Discussion:
OT conjecture - Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
Add Reply
a425couple
2018-05-22 15:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
from
https://www.space.com/40641-does-humanity-need-backup-earth.html

Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | May 21, 2018 06:00am ET
0 0 MORE
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
If things went south on Earth, could Mars or an exoplanet be Earth 2.0?
Credit: T. Pyle/NASA/JPL-Caltech
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has a vision: He wants to get humans to Mars as
soon as possible. He already wowed the world this year, when the Falcon
Heavy launched and flung a Tesla car toward the asteroid belt. And this
heavy-lift rocket will be dwarfed by the boosters Musk plans for Mars
exploration, which he says will carry colonists in fleets of ships to
the Red Planet.

While getting to Mars is an end in itself, there's another compelling
reason to go. Science fiction is full of dystopian futures for Earth if
humanity remains limited to this planet. There are the asteroid strikes
of the "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" films, the robot wars of the
"Battlestar Galactica" TV series and "Terminator" film franchise, the
medical problems and overpopulation in the "Children of Men" and
"Elysium" movies, and many other disasters natural and artificial. Dark
futures and colonizing other planets will be covered in "AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which runs its
fourth episode tonight (May 21).

Science fiction inspired the first rocket pioneers to explore beyond
Earth. Robert Goddard, who pushed forward liquid rocketry in the early
1900s, was clearly a fan of the genre, because he wrote some science
fiction himself, according to io9. The Apollo moon rockets of the 1960s
and 1970s were designed by Wernher von Braun, who enjoyed science
fiction as a child and partnered with Disney in the 1950s to create
educational films about spaceflight. [Gallery: Visions of Interstellar
Starship Travel]

Advertisement

And a quick glance around the solar system shows us one real-life reason
scientists — and indeed, all of us — should take a page from science
fiction and be concerned about Earth's future. The moon, Mars and many
of the "airless" moons around the neighborhood are littered with
craters. These came from space rocks and other small worlds that slammed
into the moon's and planet's surfaces over billions of years.

Lest you imagine that Earth is immune because of its thick atmosphere,
think of the dinosaurs, felled about 66 million years ago when a large
asteroid or comet around 10 to 15 kilometers (6.2 to 9.3 miles) in
diameter slammed into the Earth. We also just passed the five-year
anniversary of Chelyabinsk, when a 17-meter (56 feet) small body
exploded over a town in Russia, causing many injuries and property
damage from shattered glass.

NASA does have an active asteroid-search program and some plans for
dealing with asteroids menacing Earth, but even preparing for those
intruders isn't enough; there's another, bigger inevitable threat to our
planet. In about 4 billion years or 5 billion years, the sun will swell
into a red giant after it consumes all of its hydrogen and begins fusing
helium. As the star expands, it will swallow up Mercury and Venus and
get close to Earth. Our planet will be roasted to a crisp, thrown out of
its orbit or swallowed altogether. In any of these scenarios, that's bad
news for humans and life on Earth in general.

Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Credit: AMC
Get your a— to Mars
One popular destination for escaping Earth in science fiction is Mars.
At first, this was because people thought other beings like us may live
there. In 1877, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli reported
observing channels on Mars, but stopped short of saying whether they
were natural or artificial. U.S. science popularizer Percival Lowell,
however, went much further in the early 1900s, coming up with
explanations as to why the channels were there. Perhaps the Martians
were trying to drain water to support a dying planet, Lowell said. (The
channels, or canals, were later explained as telescope artifacts when
robotic missions to Mars showed the formations don't exist.)

This turn-of-the-century musing greatly influenced science fiction of
the era. There was the famous "War of the Worlds" novel by H.G. Wells in
1898, which portrayed a Martian invasion of Earth. (It was recapped in a
1938 national radio broadcast, as well as a 2005 film starring Tom
Cruise.) Also, Edgar Rice Burroughs published "A Princess of Mars" in
1912, kicking off a series about Mars (which he called Barsoom) full of
living beings. (The widely panned 2012 movie "John Carter" was based on
some of these stories.) [Film Review: 'War of the Worlds' Update Hits Home]

Robert Zubrin, founder of the human exploration advocacy group The Mars
Society, told Space.com that Mars will someday be an inhabited planet as
science fiction writers envisioned. As only two examples of many showing
that future, there's the 2015 Matt Damon movie "The Martian" or the 1990
Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall," which included the famous
line, "Get your a— to Mars."

But why does science fiction make exploration look so much easier than
we find in real life? Zubrin said, in part, it's because of our mindset.

"Here we are, 500 years or so after [Nicolaus] Copernicus [who said
Earth orbits the sun], and most people still talk about the Earth as the
world, and there's a thing above us called the sky. Most people still
have this geocentric viewpoint," Zubrin told Space.com, pointing out
that Earth is in space and we rarely think about that fact in our
everyday lives.

Zubrin said our approach of going to Mars via low Earth orbit and the
moon is incremental. This approach to space exploration, he said, is
similar to telling Lewis and Clark to just go 100 miles (160 kilometers)
out beyond the Mississippi River and to wait for the next group of
explorers to move farther west.

"If someone asks you why space is so important, it's comparative to
somebody in a small village somewhere saying, 'Why is the rest of the
world important?' which is sort of an absurd question," Zubrin said. So,
he advocates going elsewhere in search of resources, knowledge or a safe
haven that we couldn't find on Earth. Interstellar travel would be the
ultimate dream, Zubrin said, but in the meantime, we should focus on
what we have at hand: Mars, which is close enough to visit using today's
technology.

"The most important step is deciding that you want to do it. This is
really the dramatic step that Elon Musk is taking," Zubrin said. "There
are people at NASA who want to do it, but as an institution, it has been
dragging its feet and providing every excuse to the political class not
to embrace the challenge."

Moving to Mars — or beyond?
Zubrin's plan (which he outlined in a 1991 paper called "Mars Direct,"
and which he has expanded on greatly since then) advocates for a direct
flight to Mars, with minimal or no on-orbit assembly of the spacecraft.
Using current propulsion systems, a spacecraft could get to the Red
Planet in six months — the standard rotation astronauts spend on the
International Space Station, Zubrin pointed out.

The first missions would bring most of the supplies those travelers
would need to live, such as food and water. But the early trips could
also bring along architecture so later missions could do more "living
off the land," such as greenhouses or habitats. (The first Mars voyagers
may eat more meat brought with them, while future generations would be
more vegetarian due to the resources on hand, Zubrin said.) He said the
habitats of the Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station and
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station are designed to preview what real
Red Planet homes could look like.

The return vehicle would include propellant made from Martian carbon
dioxide and water, specifically to generate the fuels methane and
oxygen. Zubrin said it's the cheapest propellant combination, with only
a hydrogen-oxygen mix providing better exhaust velocity.

But there's a big problem with Mars — it's not very much like Earth.
Sure, people could conceivable live on it with technology to manage the
risks. Its day is similar in length to Earth's day, too. But the planet
has only one-third of Earth's gravity. Martian air isn't breathable.
Water, if it exists at all on the surface, would be in scarce
quantities. Conditions are even worse on the moon, which has one-sixth
Earth's gravity, a longer day-night cycle than our home planet and no
air whatsoever.

"They're not places that we are necessarily going to colonize in large
numbers," Roger Launius, a retired curator from the Smithsonian
Institution's National Air and Space Museum, told Space.com. He
predicted that by the end of the century, there may be research stations
at the moon or Mars, similar to what exists now in Antarctica.

But to really find another home for humanity, we'll have to follow the
lead of "Battlestar Galactica" and search for another Earth. Because,
otherwise, children are going to be born in lunar or Martian
environments that have a lesser gravity than Earth. How this will affect
their development when humans are built for Earth is an unknown, Launius
said.

But quickly getting to other stars, where second Earths may exist, will
be slow unless we figure out a method for faster-than-light speed, or a
way to sustain a spacecraft over multiple generations, Launius said.
Another possibility is to extend astronaut life spans through
hibernation (as done in the movies "Alien" and "Avatar") or by becoming
a sort of "Star Trek"-like Borg that would integrate robotics into the
human body to extend lives.

This story was inspired by Episode 4 of "AMC Visionaries: James
Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which airs tonight at 10 p.m.
EDT/PDT (9 p.m. CDT). A companion book is available on Amazon.com.

Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on
Space.com.
m***@sky.com
2018-05-22 17:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.space.com/40641-does-humanity-need-backup-earth.html
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | May 21, 2018 06:00am ET
0 0 MORE
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
If things went south on Earth, could Mars or an exoplanet be Earth 2.0?
Credit: T. Pyle/NASA/JPL-Caltech
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has a vision: He wants to get humans to Mars as
soon as possible. He already wowed the world this year, when the Falcon
Heavy launched and flung a Tesla car toward the asteroid belt. And this
heavy-lift rocket will be dwarfed by the boosters Musk plans for Mars
exploration, which he says will carry colonists in fleets of ships to
the Red Planet.
While getting to Mars is an end in itself, there's another compelling
reason to go. Science fiction is full of dystopian futures for Earth if
humanity remains limited to this planet. There are the asteroid strikes
of the "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" films, the robot wars of the
"Battlestar Galactica" TV series and "Terminator" film franchise, the
medical problems and overpopulation in the "Children of Men" and
"Elysium" movies, and many other disasters natural and artificial. Dark
futures and colonizing other planets will be covered in "AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which runs its
fourth episode tonight (May 21).
Science fiction inspired the first rocket pioneers to explore beyond
Earth. Robert Goddard, who pushed forward liquid rocketry in the early
1900s, was clearly a fan of the genre, because he wrote some science
fiction himself, according to io9. The Apollo moon rockets of the 1960s
and 1970s were designed by Wernher von Braun, who enjoyed science
fiction as a child and partnered with Disney in the 1950s to create
educational films about spaceflight. [Gallery: Visions of Interstellar
Starship Travel]
Advertisement
And a quick glance around the solar system shows us one real-life reason
scientists — and indeed, all of us — should take a page from science
fiction and be concerned about Earth's future. The moon, Mars and many
of the "airless" moons around the neighborhood are littered with
craters. These came from space rocks and other small worlds that slammed
into the moon's and planet's surfaces over billions of years.
Lest you imagine that Earth is immune because of its thick atmosphere,
think of the dinosaurs, felled about 66 million years ago when a large
asteroid or comet around 10 to 15 kilometers (6.2 to 9.3 miles) in
diameter slammed into the Earth. We also just passed the five-year
anniversary of Chelyabinsk, when a 17-meter (56 feet) small body
exploded over a town in Russia, causing many injuries and property
damage from shattered glass.
NASA does have an active asteroid-search program and some plans for
dealing with asteroids menacing Earth, but even preparing for those
intruders isn't enough; there's another, bigger inevitable threat to our
planet. In about 4 billion years or 5 billion years, the sun will swell
into a red giant after it consumes all of its hydrogen and begins fusing
helium. As the star expands, it will swallow up Mercury and Venus and
get close to Earth. Our planet will be roasted to a crisp, thrown out of
its orbit or swallowed altogether. In any of these scenarios, that's bad
news for humans and life on Earth in general.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Credit: AMC
Get your a— to Mars
One popular destination for escaping Earth in science fiction is Mars.
At first, this was because people thought other beings like us may live
there. In 1877, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli reported
observing channels on Mars, but stopped short of saying whether they
were natural or artificial. U.S. science popularizer Percival Lowell,
however, went much further in the early 1900s, coming up with
explanations as to why the channels were there. Perhaps the Martians
were trying to drain water to support a dying planet, Lowell said. (The
channels, or canals, were later explained as telescope artifacts when
robotic missions to Mars showed the formations don't exist.)
This turn-of-the-century musing greatly influenced science fiction of
the era. There was the famous "War of the Worlds" novel by H.G. Wells in
1898, which portrayed a Martian invasion of Earth. (It was recapped in a
1938 national radio broadcast, as well as a 2005 film starring Tom
Cruise.) Also, Edgar Rice Burroughs published "A Princess of Mars" in
1912, kicking off a series about Mars (which he called Barsoom) full of
living beings. (The widely panned 2012 movie "John Carter" was based on
some of these stories.) [Film Review: 'War of the Worlds' Update Hits Home]
Robert Zubrin, founder of the human exploration advocacy group The Mars
Society, told Space.com that Mars will someday be an inhabited planet as
science fiction writers envisioned. As only two examples of many showing
that future, there's the 2015 Matt Damon movie "The Martian" or the 1990
Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall," which included the famous
line, "Get your a— to Mars."
But why does science fiction make exploration look so much easier than
we find in real life? Zubrin said, in part, it's because of our mindset.
"Here we are, 500 years or so after [Nicolaus] Copernicus [who said
Earth orbits the sun], and most people still talk about the Earth as the
world, and there's a thing above us called the sky. Most people still
have this geocentric viewpoint," Zubrin told Space.com, pointing out
that Earth is in space and we rarely think about that fact in our
everyday lives.
Zubrin said our approach of going to Mars via low Earth orbit and the
moon is incremental. This approach to space exploration, he said, is
similar to telling Lewis and Clark to just go 100 miles (160 kilometers)
out beyond the Mississippi River and to wait for the next group of
explorers to move farther west.
"If someone asks you why space is so important, it's comparative to
somebody in a small village somewhere saying, 'Why is the rest of the
world important?' which is sort of an absurd question," Zubrin said. So,
he advocates going elsewhere in search of resources, knowledge or a safe
haven that we couldn't find on Earth. Interstellar travel would be the
ultimate dream, Zubrin said, but in the meantime, we should focus on
what we have at hand: Mars, which is close enough to visit using today's
technology.
"The most important step is deciding that you want to do it. This is
really the dramatic step that Elon Musk is taking," Zubrin said. "There
are people at NASA who want to do it, but as an institution, it has been
dragging its feet and providing every excuse to the political class not
to embrace the challenge."
Moving to Mars — or beyond?
Zubrin's plan (which he outlined in a 1991 paper called "Mars Direct,"
and which he has expanded on greatly since then) advocates for a direct
flight to Mars, with minimal or no on-orbit assembly of the spacecraft.
Using current propulsion systems, a spacecraft could get to the Red
Planet in six months — the standard rotation astronauts spend on the
International Space Station, Zubrin pointed out.
The first missions would bring most of the supplies those travelers
would need to live, such as food and water. But the early trips could
also bring along architecture so later missions could do more "living
off the land," such as greenhouses or habitats. (The first Mars voyagers
may eat more meat brought with them, while future generations would be
more vegetarian due to the resources on hand, Zubrin said.) He said the
habitats of the Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station and
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station are designed to preview what real
Red Planet homes could look like.
The return vehicle would include propellant made from Martian carbon
dioxide and water, specifically to generate the fuels methane and
oxygen. Zubrin said it's the cheapest propellant combination, with only
a hydrogen-oxygen mix providing better exhaust velocity.
But there's a big problem with Mars — it's not very much like Earth.
Sure, people could conceivable live on it with technology to manage the
risks. Its day is similar in length to Earth's day, too. But the planet
has only one-third of Earth's gravity. Martian air isn't breathable.
Water, if it exists at all on the surface, would be in scarce
quantities. Conditions are even worse on the moon, which has one-sixth
Earth's gravity, a longer day-night cycle than our home planet and no
air whatsoever.
"They're not places that we are necessarily going to colonize in large
numbers," Roger Launius, a retired curator from the Smithsonian
Institution's National Air and Space Museum, told Space.com. He
predicted that by the end of the century, there may be research stations
at the moon or Mars, similar to what exists now in Antarctica.
But to really find another home for humanity, we'll have to follow the
lead of "Battlestar Galactica" and search for another Earth. Because,
otherwise, children are going to be born in lunar or Martian
environments that have a lesser gravity than Earth. How this will affect
their development when humans are built for Earth is an unknown, Launius
said.
But quickly getting to other stars, where second Earths may exist, will
be slow unless we figure out a method for faster-than-light speed, or a
way to sustain a spacecraft over multiple generations, Launius said.
Another possibility is to extend astronaut life spans through
hibernation (as done in the movies "Alien" and "Avatar") or by becoming
a sort of "Star Trek"-like Borg that would integrate robotics into the
human body to extend lives.
This story was inspired by Episode 4 of "AMC Visionaries: James
Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which airs tonight at 10 p.m.
EDT/PDT (9 p.m. CDT). A companion book is available on Amazon.com.
Space.com.
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for colonisation as a backup plan.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-22 19:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.space.com/40641-does-humanity-need-backup-earth.html
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | May 21, 2018 06:00am ET
0 0 MORE
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
If things went south on Earth, could Mars or an exoplanet be Earth 2.0?
