>degenrating into name-calling (Mathus is a..), references to drug use, astral
>projection, voting republican, etc by both sides.
I feel the point has been missed entirely. The argument put forth by Dave
hinges not on the premise that the Earth is being damaged, (I believe it is,
BTW, though not to the extent many (loudly) proclaim) but on the premise that
we can hurt Mars.
Here on Earth, we can only hurt live things. Whether it's us, or your
favorite animal, or Gaia herself, our ability to destroy ends with life-less
things. We can't hurt rock. Even large, red, pretty-to-look at rock.
Perhaps Mars has life already. So what? Anything we do will increase the
amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is
there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better
suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve.
Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life. Again, so what? We can predict that
it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the
mechanism of evolution. But we would bring already-complex stuff along,
speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself.
So Dave's argument is moot. By his own criteria (damage to life) we are
powerless to hurt anything or anyone by terra-forming Mars. So his second
premise is the false one (though the first may be, as well. See the previous
week's posts for the lengthly arguments referenced above)
If Dave takes the less-general, but more defendable, 'damage to people'
criteria, then it turns out he is arguing FOR the Terra-forming of Mars,
as it would 'hurt' us more not to have a livable Mars.
Sadly, he posted contradictorally to his own position, leading him to
take 'damage to humans' as the actual criteria for his argument, as many
greens often do. Kind of depressing, really. At least his argument
escapes unscathed.
An example;
>>When we do run out of fossil fuels, I'm sure I won't see you shoving to get
>>an electric car because you were so convinced it wouldn't be an issue. I hope
>>you like the bus.
Unfortunately, electric cars depend on energy even more than fossil-fuel cars,
as they are less efficient (from the orignal source) than oil-powered cars now.
To really get pollution-advantages from electric cars requires a new energy
source, not a new way of using more coal and oil.
Naturally, gov. has instituted legislation to the effect that people must
drive electric (emmission-free) cars in some cities by a certain date. And
this at the request, nay, demand, of people trying to slow pollution and
energy use. Double-speaking of saving the environment...
>Like I said, Saturn's rings are off-limits, and I'll add Halley's comet to the
>protected list :)
I think you should jump in a lake, like, say, Lake Michigan. Quite symbolic,
as the rings of Saturn will one day be the cheapest source of water in the
solar system. But I'll back you up on the Comet :-)
>>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem,
>>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.
Here's a problem (that is quite demonstrable); People using up lots and
lots of non-sustainable resources trying to save resources that are
allegedly limited. If you believe they are limited, you shouldn't advocate
known resource wasters: Totalitariansim, 'socialistic-market economies'
(that's oxymoron, to you and me :-), and gov. monopoly power.
>Now, if population growth is such a bad thing, will you be the first one to
>castrate yourself so as to slow the rate of growth? Will you be the first to
>hang yourself in order to save the ecosystem?
No, but he will probably feel no qualms about castrating (hurting) you and
me through the use of legislation and taxing power that bear no relation
to actual environmental problems or solutions. As you would expect, from a
philosophy that takes 'damage to (other) humans' as a value.
Notice to all Greens: If your values do not rest on the "what's good for us"
criteria, you will be the problem, not a solution.
-Tommy Mac . " +
.------------------------ + * +
| Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " +
| astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is
| Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh!
| 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , *
| (517) 355-2178 ; + ' *
'-----------------------
------------------------------
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:42:01 GMT
From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC <YOSHIDA@RD.TKSC.NASDA.GO.JP>
Subject: Informing Oppotunity of Utilization JEM
Newsgroups: sci.space
INFORMING OPPORTUNITY OF UTILIZING JEM
September 1 , 1992
NASDA HQ Tokyo Japan
The National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) is going
to invite the Japanese research organizations and Japanese
researchers, etc. to join the first opportunity to use the JEM
(Japanese Experiment Module) expected for 1998 as principal
investigators. The research organizations and researchers in
overseas are granted an opportunity to be a co-investigator.
The following is the detailed information on the above public
subscription :
1. Scope of Public Subscription :
Mainly material processing and life sciences.
2. Experiment Equipments to be loaded :
Material Processing : Soaking Furnace/Gradient Heating
Furnace/Band Furnace/Fluid
Physics Experiment Equipment
(=Facility)/Solution Growth
Experiment Equipment
Life Sciences : Cell Culture Equipment/Protein
Crystal Growth Equipment/Clean
Bench
3. Period of Public Subscription :
Starting Application
Form Distribution : October 1 , 1992
Tentative Closing Date : October 20 , 1992
Official Closing Date : from the end of November
until the middle of
December , 1992
(Please refer to the
application from for
detailed information).
The Space Station , "Freedom" will be man's first permanent home
in space. Scheduled for completion in the late 1990's the Space
Station will consist of four manned units - the Habitation Module
(U.S.A.) , the Laboratory Module (U.S.A) , the Columbus Module (ESA)
and the Japanese Experiment Module (Japan) - and unmanned
platforms for experimental and observation purposes.
The U.S is also responsible for the Station's truss and electric
power module , while Canada will provide its Mobile Servicing
Center.
The JEM to be provided by NASDA will consist of three major
sections - the Pressurized Module , the Experimental Logistics
Module and the Exposed Facility or inspace work platform - and
receive power , water and data transmission and reception services
from the Space Station's power module.
It is believed that NASDA's participation in this project will
help provide the experience and know-how vital to Japan's space
programs in the 21st century.
Contact Points :
Mutsuhiko Masuda (Mr.)
Eijiro Hirohama (Mr.)
Yoko Inomata (Ms.)
Kaori Sasaki (Ms.)
Public Relations Div.
External Relations Dept.
NASDA HQ
Tokyo Japan
Tel : +81-3-5470-4283
Fax : +81-3-5470-4130
E-mail: NSAVAX::JEMAO
JEMAO@rd.tksc.nasda.go.jp
------------------------------
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:35:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <BuHnvE.53F@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>> The space suits would be designed
>>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.
>
>Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
>that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.
Indeed, Nick's naivete is shown by his suggestion of using the shuttle suits
on the Moon. Their legs are not flexible enough (they are considerably less
flexible than the Apollo-suit legs) and their center of gravity is too far
aft. They are free-fall suits, not surface suits.
--
There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:20:51 GMT
From: Glen K Moore <gkm@cc.uow.edu.au>
Subject: new name for NASA?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In the Sun Herald (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as meaning North American Space Agency.
Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:48:25 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <szabo@techbook.com>
Subject: new name for NASA?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Sep13.002051.8574@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes:
> In the Sun Herald (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as
> meaning North American Space Agency.
> Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science
> and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has
> changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness.
'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea. Since we have a
North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine
our efforts in space as well.
--
szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote
