Uh-huh Allan However many people it might be, many of them would probably say as you do, No problem, we can do both things at the same time, plenty of brains to go round and so on. But I doubt it'd be more than just lip service, they don't really see it that way, and if there is a Mars trip it will be more money and resources thrown away, the real problems won't be solved nor even confronted, at least not by them.
I wonder if any of those problems were mentioned at the SF confab you went to. They should have been, they're not absent from the literature. >I disagree, Keith. I don't think it has to be an either-or thing or a first-then-later thing. I think both can be done at the same time. In fact I think both _must_ be done at the same time. Any plans for promoting that idea among the 400 SF PhDs or the "quite a lot of us" who're bent on going to Mars? Or is that it, just as long as somebody says so? >> ... ï ONE-FIFTH are undernourished > >I understand that, and I'm not saying it isn't a problem. It is. You didn't say it's not a problem and you didn't say it is, I doubt it entered your thinking on going to Mars, did it? Currently the future of man and space isn't exploration, it's exploitation and militarisation, and there's probably not much chance that will change any time soon. Please don't think I'm being hidebound or whatever about this. Never mind whose is bigger, but I doubt you've read more science fiction than I have, and published it too. There's more to it than the clarke-ian view, that's just the same tired old 1950s suburban Reader's Digest and can-do Popular Science mag utopianism still staggering about like the Undead in a new host body. Unless you still think technological might is Progress, but the myth of Progress was debunked more than 30 years ago, and the failure of the whole Modernism project acknowledged. (And then came neo-liberal economics... and just look what can-do did.) You can find the sources for the stats at our website. It needs some updating, it's worse than that now, lots worse in some cases, though the data is only a few years old. http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger: Journey to Forever Best Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Alan and all Hello, Keith. >>> but, supposing it were the best approach available, that still only >> matters to those who share your clarke-ian view of the "importance" of >> "stepping beyond the cradle." > >> Granted, but I suspect you'll find there are a lot of us. Notably, >> Peter Diamandis, who's stated goal is to get there before NASA, and do >> it with private funds. > > > How many of us is a lot? Just off the top of my head I couldn't tell you. I know my perception of it is skewed because of my involvement with the science fiction community, which is a hotbed of the Clarkian view. This past July I went to the Robert A. Heinlein Centennial, and I was in the room with at least 400 of them. That was the highest concentration of PHD's I've ever been in, and I'm not ashamed to say I was the dimbulb in the room. > Maybe it's our noble destiny to go to Mars. But > maybe we should get our house in order first before we go travelling. Can't we do both at the same time? Are there not brains enough to go around for that? > This, in a world of plenty: > > Among the 4.4 billion people who live in developing countries: > ï THREE-FIFTHS have no access to basic sanitation > ï Almost ONE-THIRD are without safe drinking water > ï ONE-QUARTER lack adequate housing > ï ONE-FIFTH live beyond reach of modern health services > ï ONE-FIFTH of the children do not get as far as grade five in school > ï ONE-FIFTH are undernourished I understand that, and I'm not saying it isn't a problem. It is. > The reason the poor are so poor is that the rich are so rich, and they're > so good at looking the other way. Granted. > Basic education for all would cost $6 BILLION a year: I'm not sure of that figure, Keith. We spend half a billion dollars on education here in the state of Florida, USA alone. > ï $8 BILLION is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone. I'm actually kind of surprised it's that low. > Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 BILLION plus > some annual costs: > ï $11 BILLION is spent annually on ice cream in Europe. Now _there's_ a worthwhile expenditure if ever I saw one! ;-) > Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 BILLION a year: > ï $12 BILLION a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States. > > Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 BILLION: > ï $17 BILLION a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States; > ï $35 BILLION is spent on business entertainment in Japan; Again, I'm surprised it's that low. > ï $50 BILLION on cigarettes in Europe; > ï $105 BILLION on alcoholic drinks in Europe; > ï $400 BILLION on narcotic drugs around the world; and One of the ideas that H. Beam Piper, among others, have postulated is that no matter where in the universe mankind goes four crops will follow him: Wheat, rice, coffee, and tobacco. I suppose you could add tea, marijuana and opium to that list, and probably coca as well. > ï $780 BILLION on the world's militaries. Now _there's_ a waste! > And it's mostly sheer waste. We all know deep in our hearts, or even not > so deep, that increased consumption doesn't make us happy and fulfilled as > promised, it leaves us unhappy and dissatisfied, as intended. And sod the > victims. Indeed. > As long as this situation prevails we have no noble destiny ahead of us. > Until it's resolved we have no nobility, we're a disgrace, and our only > destiny is sore travail. I disagree, Keith. I don't think it has to be an either-or thing or a first-then-later thing. I think both can be done at the same time. In fact I think both _must_ be done at the same time. Sooner or later we will go to Mars. I expect we'll do it within the next half century. The major question is what language the astronauts will be speaking, English, Russian, or Mandarin? > How much did you say it'll cost to go to Mars? The most efficient plan is Robert Zubrin's Mars Semi-Direct mission, which would take an estimated 45 billion in 2005 dollars, spread over about ten years. It's cheap enough that Micro$oft could finance it tomorrow without breaking the bank, if they were sufficiently motivated to do so.Uh-huh Allan However many people it might be, many of them would probably say as you do, No problem, we can do both things at the same time, plenty of brains to go round and so on. But I doubt it'd be more than just lip service, they don't really see it that way, and if there is a Mars trip it will be more money and resources thrown away, the real problems won't be solved nor even confronted, at least not by them. I wonder if any of those problems were mentioned at the SF confab you went to. They should have been, they're not absent from the literature. >I disagree, Keith. I don't think it has to be an either-or thing or a first-then-later thing. I think both can be done at the same time. In fact I think both _must_ be done at the same time. Any plans for promoting that idea among the 400 SF PhDs or the "quite a lot of us" who're bent on going to Mars? Or is that it, just as long as somebody says so? >> ... ï ONE-FIFTH are undernourished > >I understand that, and I'm not saying it isn't a problem. It is. You didn't say it's not a problem and you didn't say it is, I doubt it entered your thinking on going to Mars, did it? Currently the future of man and space isn't exploration, it's exploitation and militarisation, and there's probably not much chance that will change any time soon. Please don't think I'm being hidebound or whatever about this. Never mind whose is bigger, but I doubt you've read more science fiction than I have, and published it too. There's more to it than the clarke-ian view, that's just the same tired old 1950s suburban Reader's Digest and can-do Popular Science mag utopianism still staggering about like the Undead in a new host body. Unless you still think mere technological might is Progress, but the myth of Progress was debunked more than 30 years ago, and the failure of the whole Modernism project acknowledged. (And then came neo-liberal economics... and just look what can-do did.) You can find the sources for the stats at our website. It needs some updating, it's worse than that now, lots worse in some cases, though the data is only a few years old. http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger: Journey to Forever Best Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Alan and all Hello, Keith. >>> but, supposing it were the best approach available, that still only >> matters to those who share your clarke-ian view of the "importance" of >> "stepping beyond the cradle." > >> Granted, but I suspect you'll find there are a lot of us. Notably, >> Peter Diamandis, who's stated goal is to get there before NASA, and do >> it with private funds. > > > How many of us is a lot? Just off the top of my head I couldn't tell you. I know my perception of it is skewed because of my involvement with the science fiction community, which is a hotbed of the Clarkian view. This past July I went to the Robert A. Heinlein Centennial, and I was in the room with at least 400 of them. That was the highest concentration of PHD's I've ever been in, and I'm not ashamed to say I was the dimbulb in the room. > Maybe it's our noble destiny to go to Mars. But > maybe we should get our house in order first before we go travelling. Can't we do both at the same time? Are there not brains enough to go around for that? > This, in a world of plenty: > > Among the 4.4 billion people who live in developing countries: > ï THREE-FIFTHS have no access to basic sanitation > ï Almost ONE-THIRD are without safe drinking water > ï ONE-QUARTER lack adequate housing > ï ONE-FIFTH live beyond reach of modern health services > ï ONE-FIFTH of the children do not get as far as grade five in school > ï ONE-FIFTH are undernourished I understand that, and I'm not saying it isn't a problem. It is. > The reason the poor are so poor is that the rich are so rich, and they're > so good at looking the other way. Granted. > Basic education for all would cost $6 BILLION a year: I'm not sure of that figure, Keith. We spend half a billion dollars on education here in the state of Florida, USA alone. > ï $8 BILLION is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone. I'm actually kind of surprised it's that low. > Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 BILLION plus > some annual costs: > ï $11 BILLION is spent annually on ice cream in Europe. Now _there's_ a worthwhile expenditure if ever I saw one! ;-) > Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 BILLION a year: > ï $12 BILLION a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States. > > Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 BILLION: > ï $17 BILLION a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States; > ï $35 BILLION is spent on business entertainment in Japan; Again, I'm surprised it's that low. > ï $50 BILLION on cigarettes in Europe; > ï $105 BILLION on alcoholic drinks in Europe; > ï $400 BILLION on narcotic drugs around the world; and One of the ideas that H. Beam Piper, among others, have postulated is that no matter where in the universe mankind goes four crops will follow him: Wheat, rice, coffee, and tobacco. I suppose you could add tea, marijuana and opium to that list, and probably coca as well. > ï $780 BILLION on the world's militaries. Now _there's_ a waste! > And it's mostly sheer waste. We all know deep in our hearts, or even not > so deep, that increased consumption doesn't make us happy and fulfilled as > promised, it leaves us unhappy and dissatisfied, as intended. And sod the > victims. Indeed. > As long as this situation prevails we have no noble destiny ahead of us. > Until it's resolved we have no nobility, we're a disgrace, and our only > destiny is sore travail. I disagree, Keith. I don't think it has to be an either-or thing or a first-then-later thing. I think both can be done at the same time. In fact I think both _must_ be done at the same time. Sooner or later we will go to Mars. I expect we'll do it within the next half century. The major question is what language the astronauts will be speaking, English, Russian, or Mandarin? > How much did you say it'll cost to go to Mars? The most efficient plan is Robert Zubrin's Mars Semi-Direct mission, which would take an estimated 45 billion in 2005 dollars, spread over about ten years. It's cheap enough that Micro$oft could finance it tomorrow without breaking the bank, if they were sufficiently motivated to do so. AP AP _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