Credit: T. Pyle/NASA/JPL-Caltech
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has a vision: He wants to get humans to Mars as
soon as possible. He already wowed the world this year, when the Falcon
Heavy launched and flung a Tesla car toward the asteroid belt. And this
heavy-lift rocket will be dwarfed by the boosters Musk plans for Mars
exploration, which he says will carry colonists in fleets of ships to
the Red Planet.
While getting to Mars is an end in itself, there's another compelling
reason to go. Science fiction is full of dystopian futures for Earth if
humanity remains limited to this planet. There are the asteroid strikes
of the "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" films, the robot wars of the
"Battlestar Galactica" TV series and "Terminator" film franchise, the
medical problems and overpopulation in the "Children of Men" and
"Elysium" movies, and many other disasters natural and artificial. Dark
futures and colonizing other planets will be covered in "AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which runs its
fourth episode tonight (May 21).
Science fiction inspired the first rocket pioneers to explore beyond
Earth. Robert Goddard, who pushed forward liquid rocketry in the early
1900s, was clearly a fan of the genre, because he wrote some science
fiction himself, according to io9. The Apollo moon rockets of the 1960s
and 1970s were designed by Wernher von Braun, who enjoyed science
fiction as a child and partnered with Disney in the 1950s to create
educational films about spaceflight. [Gallery: Visions of Interstellar
Starship Travel]
Advertisement
And a quick glance around the solar system shows us one real-life reason
scientists — and indeed, all of us — should take a page from science
fiction and be concerned about Earth's future. The moon, Mars and many
of the "airless" moons around the neighborhood are littered with
craters. These came from space rocks and other small worlds that slammed
into the moon's and planet's surfaces over billions of years.
Lest you imagine that Earth is immune because of its thick atmosphere,
think of the dinosaurs, felled about 66 million years ago when a large
asteroid or comet around 10 to 15 kilometers (6.2 to 9.3 miles) in
diameter slammed into the Earth. We also just passed the five-year
anniversary of Chelyabinsk, when a 17-meter (56 feet) small body
exploded over a town in Russia, causing many injuries and property
damage from shattered glass.
NASA does have an active asteroid-search program and some plans for
dealing with asteroids menacing Earth, but even preparing for those
intruders isn't enough; there's another, bigger inevitable threat to our
planet. In about 4 billion years or 5 billion years, the sun will swell
into a red giant after it consumes all of its hydrogen and begins fusing
helium. As the star expands, it will swallow up Mercury and Venus and
get close to Earth. Our planet will be roasted to a crisp, thrown out of
its orbit or swallowed altogether. In any of these scenarios, that's bad
news for humans and life on Earth in general.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Credit: AMC
Get your a— to Mars
One popular destination for escaping Earth in science fiction is Mars.
At first, this was because people thought other beings like us may live
there. In 1877, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli reported
observing channels on Mars, but stopped short of saying whether they
were natural or artificial. U.S. science popularizer Percival Lowell,
however, went much further in the early 1900s, coming up with
explanations as to why the channels were there. Perhaps the Martians
were trying to drain water to support a dying planet, Lowell said. (The
channels, or canals, were later explained as telescope artifacts when
robotic missions to Mars showed the formations don't exist.)
This turn-of-the-century musing greatly influenced science fiction of
the era. There was the famous "War of the Worlds" novel by H.G. Wells in
1898, which portrayed a Martian invasion of Earth. (It was recapped in a
1938 national radio broadcast, as well as a 2005 film starring Tom
Cruise.) Also, Edgar Rice Burroughs published "A Princess of Mars" in
1912, kicking off a series about Mars (which he called Barsoom) full of
living beings. (The widely panned 2012 movie "John Carter" was based on
some of these stories.) [Film Review: 'War of the Worlds' Update Hits Home]
Robert Zubrin, founder of the human exploration advocacy group The Mars
Society, told Space.com that Mars will someday be an inhabited planet as
science fiction writers envisioned. As only two examples of many showing
that future, there's the 2015 Matt Damon movie "The Martian" or the 1990
Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall," which included the famous
line, "Get your a— to Mars."
But why does science fiction make exploration look so much easier than
we find in real life? Zubrin said, in part, it's because of our mindset.
"Here we are, 500 years or so after [Nicolaus] Copernicus [who said
Earth orbits the sun], and most people still talk about the Earth as the
world, and there's a thing above us called the sky. Most people still
have this geocentric viewpoint," Zubrin told Space.com, pointing out
that Earth is in space and we rarely think about that fact in our
everyday lives.
Zubrin said our approach of going to Mars via low Earth orbit and the
moon is incremental. This approach to space exploration, he said, is
similar to telling Lewis and Clark to just go 100 miles (160 kilometers)
out beyond the Mississippi River and to wait for the next group of
explorers to move farther west.
"If someone asks you why space is so important, it's comparative to
somebody in a small village somewhere saying, 'Why is the rest of the
world important?' which is sort of an absurd question," Zubrin said. So,
he advocates going elsewhere in search of resources, knowledge or a safe
haven that we couldn't find on Earth. Interstellar travel would be the
ultimate dream, Zubrin said, but in the meantime, we should focus on
what we have at hand: Mars, which is close enough to visit using today's
technology.
"The most important step is deciding that you want to do it. This is
really the dramatic step that Elon Musk is taking," Zubrin said. "There
are people at NASA who want to do it, but as an institution, it has been
dragging its feet and providing every excuse to the political class not
to embrace the challenge."
Moving to Mars — or beyond?
Zubrin's plan (which he outlined in a 1991 paper called "Mars Direct,"
and which he has expanded on greatly since then) advocates for a direct
flight to Mars, with minimal or no on-orbit assembly of the spacecraft.
Using current propulsion systems, a spacecraft could get to the Red
Planet in six months — the standard rotation astronauts spend on the
International Space Station, Zubrin pointed out.
The first missions would bring most of the supplies those travelers
would need to live, such as food and water. But the early trips could
also bring along architecture so later missions could do more "living
off the land," such as greenhouses or habitats. (The first Mars voyagers
may eat more meat brought with them, while future generations would be
more vegetarian due to the resources on hand, Zubrin said.) He said the
habitats of the Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station and
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station are designed to preview what real
Red Planet homes could look like.
The return vehicle would include propellant made from Martian carbon
dioxide and water, specifically to generate the fuels methane and
oxygen. Zubrin said it's the cheapest propellant combination, with only
a hydrogen-oxygen mix providing better exhaust velocity.
But there's a big problem with Mars — it's not very much like Earth.
Sure, people could conceivable live on it with technology to manage the
risks. Its day is similar in length to Earth's day, too. But the planet
has only one-third of Earth's gravity. Martian air isn't breathable.
Water, if it exists at all on the surface, would be in scarce
quantities. Conditions are even worse on the moon, which has one-sixth
Earth's gravity, a longer day-night cycle than our home planet and no
air whatsoever.
"They're not places that we are necessarily going to colonize in large
numbers," Roger Launius, a retired curator from the Smithsonian
Institution's National Air and Space Museum, told Space.com. He
predicted that by the end of the century, there may be research stations
at the moon or Mars, similar to what exists now in Antarctica.
But to really find another home for humanity, we'll have to follow the
lead of "Battlestar Galactica" and search for another Earth. Because,
otherwise, children are going to be born in lunar or Martian
environments that have a lesser gravity than Earth. How this will affect
their development when humans are built for Earth is an unknown, Launius
said.
But quickly getting to other stars, where second Earths may exist, will
be slow unless we figure out a method for faster-than-light speed, or a
way to sustain a spacecraft over multiple generations, Launius said.
Another possibility is to extend astronaut life spans through
hibernation (as done in the movies "Alien" and "Avatar") or by becoming
a sort of "Star Trek"-like Borg that would integrate robotics into the
human body to extend lives.
This story was inspired by Episode 4 of "AMC Visionaries: James
Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which airs tonight at 10 p.m.
EDT/PDT (9 p.m. CDT). A companion book is available on Amazon.com.
Space.com.
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for colonisation as a backup plan.
But where are people going to live _while_ they are terraforming Earth
from uninhabitable back to habitable?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Lynn McGuire
2018-05-22 20:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/22/2018 2:07 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by m***@sky.com
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most
post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform
back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to
colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for
colonisation as a backup plan.
But where are people going to live _while_ they are terraforming Earth
from uninhabitable back to habitable?
Duh, the moon !
https://www.amazon.com/Steel-Beach-John-Varley/dp/0441785654/

