to disputes based on the free market...

>Further, why the objection when the compromise is institutionalised
>and called the FCC?

Weren't we talking hypothetical?  Even if we weren't, there are still
objections to the FCC, based on the preversion of property rights is
represents.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 20 Sep 92 03:18:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #222
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>   Obviously, people with a desire to broadcast will work out a peaceful
>>   compromise, rather than muscle each other...
>
>>This is a false assumption. Read some history.
>
>I have read some history.  The only time the above solution doesn't work is
>when the gov. prevents it from working.  A good example is ground water and
>air pollution.  If people could sue polluters for allowing their trash to
>get on private property, they would.

How many radio astronomers do you know who can afford to sue CBS?

(Or, to take a real example of RF pollution, how many radio astronomers
do you know who can afford to sue the Department of Defense over the
rather unfortunate choice of frequency for GPS?)

Even ignoring that, why do you assume that having a judge make such a
decision is better than having the FCC make it?  The big guys *will*
ride roughshod over the little guys unless there are referees to blow
the whistle on them.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 225
------------------------------