Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?
From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Previous message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Maybe in reply to: *: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Next in thread: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:40:19 +0000 (UTC)
*US* wrote:
: On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:27:28 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >What does the goup bandwidth actually cost? I'll send you a check for it.
: You're making it obvious that you don't even understand
: the technology involved with the Usenet.
Please explain it to me, complete with economic aspect.
: On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:34:37 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >... the troll ...
: Apparently you have no idea what that word means,
: or why your lame attempt at ad hominem fallacy merely
: disgraces you publicly.
: The subject here is the fact that unsustainable survival of
: humans doesn't travel at all well.
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:21:26 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >... always fail to ...
: You always fail to address what I've stated in
: an honest or intelligent manner.
: I've deleted your ad hominem fallacies in the
: hopes that you could discuss the issues.
: Without sustainable survival on Earth, you can
: not hope to attain it anywhere else.
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:46:02 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >...Total intellectual dishonesty ...
: You've used quite a bit of ad hominem fallacy.
: That's because your ignorance is showing.
: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:22:06 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >... irrelevant ...
: I can't make you post anything relevant, but
: I've posted only what is relevant. Your lack
: of ability to perceive as much is predictable.
: You can't function here sustainably, but that
: is the one capability you'd have to gain for
: terraforming or ecopoiesis to work.
: What a shame for you that you remain
: unable to comprehend that fact.
: On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:12:42 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >In fact, it should be possible to get much more diversity with GM
: >crops, while still preserving the desirable traits.
: Realistically, however, the engineered products are limited
: strains adapted to tolerate high levels of pesticides.
: >... a troll ...
: Fallacy noted.
: It's easier for a coward to accuse a messenger of trolling
: than to deal with the message.
: On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:07:23 GMT, BlackWater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
: > Rather depends on how you define "sustainably" doesn't it ?
: Actually, the standard denotation suffices nicely.
: > Genetic engineering WILL allow extremely sustainable food
: In fact, it makes food supplies more vulnerable.
: A huge proportion of the corn crop, for example,
: became vulnerable to disease about thirty years ago,
: and the one thing that solved the problem was being
: able to go back to an old wild strain.
: >... little eco-terrorists ...
: Your little fuhrer Bush is damaging the environment
: faster than you could ever fix it, and he's bankrupting
: you to the point where you can't afford your fantasies.
: > "Sicker" ??? REALLY now ??? Gee ... I
: It's even the children ...
: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept98/ecodisease.hrs.html
: >guess you didn't
: > notice the nearly TWOFOLD increase in life expectancy
: If you understood the relationship of infant mortality
: rates to that, you could perhaps avoid making such
: ridiculous references to it.
: > We're VASTLY healthier.
: No, you're not - some of the most favored toxins
: being imposed in fact damage neural functions.
: > Got a few hundred megabucks to spare ? I've seen the previous
: As I'd mentioned, your little fuhrer Bush is busy
: bankrupting you, so you can kiss your fantasies
: goodbye, permanently.
: > 'biosphere' projects ...
: You're going to need to prove you can do that
: before you'll get any rational person to believe
: you could accomplish it extra-terrestrially.
: >... DOES seem the main
: > thrust of your 'arguments'.
: How would you know?
: I'm saying that you can't replace nature, no matter
: how desperate you are to worship 'science'.
: > Oh yea ... nobody is gonna fall for your trap either - the
: > idea that we have to make things nearly "perfect" on earth
: I didn't say that - it's just your straw man.
: > before we bother to go elsewhere. We're GONNA go elsewhere
: You wish. There is no viable elsewhere, because
: you can't even make your existence viable here.
: > even if things remain CRAPPY on earth.
: So you support damaging this place because you
: imagine you'd be able to abandon it.
: > Luddites will be bypassed by the flow of history.
: You've already been left behind by real scientists.
: You just don't realize it, yet, and may never do so.
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:00:23 GMT, bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote:
: > Initially, yes. Later on though ...
: You can't produce sustenance sustainably
: on Earth, you can't do so elsewhere.
: > We're surviving quite nicely on earth.
: Only if you don't consider the reality that
: we're sicker and that our supply of essential
: resources is being destroyed not sustained.