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2018-05-22 20:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by m***@sky.com
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most
post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform
back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to
colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for
colonisation as a backup plan.
But where are people going to live _while_ they are terraforming Earth
from uninhabitable back to habitable?
Duh, the moon !
   https://www.amazon.com/Steel-Beach-John-Varley/dp/0441785654/
Lynn
This book is a better explanation of the aliens destroying civilization
on the Earth:
https://www.amazon.com/Ophiuchi-Hotline-Eight-Worlds/dp/0441634842/

Lynn
a425couple
2018-05-23 15:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by m***@sky.com
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most
post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform
back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to
colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for
colonisation as a backup plan.
But where are people going to live _while_ they are terraforming Earth
from uninhabitable back to habitable?
Duh, the moon !
   https://www.amazon.com/Steel-Beach-John-Varley/dp/0441785654/
Lynn
Interesting. Thanks for the reading suggestion.

The same premise is in Arthur Clarke's short story
"If I Forget Thee, Oh Earth"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Forget_Thee,_Oh_Earth

or, listen to it read aloud at

Arthur C Clark Collected Stories 3 06 If I forget thee, oh Earth
The Zygon
2018-05-27 08:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.space.com/40641-does-humanity-need-backup-earth.html
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
By Elizabeth Howell, Space.com Contributor | May 21, 2018 06:00am ET
0 0 MORE
Dark Futures: Does Humanity Really Need a Backup Earth?
If things went south on Earth, could Mars or an exoplanet be Earth 2.0?
Credit: T. Pyle/NASA/JPL-Caltech
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has a vision: He wants to get humans to Mars as
soon as possible. He already wowed the world this year, when the Falcon
Heavy launched and flung a Tesla car toward the asteroid belt. And this
heavy-lift rocket will be dwarfed by the boosters Musk plans for Mars
exploration, which he says will carry colonists in fleets of ships to
the Red Planet.
While getting to Mars is an end in itself, there's another compelling
reason to go. Science fiction is full of dystopian futures for Earth if
humanity remains limited to this planet. There are the asteroid strikes
of the "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" films, the robot wars of the
"Battlestar Galactica" TV series and "Terminator" film franchise, the
medical problems and overpopulation in the "Children of Men" and
"Elysium" movies, and many other disasters natural and artificial. Dark
futures and colonizing other planets will be covered in "AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which runs its
fourth episode tonight (May 21).
Science fiction inspired the first rocket pioneers to explore beyond
Earth. Robert Goddard, who pushed forward liquid rocketry in the early
1900s, was clearly a fan of the genre, because he wrote some science
fiction himself, according to io9. The Apollo moon rockets of the 1960s
and 1970s were designed by Wernher von Braun, who enjoyed science
fiction as a child and partnered with Disney in the 1950s to create
educational films about spaceflight. [Gallery: Visions of Interstellar
Starship Travel]
Advertisement
And a quick glance around the solar system shows us one real-life reason
scientists — and indeed, all of us — should take a page from science
fiction and be concerned about Earth's future. The moon, Mars and many
of the "airless" moons around the neighborhood are littered with
craters. These came from space rocks and other small worlds that slammed
into the moon's and planet's surfaces over billions of years.
Lest you imagine that Earth is immune because of its thick atmosphere,
think of the dinosaurs, felled about 66 million years ago when a large
asteroid or comet around 10 to 15 kilometers (6.2 to 9.3 miles) in
diameter slammed into the Earth. We also just passed the five-year
anniversary of Chelyabinsk, when a 17-meter (56 feet) small body
exploded over a town in Russia, causing many injuries and property
damage from shattered glass.
NASA does have an active asteroid-search program and some plans for
dealing with asteroids menacing Earth, but even preparing for those
intruders isn't enough; there's another, bigger inevitable threat to our
planet. In about 4 billion years or 5 billion years, the sun will swell
into a red giant after it consumes all of its hydrogen and begins fusing
helium. As the star expands, it will swallow up Mercury and Venus and
get close to Earth. Our planet will be roasted to a crisp, thrown out of
its orbit or swallowed altogether. In any of these scenarios, that's bad
news for humans and life on Earth in general.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Legendary director James Cameron talks the dark futures of science
fiction with director Christopher Nolan in the fourth episode of AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction, which airs May
21, 2019.
Credit: AMC
Get your a— to Mars
One popular destination for escaping Earth in science fiction is Mars.
At first, this was because people thought other beings like us may live
there. In 1877, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli reported
observing channels on Mars, but stopped short of saying whether they
were natural or artificial. U.S. science popularizer Percival Lowell,
however, went much further in the early 1900s, coming up with
explanations as to why the channels were there. Perhaps the Martians
were trying to drain water to support a dying planet, Lowell said. (The
channels, or canals, were later explained as telescope artifacts when
robotic missions to Mars showed the formations don't exist.)
This turn-of-the-century musing greatly influenced science fiction of
the era. There was the famous "War of the Worlds" novel by H.G. Wells in
1898, which portrayed a Martian invasion of Earth. (It was recapped in a
1938 national radio broadcast, as well as a 2005 film starring Tom
Cruise.) Also, Edgar Rice Burroughs published "A Princess of Mars" in
1912, kicking off a series about Mars (which he called Barsoom) full of
living beings. (The widely panned 2012 movie "John Carter" was based on
some of these stories.) [Film Review: 'War of the Worlds' Update Hits Home]
Robert Zubrin, founder of the human exploration advocacy group The Mars
Society, told Space.com that Mars will someday be an inhabited planet as
science fiction writers envisioned. As only two examples of many showing
that future, there's the 2015 Matt Damon movie "The Martian" or the 1990
Arnold Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall," which included the famous
line, "Get your a— to Mars."
But why does science fiction make exploration look so much easier than
we find in real life? Zubrin said, in part, it's because of our mindset.
"Here we are, 500 years or so after [Nicolaus] Copernicus [who said
Earth orbits the sun], and most people still talk about the Earth as the
world, and there's a thing above us called the sky. Most people still
have this geocentric viewpoint," Zubrin told Space.com, pointing out
that Earth is in space and we rarely think about that fact in our
everyday lives.
Zubrin said our approach of going to Mars via low Earth orbit and the
moon is incremental. This approach to space exploration, he said, is
similar to telling Lewis and Clark to just go 100 miles (160 kilometers)
out beyond the Mississippi River and to wait for the next group of
explorers to move farther west.
"If someone asks you why space is so important, it's comparative to
somebody in a small village somewhere saying, 'Why is the rest of the
world important?' which is sort of an absurd question," Zubrin said. So,
he advocates going elsewhere in search of resources, knowledge or a safe
haven that we couldn't find on Earth. Interstellar travel would be the
ultimate dream, Zubrin said, but in the meantime, we should focus on
what we have at hand: Mars, which is close enough to visit using today's
technology.
"The most important step is deciding that you want to do it. This is
really the dramatic step that Elon Musk is taking," Zubrin said. "There
are people at NASA who want to do it, but as an institution, it has been
dragging its feet and providing every excuse to the political class not
to embrace the challenge."
Moving to Mars — or beyond?
Zubrin's plan (which he outlined in a 1991 paper called "Mars Direct,"
and which he has expanded on greatly since then) advocates for a direct
flight to Mars, with minimal or no on-orbit assembly of the spacecraft.
Using current propulsion systems, a spacecraft could get to the Red
Planet in six months — the standard rotation astronauts spend on the
International Space Station, Zubrin pointed out.
The first missions would bring most of the supplies those travelers
would need to live, such as food and water. But the early trips could
also bring along architecture so later missions could do more "living
off the land," such as greenhouses or habitats. (The first Mars voyagers
may eat more meat brought with them, while future generations would be
more vegetarian due to the resources on hand, Zubrin said.) He said the
habitats of the Mars Society's Mars Desert Research Station and
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station are designed to preview what real
Red Planet homes could look like.
The return vehicle would include propellant made from Martian carbon
dioxide and water, specifically to generate the fuels methane and
oxygen. Zubrin said it's the cheapest propellant combination, with only
a hydrogen-oxygen mix providing better exhaust velocity.
But there's a big problem with Mars — it's not very much like Earth.
Sure, people could conceivable live on it with technology to manage the
risks. Its day is similar in length to Earth's day, too. But the planet
has only one-third of Earth's gravity. Martian air isn't breathable.
Water, if it exists at all on the surface, would be in scarce
quantities. Conditions are even worse on the moon, which has one-sixth
Earth's gravity, a longer day-night cycle than our home planet and no
air whatsoever.
"They're not places that we are necessarily going to colonize in large
numbers," Roger Launius, a retired curator from the Smithsonian
Institution's National Air and Space Museum, told Space.com. He
predicted that by the end of the century, there may be research stations
at the moon or Mars, similar to what exists now in Antarctica.
But to really find another home for humanity, we'll have to follow the
lead of "Battlestar Galactica" and search for another Earth. Because,
otherwise, children are going to be born in lunar or Martian
environments that have a lesser gravity than Earth. How this will affect
their development when humans are built for Earth is an unknown, Launius
said.
But quickly getting to other stars, where second Earths may exist, will
be slow unless we figure out a method for faster-than-light speed, or a
way to sustain a spacecraft over multiple generations, Launius said.
Another possibility is to extend astronaut life spans through
hibernation (as done in the movies "Alien" and "Avatar") or by becoming
a sort of "Star Trek"-like Borg that would integrate robotics into the
human body to extend lives.
This story was inspired by Episode 4 of "AMC Visionaries: James
Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which airs tonight at 10 p.m.
EDT/PDT (9 p.m. CDT). A companion book is available on Amazon.com.
Space.com.
A while ago Charles Stross pointed out on his blog that most post-catastrophe earths would be significantly easier to terraform back to inhabitability than anything we can reach easily enough to colonise, which does rather lessen the drive behind my enthusiasm for colonisation as a backup plan.
I think that we need a backup earth. The earth has had a number of extinction events. They continue to be quite possible. That alone argues for the usefulness of a backup earth. But any attempt at such a thing now is premature (for technology reasons) and ill-advised (because of human inability for truly long term planning).

Any realistic scheme to build backup earth will involve either the slow buildup of moon colonization or terraforming of one of the planets or moons in the solar system. We don't have the technology to set up a self-sufficient moon colony, and we are not yet even in the infancy of interplanetary travel, much less terraforming on such massive scales. And worst of all, humans have not shown any ability to manage a project which will take many lifetimes before it could be declared a success.

Elon Musk is a gifted man. He is especially a gifted show man who knows how to ignite people's imaginations. But his plans for a backup earth, even if genuine, are somewhat like Charles Babbage and his difference engine. I wish he would direct his considerable talents to solve more mundane problems, like for instance, abolishing under-education in America.
Greg Goss
2018-05-23 06:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
While getting to Mars is an end in itself, there's another compelling
reason to go. Science fiction is full of dystopian futures for Earth if
humanity remains limited to this planet. There are the asteroid strikes
of the "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" films, the robot wars of the
"Battlestar Galactica" TV series and "Terminator" film franchise, the
medical problems and overpopulation in the "Children of Men" and
"Elysium" movies, and many other disasters natural and artificial. Dark
futures and colonizing other planets will be covered in "AMC
Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which runs its
fourth episode tonight (May 21).
WW3, Terminator, and such would take the effort to send a shot or two
at the colony. I don't think Mars is far enough away to avoid such
futures.
Post by a425couple
And a quick glance around the solar system shows us one real-life reason
scientists — and indeed, all of us — should take a page from science
fiction and be concerned about Earth's future. The moon, Mars and many
of the "airless" moons around the neighborhood are littered with
craters. These came from space rocks and other small worlds that slammed
into the moon's and planet's surfaces over billions of years.
"Late heavy bombardment". Not so much in the recent past.

