Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:04:33 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809200806.AA04402@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #369 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 369 Today's Topics: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Berserker hypothesis Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) Re: Naming the new Shuttle more useless trivia Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Why no aliens Re: Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 88 14:36:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >habitable. I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of >global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more >drastic it will be. But the longer we wait, the more technically feasible will be the solutions. We don't want to put up the space umbrellas before we sweep up the space-crap which would blow them to bits! Which is expanding the most, technological competance or environmental damage? Obviously they are not independent - our technology is causing most of this pollution. But if pollution can be kept to a minimum, then one day we should be able to deal with it without doing more harm than good. Hopefully before it is too late. Remember, before we go dumping ozone into the upper atmosphere, let's just make DAMN SURE that the Antarctic hole isn't a feature of winter-time polar weather. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 16:09:21 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <6534@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >In article <2196@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu >(Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >> As a corollary to this, if humans acquired a religion and/or political >> ideology directing them to spread as much as possible and exterminate all >> life >> not required for their own support (and also exterminate all humans not >> conforming to this religion/ideology), they would count as berserkers, even >> though they are not machines. > >IF what? The ancient Hebrews, European CHristians, their New World >descendants (Esp. Brazil), farmers, whalers -- all sorts of human races >fit this definition perfectly. The US probably has a copyright >on it. No smileys. You're entirely right about this -- the reason I said "if" was an attempt to put across the point (what it takes to be a berserker) without adding in the additional load of asking readers to see at the same time that humans are already examples of living berserkers (which might cause people who disagree with this to miss the point). I should have pointed this out later in the message. In fact, it's enough to be cause for serious questioning of whether humans are too evil to deserve access to space -- I'm for going into space, but we had better get our ethical act cleaned up or the rest of the universe could be in real trouble. >Unfortunately, benign races don't bother going across the ocean, let >alone into space, Vulcans notwithstanding. How do you know? We haven't found any "benign races" to test your theory on. The victims of colonization have on the whole been just as malign as their conquerors (although not always in exactly the same way, but recognizably close -- that's human nature for you), but at the time they were conquered they lacked the means to do what was being done to them, at least to the same extent. Also, what would keep a benign species from going across an ocean or into space, except possibly for nasty species that might get in the way at too early a stage? -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Seen on a terminal screen at Harvard: Vote Nixon in 1988 when you are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 01:43:12 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@nrl-cmf.arpa (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <14240@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: Let's see if we can make this a bit more constructive. Instead of arguing over whether the shuttle has been of any use whatsoever (obviously it has done more than simply provide space-junkets for people like Jake Garn -- I admit my earlier comment was hyperbole) I'd like to see a discussion of what areas man-in-space might be useful in. In cases where the shuttle is simply helping launch something else, I hope we all agree that it's worse than using expendables. Does everyone agree that it costs more? Construction is the obvious area where people are necessary, but the only construction job in space I've heard anything about is the space station, and that just postpones the question. Repair has also been mentioned, but how often does something go wrong that CAN be fixed? Is it really worth the trouble? (A more complex question than it seems; if we could depend on some repair service, could we design and launch superior systems?) Does this necessarily include anything that needs to be brought back from space? The Soviets brought moon samples back with unmanned vehicles, but I wonder how reliable (and expensive) it would be. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 15:43:27 GMT From: att!whuts!homxb!homxc!maw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (M.WEINSTEIN) Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle > - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! Why??? I believe that NASA's name selection criteria makes much better sense. Let's not get too cute here. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Michael A. Weinstein More *original* thought from----> | (att!homxc.att.com!maw) | AT&T-BL: Holmdel, NJ | (201)949-7856 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 03:39:14 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: more useless trivia [] Just dug up a couple on interesting notes here. First, a while back we were discussing the way the Skylab crews numbered their missions on the patches, Skylab I, II, II, and the "official" flight designators of SL 1 (for the unmanned portion of the OWS), SL 2,3,4 for the manned missions. I just got a videotape of the network coverage of the Conrad launch. Pete refers to his mission as "Skylab 2" and so do the newsdudes. Trivia note #2: During the CBS coverage of the Apollo 15 splashdown, uncle Walter reported about a nearby Soviet "fishing trawler". After the crew was safely on board the Carrier, the trawler supposedly signalled the Carrier something to the affect : "Could we assist you by boarding the capsule?". -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 15:06:49 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!mruxb!hall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael R Hall) Subject: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In <3515@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU states >In fact, we may have a problem with the size of our gene pool. There is a >fine line about when a population's gene pool is large enough and diverse >enough to continue advancing genetically. With not enough babies being born, >we're treading that fine line now, but since we allow so much immigration >thats not a great problem, yet. Mexico on the other hand... >This is off the top of my head from books I've read. Please correct me if >some of it is wrong. If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT advancing genetically; rather we are devolving (we are not men, we are DEVO). Seriously. Consider the factors that favor "selection" in the modern world. Poor people have more children than financially well-to-do people, by a long shot. A gross generalization is that poor people, on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people. The key word is "average"; some poor people are geniuses, some rich people are retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty, while stupid rich people lose their wealth to taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever. Evolution requires only a small amount of leverage to work its magic. Don't tell me that it takes millenia. With the proper environmental conditions, a few generations are all it takes for the effects to become visible.