: > and the life-expencancy ;sic]
: It's not what you'd imagine, even if you
: knew the word.
: Get back to me when you can get any form
: of a biosphere-type project to work ...
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:17:07 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote:
: >I certainly *can* cite such technology -- look up "ore refinement"
: Why don't you realize you'd need to use resources
: from Earth to do that anywhere else?
: >...s "it's never been done before,
: >therefore it's impossible"
: Why do you say that? Oh, it's your straw man.
: I said nothing of the sort, of course: I've merely
: pointed out that it's not feasible for you to make
: a go of survival anywhere else when you're still
: incapable of doing so on Earth.
: It's time for you to skulk off in fear and defeat now.
: >Plonk!
: QED.
: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:39 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote:
: >... Just Plain Wrong. Astoundingly wrong. Amazingly,
: >inconceivably, stupidly wrong ...
: If you weren't, you could refute the facts I state.
: >1. Oxygen...
: Yet no astronaut has ever used oxygen that didn't
: originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
: technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
: Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
: require that more resources be removed from Earth.
: >2. Titanium, iron, magnesium, silicon, calcium, and other useful
: >elements...
: Yet no astronaut has ever used any such that didn't
: originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
: technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
: Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
: require that more resources be removed from Earth.
: >3. Hydrogen.
: Yet no astronaut has ever used hydrogen that didn't
: originate on Earth, and you can't cite any form of
: technology that'd make that reality obsolete.
: Moreover, to generate that technology will obviously
: require that more resources be removed from Earth.
: >These are extremely valuable raw materials in their own right
: Yet not a one of them could keep an astronaut alive
: without extensive additional resources being brought
: along from Earth.
: >.. there's no point in bothering
: >with ...
: You are so afraid of the reality that you can't go into
: space because you've failed so severely here that you're
: going to run and hide.
: No surprise there.
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:01:45 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote:
: >What nonsense.
: I've stated the fact that every physical object the astronauts need
: they must take with them from Earth.
: You can't refute that, and it distresses you so much you're forced
: to try to lie about it.
: >The Earth is one tiny little planet; it is dwarfed by
: >the total resources of the solar system.
: Yet you're unable to utilize any of those resources without using
: those from Earth.
: >Of *course* early colonies will be dependent on Earth for many of their
: >supplies.
: Actually, it'd be all of them.
: You can't even support yourself with a garden here on Earth.
: You merely remain unable to acknowledge your total dependency.
: >Anything that can be produced on Earth can be produced in
: >space.
: Yet the cost in Earth's resources is far higher than the return on
: that investment in such artificially-supplied resources.
: > (Though the reverse is not necessarily true; space offers many
: >environments that are difficult or impossible to simulate on Earth,
: >providing the opportunity for new production processes and therefore new
: >products.)
: Name one.
: >You *will* find food for colonists in space, as soon as someone builds a
: >farm there.
: You can't even farm here, and you're trying to claim you could do
: so in space.
: It is to laugh, except that it's a sad situation for you to be so ignorant
: of the realities involved.
: > That may be 20 or 30 years, maybe less, maybe more. But it
: >will certainly happen. Part of me hopes you'll still be around to eat a
: >nice helping of space-grown crow. But the rest of me hopes you'll have
: >long since disappeared, with your displays of closed-minded ignorance.
: Of course you hope I'd go away, because I expose your cluelessness.
: If you don't wise up, in another couple decades you'll be too bankrupt
: to eat anything here on Earth.
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >Do you honestly believe that going into space is taking away resources
: >from others that need it? Please spell out thoughts on this?
: Do you honestly believe otherwise?
: It's not as if you find food for astronauts out there.
: Everything they need and use has to be brought with
: them and originates here on Earth.
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:24:00 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >The amount of which is arbitrary, and it doesn't include other
: >benefits, such as food stamps, other forms of assistance, etc.
: Yet even if it were arbitrary, or the amounts of other forms
: of aid were relatively substantial (they're not), the fact remains
: that more people are being forced to get by with less.
: You don't solve that problem by stealing resources from them
: to joyride around in space.
: >And yet, they're still better off than in the past.
: That's not substantiated. I've pointed out that many of them
: don't live at all, and those who do are positioned in greater
: proximity to severely-damaging pollutants, with lesser access
: to healthcare for the illnesses which result from that and the
: increasingly non-nourishing sustenance available to them.
: >What a stupid statement.
: I've stated only facts. It's a real shame for you that you
: consider reality to be 'stupid', but it's quite predictable,
: considering the concept of projection.
: http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/poverty100504.cfm
: There's some more reality ...
: >You're obviously unfamiliar with the state of the air and water in
: >London a couple centuries ago.
: While some pollution has been alleviated, other forms of
: pollution have in fact worsened.
: http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2003/LINKS/Pollution/Pollution-Significant/
: >Cancer rates are up because people are living long enough to get
: >cancer,
: So why do you claim they're up among wildlife?
: You figure they'd be increasing their life spans, too?
: How do you care to explain the increases in human childhood cancers?
: "Since 1971 acute lymphocytic leukemia has increased by 62 percent,
: brain cancer by 50 percent, and the incidence of bone cancer is up by
: 40 percent. Testicular cancer, particularly in young men, has increased
: 300 percent. Breast cancer rates are an epidemic..."
: http://www.cancer-articles.com/cancer/cancer-articles/brain-cancer/brain-cancer-article-6853.html
: > instead of dying of all of the things for which we've come up
: >with cures.
: Such as AIDS?
: > Unfortunately, as you so amply demonstrate, we've not yet
: >come up with a cure for ignorance and stupidity.
: Yes, I have this bad habit of repeatedly pointing out the places
: wherein you have demonstrated your uncured ignorance and
: stupidity, including a brief mention of your employment of
: the ad hominem fallacy above.
: >...health-care plan simply didn't cover it.
: Perhaps if anyone cared they'd start a fund-drive for you.
: >...spammed the newsgroup ...I've ...
: You've been caught chock full 'o mistakes and you're not
: honest or brave enough to deal well with being corrected.
: No doubt you make all that noise as you run away.
: >*plonk*
: QED.
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:33:27 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >Because it's true?
: Is it? If it were, no doubt you could substantiate it.
: Here's a space reserved for you to do just that:
: [empty]
: >Only if you arbitrarily define poverty to make that the case true.
: Nonsense: the definition of poverty isn't arbitrary,
: it's a specific dollar amount for a specific number
: of people in a household.
: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/papers/orshansky.html
: There are also more people going without healthcare
: in the USA now, too, as a percentage of the population.
: >People at all levels are living much better than they did a few
: >decades ago.
: I've already supplied links which would help you dispel
: your erroneous notions, were you sufficiently confident
: to have a look at them.
: It's obviously untrue for the many in the USA who are
: forced into bankruptcy for medical problems, for but
: one example.
: Those many whose jobs have been outsourced also
: don't qualify as "living much better", either.
: >People in "poverty" in America live better than royalty
: >a few hundred years ago.
: Actually, many of the poor don't live at all.
: http://www.europaworld.org/week195/poor81004.htm
: Those who do survive are subjected to pollution of a
: nature never before seen in history:
: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/sustainable_development/pollution_and_poverty/
: Cancer rates are up, and less treatment is available to
: those who don't have healthcare, too.
: >By your idiot logic, heavier-than-air flight is impossible because
: >Samual Langley's aerodrome failed.
: That's just your strawman, and not anything I've said.
: I've never ignored, much less disputed, the models of
: scientific thought here.
: You, however, have. You want to believe you could
: somehow create sustenance from materials which are
: not shown to be useful toward that purpose.
: >...wasted bandwidth ...
: >... cowardly illogical troll ...
: Obviously you want to do all that namecalling because
: you're afraid to deal with your own ignorance as has
: been exposed by my relevant, ontopic articles.
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:24:02 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >...nutbaggery ...
: That's all you have, when you try to pretend humans
: should colonize extra-terrestrial locations.
: >... it's only because there are more people
: >now. The percentage of the population in that state is the lowest
: >it's ever been in the history of the world.
: Why would anyone believe that?
: Hint: the percentage of Americans in poverty is
: increasing, as a matter of fact.
: That right there blows your claim out of the water.
: >Which has zero relevance to anything in particular.
: Actually, the fact that the Biosphere projects didn't
: work here on Earth is quite relevant to the fact that
: there's no way they'd suddenly work on the moon,
: or anywhere else.
: >Since few people think ...
: That's why so many are careless about throwing away
: the resources we should sustain here on Earth.
: >When there was a single attempt and a single failure
: That's not the case with the Biosphere projects. Why
: do you feel compelled to attempt to expound on a
: subject of which you are ignorant?
: >We do know how to do it properly here.
: Why would anyone imagine that?
: The term "properly" doesn't include wastage of resources
: which are irreplacable, nor pollution of the environment.
: >... illogical nutbaggery ...
: What a shame that's all you have.
: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:27:05 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote:
: >No, you know nothing of the kind. Life has been surviving "properly"
: >for four billion years
: Give or take a few mass extinctions ...
: >and humans have been surviving just fine since
: Not considering that we're becoming more diseased
: and wasting more of our resources just to maintain
: a substandard quality of life for most of our population ...
: >...We're
: >continuing to survive just fine.
: Actually, we're throwing away topsoil, and, more critically,
: potable water that we can't afford to lose in the long term.
: More people are poor, hungry, and diseased now.
: http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc325.html
: >Now, if you want to make an argument that we're at risk of *not*
: >surviving the next century or two, that would be at least a sensible
: >argument to have. But to argue that we *can't* survive "properly"
: >(whatever that means) is either an empty statement, or an obviously
: >false one.
: I've already mentioned that the Biosphere projects failed.
: Those who want to believe that we can just throw the
: Earth away and do without are the ones who aren't
: doing the thinking they should.
: >... Indeed, it may well be learning to live and
: >work in space, and manage our artificial biospheres there, that enables
: >us to best steward the Earth's ecosystem (or economy or whatever else it
: >is you feel we're not doing "properly" for our survival here).
: When you can't do a biosphere here, there's no logical
: reason to believe you'd suddenly manage to do one
: in space, though.
: >... Living and thriving in space does not require planets, let
: >alone the sort of planets I think you mean by "suitable."
: Why would anyone believe that?
: >It requires
: >raw materials (various elements in easily-accessed forms and locations,
: >ideally not at the bottom of a steep gravity well) and energy. Both are
: >abundant in the solar system.
: It requires more than that - without, for example, green
: plants, there's nothing for humans to eat, and they starve.
: >...First, nobody advocating space colonization supports "throwing
: >your home away."
: In reality, we're throwing it away regardless of the idea
: of space colonization, wrt soil and water supplies.
: When it becomes too contaminated to support our life,
: that's throwing it away, too.
: >The Earth will be here for billions of years, will
: >most likely always have billions of people on it for millenia to come,
: >and will hopefully always have a vibrant ecosystem.
: Nice fantasy - ever done anything toward making it real,
: besides waste scarce resources and create pollution?
: > Indeed, many space
: >enthusiasts are environmentalists who recognize that development of
: >off-world resources is the best way to reduce the strain of humanity on
: >the Earth.
: Name one.
: >Second, nobody's looking for a replacement for Earth, or advocating the
: >wholesale exodus of humanity from Earth to some other place. That idea
: >would be ridiculous.
: That's been done right here on the Usenet, but I grant that
: if you've not been around long you wouldn't know it.
: >Rather, what's needed is a spreading out, so that
: >we don't have all of humanity in one all-to-easily extinguished place.
: >This is just simple common sense.
: What's really needed is the ability to make do properly with
: less waste and spread.
: It helps avoid slaughtering off the indigenous cultures, too.
: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002047307_sprawl27.html
: >You are making unsupportable assertions which are, in fact, quite false.
: Correction: every assertion I make is already supported by
: known facts.
: >It is very possible to do it sustainable elsewhere. There's nothing
: >magical about recycling or growing crops.
: On the moon? On Mars?
: >...Humans couldn't colonize high latitudes of Earth
: >until they'd developed the technology of clothing. Humans couldn't
: >colonize space until they'd developed the technology of air recycling.
: >We now have that technology (along with others that are needed), so we
: >can now colonize space just as we can (thanks to clothing) colonize the
: >tundra.
: That's a non sequitur, but you won't know why.
: There's more to extra-terrestrial survival than that.