Though I used to have a collection of page links to velikovsky-style
discussions hypothesizing a breakup of a super-large comet of which
Enke is the sorry remnant sometime in the late ice age, and another
encounter with the same proto-Enke in the 12th C BC.
<http://www.defendgaia.org/bobk/bronze.html>

We do have Wabar and Tunguska in the very recent past. I seem to
recall reading about an Amazon strike in the thirties, but can't find
it now.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
James Nicoll
2018-05-23 14:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
"Late heavy bombardment". Not so much in the recent past.
And possibly a misinterpretation of the physical evidence:

https://www.universetoday.com/92375/new-research-casts-doubt-on-the-late-heavy-bombardment/

In any case, even a post-Dino Killer Impact Earth is more habitable than
any other body in the Solar System.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Greg Goss
2018-05-24 03:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Greg Goss
"Late heavy bombardment". Not so much in the recent past.
https://www.universetoday.com/92375/new-research-casts-doubt-on-the-late-heavy-bombardment/
In any case, even a post-Dino Killer Impact Earth is more habitable than
any other body in the Solar System.
True. Even the "great dying" Siberian Traps incident (far worse than
Indian megavolcano plus asteroid that ended the dinosaurs) left a
planet more habitable than any of the others in our system.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/a-road-trip-to-the-end-of-the-world/532914/.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2018-05-25 04:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
True. Even the "great dying" Siberian Traps incident (far worse than
Indian megavolcano plus asteroid that ended the dinosaurs) left a
planet more habitable than any of the others in our system.
Quite so. However, the difficulties posed by living on Mars can be dealt with by
a team of astronauts with proper supplies and equipment.

The difficulties of living on Earth with madmen armed with nuclear weapons, on
the other hand, could prove insuperable.

Now, if we could get to Mars, perhaps they could too. But there are various ways
that could be addressed.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-25 22:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 24 May 2018 21:18:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Greg Goss
True. Even the "great dying" Siberian Traps incident (far worse than
Indian megavolcano plus asteroid that ended the dinosaurs) left a
planet more habitable than any of the others in our system.
Quite so. However, the difficulties posed by living on Mars can be dealt with by
a team of astronauts with proper supplies and equipment.
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
Post by Quadibloc
The difficulties of living on Earth with madmen armed with nuclear weapons, on
the other hand, could prove insuperable.
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
Post by Quadibloc
Now, if we could get to Mars, perhaps they could too. But there are various ways
that could be addressed.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-05-26 02:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-26 05:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 25 May 2018 19:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.
It 's going to be a lot more expensive than taking away the lunatic's
toys. Of course nobody including the guy with the dead cat on his
head is really willing to do that.
Quadibloc
2018-05-26 20:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
It 's going to be a lot more expensive than taking away the lunatic's
toys.
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-26 20:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
It 's going to be a lot more expensive than taking away the lunatic's
toys.
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
Quadibloc
2018-05-26 23:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-26 23:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-27 03:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Three things. First, you are arguing with Quadibloc. Second, part of
why Russia invaded those countries is because they wanted to join NATO.
Third, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH _QUADIBLOC_.

Make that four things. Fourth, STOP TROLL FEEDING QUADIBLOC!! Please.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-05-27 09:38:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:16:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Three things. First, you are arguing with Quadibloc. Second, part of
why Russia invaded those countries is because they wanted to join NATO.
Funny they didn't invade East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all of which joined NATO in the 20th
Century.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Third, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH _QUADIBLOC_.
Make that four things. Fourth, STOP TROLL FEEDING QUADIBLOC!! Please.
Quadi isn't a troll. He is weird in an unusual way, but he always
comes back and I've never seen him lose his temper.
The Doctor
2018-05-27 13:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:16:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global
thermonuclear war
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of
Georgia and
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Three things. First, you are arguing with Quadibloc. Second, part of
why Russia invaded those countries is because they wanted to join NATO.
Funny they didn't invade East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all of which joined NATO in the 20th
Century.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Third, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH _QUADIBLOC_.
Make that four things. Fourth, STOP TROLL FEEDING QUADIBLOC!! Please.
Quadi isn't a troll. He is weird in an unusual way, but he always
comes back and I've never seen him lose his temper.
I have Quadibloc in real life.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
It is never too late to give up our prejudices. -Henry David Thoreau
J. Clarke
2018-05-27 15:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:16:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global
thermonuclear war
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of
Georgia and
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Three things. First, you are arguing with Quadibloc. Second, part of
why Russia invaded those countries is because they wanted to join NATO.
Funny they didn't invade East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all of which joined NATO in the 20th
Century.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Third, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH _QUADIBLOC_.
Make that four things. Fourth, STOP TROLL FEEDING QUADIBLOC!! Please.
Quadi isn't a troll. He is weird in an unusual way, but he always
comes back and I've never seen him lose his temper.
I have Quadibloc in real life.
You have my sympathies.
Lynn McGuire
2018-06-05 01:17:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:16:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global
thermonuclear war
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of
Georgia and
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
Three things. First, you are arguing with Quadibloc. Second, part of
why Russia invaded those countries is because they wanted to join NATO.
Funny they didn't invade East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all of which joined NATO in the 20th
Century.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Third, YOU ARE ARGUING WITH _QUADIBLOC_.
Make that four things. Fourth, STOP TROLL FEEDING QUADIBLOC!! Please.
Quadi isn't a troll. He is weird in an unusual way, but he always
comes back and I've never seen him lose his temper.
I have Quadibloc in real life.
You can take laxatives for that problem.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2018-05-28 10:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
I have delayed somewhat in responding to this.

1) Putin is the one who has killed innocent human beings. NEVER FORGET THAT.

2) What you may be referring to, which I had posted is this:

I recommended, after Russia's invasion of the Crimea, that the United States and
NATO offer to send troops to the Ukraine.

I stand by that recommendation. That would not have started a shooting war with
Russia. You get those troops in there quick, and instead of Putin being the
fellow with the _fait accompli_, _you're_ the one with the _fait accompli_; the
Russian invasion of further areas in the Ukraine would not have happened.

This would not, therefore, have increased the risk of nuclear war. It would have
reduced it.

The current situation is now that Putin is emboldened, and sees the West as
weak.

Already, an Estonian soldier, on border patrol duties, was kidnapped by Russian
forces, and is imprisoned in Russia based on claims that he crossed into Russian
territory.

The risk that Putin will take action against the Baltic nations, which are in
NATO, of such a character that the United States will be faced with the choice
of either:

a) risking global thermonuclear war with Russia, or

b) failing to meet its treaty obligations towards a NATO ally, leading to the
collapse of the credibility and global influence of the United States

is now significantly nonzero as a direct result of Putin having successfully
undermined the stability of the Ukraine.

Oh, it's true that one could have a "benign" interpretation of Putin's goals;
that he _only_ wants to intimidate the people of Armenia, Belarus, and so on so
they won't overthrow his corrupt buddies and try to move out of Russia's sphere
of influence.

And he really has no ambitions of world conquest, and taking a moral view that
whatever you do unto a Georgian or a Ukrainian, this you do unto the residents
of the United States of America is, because it could - *if* one were to forget
the practical difficulties, which I _do not_ advocate that we do - lead to
dangerous actions is what is "crazy".

I am well aware that, as in the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons by
Russia and China may mean that we (oh, yes, that includes Canada, and even
Luxembourg; my idea of a proper world order is where ANY civilized democratic
nation may militarily intervene, at will, and without risk, against ANY nation
not in that category - you know, like in the Victorian era) will be unable to
intervene to prevent things happening that we do not like.

But I find this situation not to my liking, and thus would advocate any methods
that could change it.

If the United States, and everyone who people in the United States might care
about (Israel, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Canada, and so on), all moved to, oh,
say, Proxima Centauri B, with Russia, China, and the Islamic world left behind
on Earth (perhaps Mexico, India, and the like would get as far as Mars) then
there would no longer be a nuclear stalemate.