(They had ten kids who each had ten kids who each had ten kids...) Modern medicine and science also plays a role in the devolution of Man. My own fiance would not have survived without civilization, because she is practically blind without glasses or contacts. We are becoming more and more blind. My asthmatic friend would have died without modern medicine. We are becoming more and more sickly. Note that I am NOT suggesting that we necessarily do anything about this, so hold your flames. What does this have to do with space? Well, I would propose it as yet another solution to the Fermi paradox; no alien race has been able to maintain its genetic integrity long enough to dominate a large portion of the galaxy. An obvious possible flaw in this argument is that cloning or genetic engineering could slow/stop/reverse devolution, but perhaps this is very hard or impossible for other types of life. After all, we can't even really do it yet, and we may devolve completely (back to apes or on something new?) before we find a "cure". Michael Hall mruxb!hall@bellcore.com or bellcore!mruxb!hall or something like that ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 07:43:58 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <679@mruxb.UUCP>, hall@mruxb (Michael R Hall) writes: > Poor people have more children than financially >well-to-do people, by a long shot. A gross generalization is that poor >people, on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people. Yup. Gross is the word. It sounds like complete utter bullshit, having zero basis in anything other than random mental farting. > The key >word is "average"; No, the key word was "gross". > some poor people are geniuses, some rich people are >retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty, while stupid >rich people lose their wealth to taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever. Is this supposed to "cover your ass" intellectually here? It doesn't do a very good job. Do you have any solid facts to justify your "gross" assertions? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 02:57:53 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <1988Aug30.160801.3074@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: <>You may be half right, though -- it may be the case that any race "advanced" <>enough to make contact over interstellar distances always ends up destroying <>itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it <>is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet... < RJOHNSON@CEBAFVAX.BITNET writes: > Since a few of you were kind enough to respond to my survey question >on Significant Accomplishments in Space, I thought it only fair to let you >know what my results and responses were. In essence, almost zero! [. . .] > > As a personal comment on my survey, I think it's pretty sad that of the >estimated 7000 readers of the digest, that only five took the time and >effort to respond. [. . .] Before you get all worked up, consider that maybe your survey didn't get very far on the net. Many times I have posted messages, only to find that they never got beyond the machine on which I posted the messages. A reposting might be in order, considering that most of us don't know how to respond to messages that we haven't received. I will briefly give my answer (only approximate -- I'm really not very good at answering surveys I haven't received) in advance. First of all, we had better get off this heap and into space, because if we don't, it is likely that one day we are going to find that we are off this heap but not in space. Alternatively, it could happen that the entire world all falls into a situation like that in George Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, at which point it will be too late to move into space (because if anyone goes into space the government(s) will go with them). But whether natural or human threats are the worse, continuing to live only on Earth is just plain dangerous. Another thing to consider about moving into space is that further development of our civilization will become increasingly difficult until the trouble of getting into space is less than the trouble and hazards of trying to do everything on Earth. It could be argued with considerable sense that this is already starting to happen, but even if we are not at the point yet we should start going into space for the sake of planning ahead for when we do get to that point. Remember -- if you absolutely have to do something, and you haven't prepared for it, the consequences are likely to be more devastating than the loss of time and resources due to excessive and premature preparation. I do not think that space will be economically viable or contain great habitats for quite a long time, but eventually we are going to have to make it that way, and if we haven't been preparing for practical use of space beyond communications satellites beforehand, we aren't going to be able to do it when we need it. Finally, but most importantly, we need to go into space to gain knowledge and do our part in making as much of the universe as possible a better place -- these are what make life worthwhile. As a species, we haven't been very good at the latter, but we aren't going to be able to do it at all in areas where we can't reach. > ON OTHER SUBJECTS, I think there is one aspect of the SETI discussion on >'Why aren't they here?" that has been overlooked. Maybe they aren't here >because >they ended up taking the same path towards space that it looks like we will, >which is none. [. . .] But nothing forces all intelligent species to take the same path as us. Just because our species has a propensity to produce Proxmiroids doesn't mean that another species with a different evolutionary (not to mention cultural) history will. And even some subsets of humans seem to be overcoming this difficulty. But if you want to be in on it, you had better be ready to start learning Russian. . . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "You never want to try anything. You're always afraid to take a risk. Why'd you ever join Starfleet. Why didn't you stay in Tennessee and raise pigs.?" "I'm 'fraida pigs." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #369 *******************