: >Sure there is. "Suitable" is defined as one in which we can live, given
: >the technology available. Northern latitudes were not suitable to
: >humans running around naked with wooden spears. Space is not suitable
: >to humans lacking the technology to travel and live in space. We have
: >that technology now; so space is now a suitable environment for us.
: Why would anyone believe that we'd have the
: 'technology' to produce air, water, or food, in
: space, when we don't even know how to do
: that properly here, where it's so much easier?
: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:58:44 +0000 (UTC), echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko)
: wrote:
: >You are the modern day version of the Wright Bros critics, "if man were
: >meant to fly, then God would have given him wings".
: No, I'm not. I don't doubt that you could spend
: more than you can afford to play in space.
: I know for a fact that you can't survive properly
: here, and that you won't be able to do so on any
: other planet if you don't learn how on the one
: that spawned you.
: You, in fact, are the one clipping your own wings.
: You're insisting that sustainable life can't be done.
: You want to keep using up resources when if you
: had some sense you'd sustain your lifestyle.
: >As someone else stated, not expanding our habitat off the earth is
: >suicide.
: Actually, the expectation that another suitable planet
: awaits is ludicrous.
: You can't even deal properly with this one, and that's
: your suicide.
: >In short, to survive, it MUST be done...
: You are mistaken. To survive, you'll need to quit
: throwing your home away as you pretend there'd
: somehow be a replacement waiting.
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:44:26 GMT, "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote:
: > Breathable "air" is not separate from its atomic makeup. Nor is any
: >environment separate from its atomic makeup. We can already manipulate the
: >atomic, now, and we will do it on much grander scales in outer space. We've
: >done it for thousands of years to some degree, raising that degree by many
: >orders of magnitude in the last little more than half a century. In getting
: >so far into the micro-universe as we have we'd better get into the
: >macro-universe for a balance weight (so to speak). Believing we can
: >maintain, and even evolve and grow, the imbalance in place is sheer suicidal
: >arrogance on our part.
: >
: >Brad
: Do you have any idea what's required to provide air, water, and food to humans?
: We don't even do that particularly well or efficiently here.
: You have no possible way of doing it sustainably elsewhere.
: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:29:31 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: >...People could just wander up from Africa, into a glacial
: >period or up into the tundra, with no technology ...
: Wow, another straw man. Even the coldest tundra
: has air humans can breathe, or hadn't you noticed?
: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:09:01 GMT, Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >This explains so much. You think ...
: Why don't you?
: In the 'cave' example, in each case there's a suitable
: environment awaiting. In that of space, there isn't.
: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:20:14 GMT, "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote:
: > You shouldn't leave a cave until you've first figured out how to live
: >properly inside the cave into perpetuity. You should never leave an
: >island.... You should never a room.... You should never leave an area.....
: You don't know why that's just a straw man, do you.
: If your species is hellbent on destroying its environment
: rather than preserving it, it doesn't deserve to have any
: other environments to damage.
: > ...Minds are growing
: >more puny by the minute. People are growing less discerning, more
: >thoughtless, more stupid, more unwise, and more suicidal, by the minute.
: Speak for yourself. Those of us who are not suffering
: from the impairments you have know that we must learn
: how to live properly here before we have any business
: going anywhere else.
: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:12:43 GMT, Roy Stogner <roystgnrNO@SPAMices.utexas.edu> wrote:
: >Are you posting from near Olduvai Gorge?
: No, but that'd still beat posting from "Planet Pollyanna".
: >... it's [sic] biological homelands.
: You realize that you can't get even the 'biosphere' idea to work, don't you?
: Apparently not ...
: >... to expand to new territories ...
: You really shouldn't try to go to places which won't sustain your life
: when you can't figure out how to manage in places which would.
: >... I think ...
: Not if you don't realize that you can't begin to afford your 'Star-Trek'
: fantasies, you don't ...
: On 11 Mar 2005 16:38:30 -0800, "Jordan" <JSBassior2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >... to colonize the Solar System...
: How very silly: humans haven't even figured out
: how to live properly on earth, the one planet
: that tends to favor their existence.
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Previous message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Maybe in reply to: *: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Next in thread: Eric Chomko: "Re: Spacey Ambitions - They're KIDDING, Right ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