Now, if you want to say that I'm crazy, you can at least do so for the right
reasons.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-28 14:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 28 May 2018 03:52:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
Look, you seem to think that it's more important that he not invade
former members of the Sovied Union who were too stupid to join NATO
when they had the chance. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine
for the US to start shooting at him over it, which marks _you_ as the
one who is crazy. Fortunately you don't have any power.
I have delayed somewhat in responding to this.
1) Putin is the one who has killed innocent human beings. NEVER FORGET THAT.
The issue is madmen likely to use nuclear weapons in a fit of lunacy.
Pution does not come across as being suicidal in that manner.
Post by Quadibloc
I recommended, after Russia's invasion of the Crimea, that the United States and
NATO offer to send troops to the Ukraine.
You are constantly recommending that the United States offer to send
people to die for causes for which you are unwilling to risk your own
life.
Post by Quadibloc
I stand by that recommendation. That would not have started a shooting war with
Russia.
Unless it did.
Post by Quadibloc
You get those troops in there quick, and instead of Putin being the
fellow with the _fait accompli_, _you're_ the one with the _fait accompli_; the
Russian invasion of further areas in the Ukraine would not have happened.
Unless it did.
Post by Quadibloc
This would not, therefore, have increased the risk of nuclear war. It would have
reduced it.
You mean like Syria is reducing it?
Post by Quadibloc
The current situation is now that Putin is emboldened, and sees the West as
weak.
In your opinion.
Post by Quadibloc
Already, an Estonian soldier, on border patrol duties, was kidnapped by Russian
forces, and is imprisoned in Russia based on claims that he crossed into Russian
territory.
Yeah, the Russians would cross the border and kidnap _one_ Estonian
for some nefarious reason known only to you.
Post by Quadibloc
The risk that Putin will take action against the Baltic nations, which are in
NATO, of such a character that the United States will be faced with the choice
a) risking global thermonuclear war with Russia, or
Putin already risked global thermonuclear war with the US, the UK, and
France by invading a NATO member.
Post by Quadibloc
b) failing to meet its treaty obligations towards a NATO ally, leading to the
collapse of the credibility and global influence of the United States
So which way do you think it's going to go?
Post by Quadibloc
is now significantly nonzero as a direct result of Putin having successfully
undermined the stability of the Ukraine.
It was always signficantly nonzero, and the US and the Russians are
already shooting at each other in Syria so why are you whining about
some damned Estonian who was too stupid to stay on his side of the
border?
Post by Quadibloc
Oh, it's true that one could have a "benign" interpretation of Putin's goals;
that he _only_ wants to intimidate the people of Armenia, Belarus, and so on so
they won't overthrow his corrupt buddies and try to move out of Russia's sphere
of influence.
You are conflating "bad guy" with "suicidal lunatic".
Post by Quadibloc
And he really has no ambitions of world conquest, and taking a moral view that
whatever you do unto a Georgian or a Ukrainian, this you do unto the residents
of the United States of America is, because it could - *if* one were to forget
the practical difficulties, which I _do not_ advocate that we do - lead to
dangerous actions is what is "crazy".
I doubt that he has any notion that he is capable of conquering China
with the resources at his disposal. Stalin was in a far, far better
position to engage in "world conquest" and had far better lunatic
cred, but he never expanded beyond the territory he took while
fighting the Germans.
Post by Quadibloc
I am well aware that, as in the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons by
Russia and China may mean that we (oh, yes, that includes Canada, and even
Luxembourg; my idea of a proper world order is where ANY civilized democratic
nation may militarily intervene, at will, and without risk, against ANY nation
not in that category - you know, like in the Victorian era) will be unable to
intervene to prevent things happening that we do not like.
Russia is a lot weaker than it was during the Cold War and the US has
a lot more warfighting experience. I don't think that a war between
NATO and Russia is going to go quite the way you expect.
Post by Quadibloc
But I find this situation not to my liking, and thus would advocate any methods
that could change it.
So fund us such methods.
Post by Quadibloc
If the United States, and everyone who people in the United States might care
about (Israel, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Canada, and so on), all moved to, oh,
say, Proxima Centauri B, with Russia, China, and the Islamic world left behind
on Earth (perhaps Mexico, India, and the like would get as far as Mars) then
there would no longer be a nuclear stalemate.
Now, if you want to say that I'm crazy, you can at least do so for the right
reasons.
The issue is not whether _you_ are crazy. That is generally accepted
as true. The issue is whether Putin is crazy, and there is little
evidence of that. By the way, I know personally someone who has met
him. Do you?
Quadibloc
2018-06-03 22:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
The issue is not whether _you_ are crazy. That is generally accepted
as true.
No doubt due to vat-girls.

Perhaps it would please you to know that I do not support the "incel" movement,
as it seems to be a breeding ground for misogyny and hence violence against
women.

Rather, movements such as that - as well as *lesser* social pathologies - are
what I think we may have to prevent by means of vat-girls.

My often misunderstood thesis is this:

1) George Gilder's description of the difficulties single men get into are, I
believe, mostly accurate.

Aside from relatively rare failure modes - becoming a drug dealer so as to have bling, suicidally massacring feminists in protest, and so on and so forth - much more common are things like:

- voting a demagogue into office who starts a war, and

- union militancy, as a "living wage" means enough money to support a family,
and start one... and if the women aren't interested, this spirals out of control
and ends up closing down plants and destroying jobs.

2) However, I oppose his solution to the increased number of single men: rolling
back feminism.

3) I believe in a non-coercive society. We shouldn't force women to take up
careers if they would rather stay home and raise children... AND we shouldn't
force women to stay home and raise children if they would rather take up
careers. Women should be free, not shoehorned into either a feminist or anti-
feminist vision of what a woman's life should be.

4) Hence, if:

- we have X men who ought to all have a stay-at-home wife to keep them out of
trouble, and

- of the women who exist, fewer than X are interested in that kind of life...

then changing the human sex ratio at the production end is less bad than either
coercing women into domesticity or culling a fraction of males - or using coercive means to make male homosexuality an alternative that gets more
consideration, or perhaps other even more imaginative alternatives. Hence, vat-girls.

5) I think it is reasonable to claim that this is _logical_.

I quite agree it is... unappetizing. It seems... wrong.

Perhaps there are original suggestions for dealing with the issue?

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2018-06-03 23:35:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The issue is not whether _you_ are crazy. That is generally accepted
as true.
No doubt due to vat-girls.
It's part of it but far from the only part.
J. Clarke
2018-06-04 00:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The issue is not whether _you_ are crazy. That is generally accepted
as true.
No doubt due to vat-girls.
Perhaps it would please you to know that I do not support the "incel" movement,
as it seems to be a breeding ground for misogyny and hence violence against
women.
Rather, movements such as that - as well as *lesser* social pathologies - are
what I think we may have to prevent by means of vat-girls.
Instead you a new underclass. You may want it to not be a new
underclass but you have not provided a mechanism that would force
society to treat vat-girls as other than an underclass. And don't say
"laws"--laws in the US say that black people are treated equally. Ask
a black person how that's working out.
Post by Quadibloc
1) George Gilder's description of the difficulties single men get into are, I
believe, mostly accurate.
- voting a demagogue into office who starts a war, and
So you have evidence that the majority of those who voted for, say,
Bush II, are single men?
Post by Quadibloc
- union militancy,
You have evidence that most union activity is conducted by single men?
Post by Quadibloc
as a "living wage" means enough money to support a family,
and start one... and if the women aren't interested, this spirals out of control
and ends up closing down plants and destroying jobs.
So the members of the UAW who used to strike one of the Big Three
every year were all single men who couldn't get laid?
Post by Quadibloc
2) However, I oppose his solution to the increased number of single men: rolling
back feminism.
3) I believe in a non-coercive society. We shouldn't force women to take up
careers if they would rather stay home and raise children...
Should we force men to do that? Somebody has to pay the bills.
Post by Quadibloc
AND we shouldn't
force women to stay home and raise children if they would rather take up
careers. Women should be free, not shoehorned into either a feminist or anti-
feminist vision of what a woman's life should be.
Even vat girls?
Post by Quadibloc
- we have X men who ought to all have a stay-at-home wife to keep them out of
trouble, and
- of the women who exist, fewer than X are interested in that kind of life...
then changing the human sex ratio at the production end is less bad than either
coercing women into domesticity or culling a fraction of males - or using coercive means to make male homosexuality an alternative that gets more
consideration, or perhaps other even more imaginative alternatives. Hence, vat-girls.
Ok, so now you have X women who ought to have a stay at home husband
to keep them out of trouble and no men to do so. Or is it your
contention that women are incapable of causing trouble?
Post by Quadibloc
5) I think it is reasonable to claim that this is _logical_.
The problem is your premises.
Post by Quadibloc
I quite agree it is... unappetizing. It seems... wrong.
Perhaps there are original suggestions for dealing with the issue?
Yes, fix the damned economy.

By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble results
from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address that issue?
Quadibloc
2018-06-04 01:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Perhaps there are original suggestions for dealing with the issue?
Yes, fix the damned economy.
Oh, yes, I would plan to do that *first*. Vat-girls are a backup plan for the
case when fixing the economy proves insufficient to produce the desired result.

How does one fix the economy?

Well, it's simple enough: stimulate the economy until full employment results.

However, in order to be able to do that, it must be possible to stimulate the
economy to any desired degree without causing a negative trade balance. Current
treaties which limit tariff increases are an obstacle to this; if more people
have more money in their pockets, this could lead to an increase in purchases of
imported goods and services without a corresponding increase in exports.

This is why the government keeps choosing to take economic steps that constrict
the economy instead of stimulating it, even when there is already not full
employment. A negative trade balance means the country spends more than it
earns, and this is not sustainable.

Absent a reworking of the global trade system, I would deal with this by
creating a second currency with no exchange value. People whose income is in
this currency would recieve Foreign Exchange Ration Coupons paid for by taxes on
people who make convertible currency so they could afford things like citrus
fruits.

Landlords would be one group likely hit hard by this policy, as they would be
legally constrained to accept rents in soft currency.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-06-04 02:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Perhaps there are original suggestions for dealing with the issue?
Yes, fix the damned economy.
Oh, yes, I would plan to do that *first*. Vat-girls are a backup plan for the
case when fixing the economy proves insufficient to produce the desired result.
How does one fix the economy?
Well, it's simple enough: stimulate the economy until full employment results.
However, in order to be able to do that, it must be possible to stimulate the
economy to any desired degree without causing a negative trade balance. Current
treaties which limit tariff increases are an obstacle to this; if more people
have more money in their pockets, this could lead to an increase in purchases of
imported goods and services without a corresponding increase in exports.
This is why the government keeps choosing to take economic steps that constrict
the economy instead of stimulating it, even when there is already not full
employment. A negative trade balance means the country spends more than it
earns, and this is not sustainable.
Absent a reworking of the global trade system, I would deal with this by
creating a second currency with no exchange value. People whose income is in
this currency would recieve Foreign Exchange Ration Coupons paid for by taxes on
people who make convertible currency so they could afford things like citrus
fruits.
Landlords would be one group likely hit hard by this policy, as they would be
legally constrained to accept rents in soft currency.
They would also be required to maintain their properties in habitable
condition which means that they would have to pay workers in
convertible currency, so they go broke, declare bankruptcy, the
government assesses fines, when the fines add up to enough value the
government siezes the property and now the government is the landlord
and the former landlord is now on the dole. Why not just have the
government sieze all rental properties up front and get the revolution
started properly?
Quadibloc
2018-06-04 03:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Why not just have the
government sieze all rental properties up front and get the revolution
started properly?
Oh, no, if things get too bad for the landlords, the government will just have to
subsidize them.

But there should be enough unemployed people in the building trades that landlords
will eventually be able to get their properties maintained with soft currency.

John Savard
David Johnston
2018-06-04 01:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
I quite agree it is... unappetizing. It seems... wrong.
Perhaps there are original suggestions for dealing with the issue?
Yes, fix the damned economy.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the economy except that it
increasingly has no use for people.
Quadibloc
2018-06-04 03:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Yes, fix the damned economy.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the economy except that it
increasingly has no use for people.
The purpose of the economy is to make people happy. If it fails to perform its
primary purpose, it is not functioning correctly.

The economy does not exist to produce useless goods and services. It does not
exist to serve the wealthy. It exists primarily to benefit the great masses of
ordinary working people.

John Savard
David DeLaney
2018-06-04 06:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble results
from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT be sterilized
before decantation?

Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?

ps: we could call it the Screwball Comedy Solution
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2018-06-04 23:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble results
from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT be sterilized
before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being bioengineered
and thus probably smarter and prettier than non-vat girls, settle for
John? Or are we going to engineer them to be stupid and ugly?
Post by David DeLaney
ps: we could call it the Screwball Comedy Solution
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-04 23:42:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble
results from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address
that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT
be sterilized before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being
bioengineered and thus probably smarter and prettier than
non-vat girls, settle for John? Or are we going to engineer
them to be stupid and ugly?
Well, now, that's the whole *point( of vat-girls. You keep making
them until one spantaneously mutates into something that *will* have
sex with him. I would imagine that would happen some time after the
entire ecosystem of Earth consists of nothing *but* vat-girls, and
Quaddie, and collapses into a pit of his own vat-girl poop.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Juho Julkunen
2018-06-07 23:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble
results from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address
that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT
be sterilized before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being
bioengineered and thus probably smarter and prettier than
non-vat girls, settle for John? Or are we going to engineer
them to be stupid and ugly?
Well, now, that's the whole *point( of vat-girls. You keep making
them until one spantaneously mutates into something that *will* have
sex with him. I would imagine that would happen some time after the
entire ecosystem of Earth consists of nothing *but* vat-girls, and
Quaddie, and collapses into a pit of his own vat-girl poop.
It's the long game.

If these vatgirls are produced in bulk, possibly they are also raised
in crèches together before they enter school system. Colleges already
skew towards women, and vatgirls, likely brighter than average, will
accelerate that trend.

They will graduate and probably get a nice job, and their nice white
collar workplaces will probably also have more women than men by this
point.

The vatgirls will probably have very little in common with the lonely
marginalized working class men their existence is supposed to serve. It
stands to reason that they will mostly socialize with their peers, who
are mostly women.

Would it be that surprising if their romantic entanglements would also
mostly be with other women? The very existence of vatgirls means
cloning is a solved problem: men aren't even necessary for children.
Happily, all the new lesbian couples would also provide caretakers for
the next generation of vatgirls.

They would probably expect their daughters to lead a conventional life:
go to college, get a good job, find a nice woman to marry. Some of the
daughters would inevitably rebel, and seek partners as far from that
ideal as possible: lonely, marginalized working class men.

And Quadibloc's utopia would finally become a reality.
--
Juho Julkunen
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-07 23:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble
results from unwanted children. How would vat-girls
address that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would
NOT be sterilized before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being
bioengineered and thus probably smarter and prettier than
non-vat girls, settle for John? Or are we going to engineer
them to be stupid and ugly?
Well, now, that's the whole *point( of vat-girls. You keep
making them until one spantaneously mutates into something that
*will* have sex with him. I would imagine that would happen
some time after the entire ecosystem of Earth consists of
nothing *but* vat-girls, and Quaddie, and collapses into a pit
of his own vat-girl poop.
It's the long game.
Was that a penis joke?
Post by Juho Julkunen
If these vatgirls are produced in bulk, possibly they are also
raised in crèches together before they enter school system.
Colleges already skew towards women, and vatgirls, likely
brighter than average, will accelerate that trend.
Engineering them to be brighter will *not* further the goal of
getting Quaddie laid.
Post by Juho Julkunen
They will graduate and probably get a nice job, and their nice
white collar workplaces will probably also have more women than
men by this point.
Under Quaddie's plan, having more women than men *everywhere* is
the actual point.
Post by Juho Julkunen
The vatgirls will probably have very little in common with the
lonely marginalized working class men their existence is
supposed to serve. It stands to reason that they will mostly
socialize with their peers, who are mostly women.
Hence the expectation that in order to get Quaddie laid, you'd need
so many that random mutations become common.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Would it be that surprising if their romantic entanglements
would also mostly be with other women?
Well, according to mindsets like Quaddie's, all women are bisexual
anyway, but only when they're both hot.
Post by Juho Julkunen
The very existence of
vatgirls means cloning is a solved problem: men aren't even
necessary for children.
The Holy Grail of feminazis for decades (and the subject of a few
sf novels). Strictly speaking, women aren't necessary for children
either, at that point (ObSF: Ethan of Athos).
Post by Juho Julkunen
Happily, all the new lesbian couples
would also provide caretakers for the next generation of
vatgirls.
But would any of them be so mutatation as to get Quaddie laid, and
not die from the mutations? That is the question.
Post by Juho Julkunen
They would probably expect their daughters to lead a
conventional life: go to college, get a good job, find a nice
woman to marry. Some of the daughters would inevitably rebel,
and seek partners as far from that ideal as possible: lonely,
marginalized working class men.
And Quadibloc's utopia would finally become a reality.
Somehow, I'm reminded of the species of ant where the males and
females are considered separate species, because they procreate by
injecting each other with cloned genetic material. (Or something
like that. It was weird. But there's no mating between males and
females.)

So I guess Quaddie is an ant!
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2018-06-08 04:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
The Holy Grail of feminazis for decades (and the subject of a few
sf novels). Strictly speaking, women aren't necessary for children
either, at that point (ObSF: Ethan of Athos).
Well, in that specific example, they needed new women, or parts of
them, every few hundred years.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-08 15:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
The Holy Grail of feminazis for decades (and the subject of a few
sf novels). Strictly speaking, women aren't necessary for children
either, at that point (ObSF: Ethan of Athos).
Well, in that specific example, they needed new women, or parts of
them, every few hundred years.
But they managed to pretend otherwise for a long, long time.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Titus G
2018-06-08 04:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble
results from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address
that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT
be sterilized before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being
bioengineered and thus probably smarter and prettier than
non-vat girls, settle for John? Or are we going to engineer
them to be stupid and ugly?
Well, now, that's the whole *point( of vat-girls. You keep making
them until one spantaneously mutates into something that *will* have
sex with him. I would imagine that would happen some time after the
entire ecosystem of Earth consists of nothing *but* vat-girls, and
Quaddie, and collapses into a pit of his own vat-girl poop.
It's the long game.
If these vatgirls are produced in bulk, possibly they are also raised
in crèches together before they enter school system. Colleges already
skew towards women, and vatgirls, likely brighter than average, will
accelerate that trend.
They will graduate and probably get a nice job, and their nice white
collar workplaces will probably also have more women than men by this
point.
The vatgirls will probably have very little in common with the lonely
marginalized working class men their existence is supposed to serve. It
stands to reason that they will mostly socialize with their peers, who
are mostly women.
Would it be that surprising if their romantic entanglements would also
mostly be with other women? The very existence of vatgirls means
cloning is a solved problem: men aren't even necessary for children.
Happily, all the new lesbian couples would also provide caretakers for
the next generation of vatgirls.
go to college, get a good job, find a nice woman to marry. Some of the
daughters would inevitably rebel, and seek partners as far from that
ideal as possible: lonely, marginalized working class men.
And Quadibloc's utopia would finally become a reality.
Feeling spiteful, I would like to bribe the manufacturers of the Vats to
treat them so that all skin on all girls is black. So Quadibloc would
just have to be happy with breaking the world record for running a mile.
Moriarty
2018-06-08 04:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 01:10:02 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by J. Clarke
By the way, there is evidence that a great deal of trouble
results from unwanted children. How would vat-girls address
that issue?
... wait, are you under the impression that vat-girls would NOT
be sterilized before decantation?
Dave, cuz the whole idea is like with the mosquitoes, to get the unsuccessful
males, like John, to not have descendants, right?
Now there's a thought, however would vat-girls, being
bioengineered and thus probably smarter and prettier than
non-vat girls, settle for John? Or are we going to engineer
them to be stupid and ugly?
Well, now, that's the whole *point( of vat-girls. You keep making
them until one spantaneously mutates into something that *will* have
sex with him. I would imagine that would happen some time after the
entire ecosystem of Earth consists of nothing *but* vat-girls, and
Quaddie, and collapses into a pit of his own vat-girl poop.
It's the long game.
If these vatgirls are produced in bulk, possibly they are also raised
in crèches together before they enter school system. Colleges already
skew towards women, and vatgirls, likely brighter than average, will
accelerate that trend.
They will graduate and probably get a nice job, and their nice white
collar workplaces will probably also have more women than men by this
point.
The vatgirls will probably have very little in common with the lonely
marginalized working class men their existence is supposed to serve. It
stands to reason that they will mostly socialize with their peers, who
are mostly women.
Would it be that surprising if their romantic entanglements would also
mostly be with other women? The very existence of vatgirls means
cloning is a solved problem: men aren't even necessary for children.
Happily, all the new lesbian couples would also provide caretakers for
the next generation of vatgirls.
go to college, get a good job, find a nice woman to marry. Some of the
daughters would inevitably rebel, and seek partners as far from that
ideal as possible: lonely, marginalized working class men.
And Quadibloc's utopia would finally become a reality.
Feeling spiteful, I would like to bribe the manufacturers of the Vats to
treat them so that all skin on all girls is black. So Quadibloc would
just have to be happy with breaking the world record for running a mile.
Quaddie is on record as saying that while white men are unlikely to marry non-white women, they'll still fuck one given no other choice. Of course, whether or not our vat-girls-of-colour will want to hop into the sack with him is debatable.

-Moriarty
David Johnston
2018-06-04 01:56:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The issue is not whether _you_ are crazy. That is generally accepted
as true.
No doubt due to vat-girls.
You could imagine that, but you really should bear in mind your repeated
proposals for war and genocide in the Middle East.
Post by Quadibloc
Perhaps it would please you to know that I do not support the "incel" movement,
as it seems to be a breeding ground for misogyny and hence violence against
women.
Rather, movements such as that - as well as *lesser* social pathologies - are
what I think we may have to prevent by means of vat-girls.
Dude making girls who will be so desperate for a man, any man that
they'll resort to accepting unattractive mean-spirited losers IS
supporting them.
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-04 20:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So you propose to deal with foolish, wicked men who believe
that they have a right to be provided with women - you will
provide the women.
J. Clarke
2018-06-04 23:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
So you propose to deal with foolish, wicked men who believe
that they have a right to be provided with women - you will
provide the women.
Seems to work for ISIS.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-04 23:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
So you propose to deal with foolish, wicked men who believe
that they have a right to be provided with women - you will
provide the women.
Seems to work for ISIS.
Yeah, it's not like they have failed to conquer the world and
exterminate all the infidensl, or something.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-04 23:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
So you propose to deal with foolish, wicked men who believe
that they have a right to be provided with women - you will
provide the women.
I believe the only thing he's actually interested in is producing so
many women that *one* of them will be mutated enough to let him
actually touch a ral boobie without going to jail. (And nuking brown
people, of course.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
m***@sky.com
2018-05-27 04:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
John Savard
SF doesn't seem to have that good a record on Russia/Soviet Union. In the CoDominium and much other pre-fall of the Soviet Union we have communism persisting indefinitely. In ToS and TNG they seem to have merged seamlessly into the federation. Can anybody quote SF where they seem to be the kid at the back of the class making trouble? The first thing that comes to my mind is Sterling's "Peshawar Lancers"
J. Clarke
2018-05-27 09:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Not if the lunatic is Vladimir Putin and not Kim Jong-Un. Global thermonuclear war
is very pricey.
There is no evidence that Putin is a lunatic. He did not survive the
Soviet Union by being a fool.
That makes him more dangerous, not less dangerous. The invasions of Georgia and
the Ukraine show he is hostile.
John Savard
SF doesn't seem to have that good a record on Russia/Soviet Union. In the CoDominium and much other pre-fall of the Soviet Union we have communism persisting indefinitely. In ToS and TNG they seem to have merged seamlessly into the federation. Can anybody quote SF where they seem to be the kid at the back of the class making trouble? The first thing that comes to my mind is Sterling's "Peshawar Lancers"
FWIW, people tend to conflate Russianism and Communism. The problem
with Russia wasn't Communism, it was Russianism. The only thing that
really changed under the Communists was the title of the Czar. And
since the fall of Communism in Russia, the only thing that seems to
have changed is still the title of the Czar.
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-26 12:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.
The current idea is for Martian colonists to live
in underground bunkers anyway for the time being.
And they'll probably have spare rockets to fire
back at Earth if the situation arises. Indeed,
being in space probably counts as superior military
force.
J. Clarke
2018-05-26 12:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.
The current idea is for Martian colonists to live
in underground bunkers anyway for the time being.
Whose current idea? The idea of some visionary or the idea of someone
who actually has the resources to make it happen?
Post by Robert Carnegie
And they'll probably have spare rockets to fire
back at Earth if the situation arises.
So one of the first priorities of the people paying for a Mars colony
is going to be to send nuclear weapons to Mars for the colonists to
use on Earth?
Post by Robert Carnegie
Indeed,
being in space probably counts as superior military
force.
Except that everything you are surrounded by wants to kill you.
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-26 14:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.
The current idea is for Martian colonists to live
in underground bunkers anyway for the time being.
Whose current idea? The idea of some visionary or the idea of someone
who actually has the resources to make it happen?
The European Space Agency. With their own
people-carrier rockets.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
And they'll probably have spare rockets to fire
back at Earth if the situation arises.
So one of the first priorities of the people paying for a Mars colony
is going to be to send nuclear weapons to Mars for the colonists to
use on Earth?
Not nuclear weapons. Simply that if you drop a rock
or a rocket from Mars down to Earth, it will hit with
a big bang. Look at what happened at the landing sites
in _The War of the Worlds_ - and the people inside the
capsules presumably were trying /not/ to hit hard.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Indeed,
being in space probably counts as superior military
force.
Except that everything you are surrounded by wants
to kill you.
Which makes you a winner according to what appears
to be Nietzsche's Third Law :-)
<https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1938.Friedrich_Nietzsche>

<https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_friedrich_nietzsche_quotes>
has quite a different order.
James Nicoll
2018-05-26 15:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Not nuclear weapons. Simply that if you drop a rock
or a rocket from Mars down to Earth, it will hit with
a big bang. Look at what happened at the landing sites
in _The War of the Worlds_ - and the people inside the
capsules presumably were trying /not/ to hit hard.
Yeah, War of the Worlds turns out not to be a documentary so
not super useful as evidence things will work one way or
another. Objects moving at interplanetary speeds do have
more energy per kg than chemical explosives but not orders
of magnitude more. To get WMD levels of destruction, you
need to huck large amounts of material. Sadly, nonsense
like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has given people wildly
exaggerated ideas about kinetic weapons.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
J. Clarke
2018-05-26 16:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
If they are to survive without Earth then they need to be able to
_make_ the "proper supplies and equipment". While it is certainly
concievable that this level of industry could be developed on Mars,
what is concievable and what will actually happen are two different
things.
The idea is that sending proper supplies and equipment includes enough to get
them started. And, yes, that might be a tall order.
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, going to Mars won't protect you. It's a lot easier to
send a nuclear weapon to Mars than proper supplies and equipment.
True, but it's not as if the same people are sending both to Mars. So if the
side escaping from the other side's nuclear weapons is somewhat more advanced
technically - not enough to be immune to nuclear attack - then it seems as if
this could work.
The current idea is for Martian colonists to live
in underground bunkers anyway for the time being.
Whose current idea? The idea of some visionary or the idea of someone
who actually has the resources to make it happen?
The European Space Agency. With their own
people-carrier rockets.
So the ESA has a funded Mars colonization program? Do tell.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
And they'll probably have spare rockets to fire
back at Earth if the situation arises.
So one of the first priorities of the people paying for a Mars colony
is going to be to send nuclear weapons to Mars for the colonists to
use on Earth?
Not nuclear weapons. Simply that if you drop a rock
or a rocket from Mars down to Earth, it will hit with
a big bang.
You mean like Skylab landed with a big bang? Or the Apollo command
modules?

To survive atmospheric entry with sufficient energy and mass to make a
big bang requires a rather large vehicle to begin with, with a high
ballistic coefficient, and requires that it be made from materials
that will survive the experience. Your average rocket intended to
carry people around is not so configured.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Look at what happened at the landing sites
in _The War of the Worlds_ - and the people inside the
capsules presumably were trying /not/ to hit hard.
Are you laboring under the misconception that "The War of the Worlds"
is _history_? It was a work of fiction, everything in it was made up
pretend. If you think that it was evidence of _anything_ except the
state of mind of the author you have little touch with reality.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Robert Carnegie
Indeed,
being in space probably counts as superior military
force.
Except that everything you are surrounded by wants
to kill you.
Which makes you a winner according to what appears
to be Nietzsche's Third Law :-)
<https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1938.Friedrich_Nietzsche>
So Australia can defeat any nation in the world, including the nuclear
armed ones, without nuclear weapons?
Post by Robert Carnegie
<https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_friedrich_nietzsche_quotes>
has quite a different order.
So how did following Nietzsche work out for Hitler?
Quadibloc
2018-05-26 20:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Indeed,
being in space probably counts as superior military
force.
Except that everything you are surrounded by wants to kill you.
Hey, that hasn't stopped people from living in Australia.

John Savard
Loading...