Subject: Re: Email Energy Support

From: [email-masked] (Paul Hounsell)
Date: 7 Mar 1995 11:30:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

[...]
>Don't you mean the *rate of progress*? Life expectanccy
>worldwide is growing by *several months each year*;
>other relevant indicators of progress all confirm
>that. Yet you believe, stubbornly, in *decay*. 
>
>That was my question: whatever
>makes one want to believe that, against the obvious facts?.

	Maybe because 1 in 3 babies (US and other "rich" 
countries) are born in families below the poverty line. 
Life expectancy is a measure of what was happening 3/4
of century ago or whatever the average life expectancy is.
Life expectancy should increase for the next 50 to 70
years and then it will decrease as the children being born
into poverty start dying early. Childhood health has a large 
effect on life expectancy. As the spread of wealth between 
rich and poor increase this will adversely affect your LE
(life expectancy) since rich people have fewer children
than poor and the since LE is an average then it will be 
brought down by all those poor people dying young. 
	ASIDE: Please note I am not in anyway a socialist, 
I believe that people should work for a living. I just 
think that some times they may need a hand. I am bothered 
by the rabbid capitalists who believe any interference of 
the survival of the economical fittest is either the work
of the deranged socialist or worst communist. There are 
other reasons for wanting to help those who are not as
fortunate as your self. I refer you to Aesop's fable 
about the lion and the mouse.

	Easter island is a good example of what lack of
foresight can cause. All the trees on the island was cut
down and the poepl there were much poorer off because of it.
The trouble is today, we can do the same to the whole planet.
We should stop to think about what we are doing and plan 
ahead. A little fore thought now will save us and our 
decendents a lot of trouble later. This of course 
assumes you are the type who are concerned about your 
decendents. We have been spending our future reserves to
live high on the hog. Both financially and ecologically.
If we want to stretch the margins we can ignore the problem
for a century or so but when the problems come then look out!
If we destory all non-human life on this planet then we 
are selves will die. Nature cares only about life not 
necessarily human life. We are and will continue to see more
"new" diseases as nature tries to restore the balance. I
was just reading that some people were planning to experiemnt
by putting the aids virus rna into the flu virus. Do we
really need to be able to catch aids as easy as the flu.
I think that this sort of thing needs to be thought about 
before we do it. Ooops is too late.

	We can progress to the stars but not at the rate
of destruction and waste that has been going on. We are
absolutely going to need this planet for a while to come
and long before we get off this planet we will be in deathly
trouble if we do not take a close look at what we are doing 
and why. We should ask our selves can we do this better without
as much waste or destruction. Do we really need to clear cut the
tropical forest to make chipboard for furniture? By simply
cutting areas less than 0ne square kilometer the forest can 
recover. By eating iguana instead of beef we can slow down
the sorch and burn farming practises. 

	New ecoligical slogan say it loud say it proud

	SAVE THE RAIN FOREST EAT IGUANA NOT BEEF!!!

	Later I hope
	Paul
-- 
=======================================================================
 Paul Hounsell                      |disclaimer: 
 Joensuu University Language Center |   Of course I have opinions, I am 
 Joensuu Finland                    |   just not responsible for them
 [email-masked]             |   and neither is anybody else!
=======================================================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas J. Frieling)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:45:04 eastern

>countries) are born in families below the poverty line. 

You miss the point here:  It's not that these babies are born into poor 
*families* that puts them below the poverty line. It's that they aren't born 
into families at all (at least in the US) . 

As Charles Murray points out, illegitamacy is the number one social problem in 
the US because it drives all the rest--unemployment, crime, low educational 
achievemnt, low labor force participation, and so on. 

Current rates:  Whites:  22% Blacks: 68%.  Total= 30% 
(source Statistical Abstract of ther US 1994, Table 100. Latest year figures 
available--1991) Trendline?  Up and up.

So what's this got to do with space?  Let's see in the federal budget you've 
got programs to attack these social problems--AFDC: $25 billion/yr, Food 
stamps, a like figure. Medicaid, HUD housing and on and on. 

Lot of big federal programs, lots of big tax dollars. And are these big bucks 
making the problems get better? 

And with so many children in poverty, can we morally spend billions on going 
back to the moon? 

This would be the moral high groud against which it would be difficult to 
argue except for the fact that the existance of these programs is actually 
exacerbating the problems they intent to correct. 

Solutions?  First, start by removing the cash incentives from the system. 

That's the conservative view.  Now back to space topics...

---

From: [email-masked] (Travis Wheatley)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:39:46 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Thomas J. Frieling) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Paul Hounsell) writes:
|> 
|> >        Maybe because 1 in 3 babies (US and other "rich" 
|> >countries) are born in families below the poverty line. 
|> 
|> You miss the point here:  It's not that these babies are born into poor 
|> *families* that puts them below the poverty line. It's that they aren't born 
|> into families at all (at least in the US) . 
|> 
|> As Charles Murray points out, illegitamacy is the number one social problem in 
|> the US because it drives all the rest--unemployment, crime, low educational 
|> achievemnt, low labor force participation, and so on. 
|> 
|> Current rates:  Whites:  22% Blacks: 68%.  Total= 30% 
|> (source Statistical Abstract of ther US 1994, Table 100. Latest year figures 
|> available--1991) Trendline?  Up and up.
|> 
|> So what's this got to do with space?  Let's see in the federal budget you've 
|> got programs to attack these social problems--AFDC: $25 billion/yr, Food 
|> stamps, a like figure. Medicaid, HUD housing and on and on. 
|> 
|> Lot of big federal programs, lots of big tax dollars. And are these big bucks 
|> making the problems get better? 
|> 
|> And with so many children in poverty, can we morally spend billions on going 
|> back to the moon? 
|> 
|> This would be the moral high groud against which it would be difficult to 
|> argue except for the fact that the existance of these programs is actually 
|> exacerbating the problems they intent to correct. 
|> 
|> Solutions?  First, start by removing the cash incentives from the system. 
|> 
|> That's the conservative view.  Now back to space topics... 

I agree with your suggestion for a solution. However, I can't help but putting
in my $.02 here.

How can we justify spending big tax $$$ on space when we have an unemployment
and poverty problem? IMHO, the answer is comes in two parts.

1) Providing jobs in the space industry will serve to offset the large amount
of defense related jobs that have gone down the tubes as a result of recent
cuts in defense spending. It's true that a space program will not provide
jobs for all of the unemployed. However, it can provide a wide range of jobs
(everything from engineers to custodians) that would otherwise not be 
available. Further, at least the taxpayers get *something* for their money.

2) A large part of the unemployment/poverty problem (once again IMHO) is
due to overpopulation combined with limited resources. Space related development
may provide some answers for these problems in at least two ways. Firstly, many 
technologies developed for space related use can be applied on earth to raise 
the standard of living for us all. For example, development of a reliable,
clean, renewable energy source that is suitable for a space colony might be
able to be adapted to earth use. Secondly, the resources of this planet are 
limited and our population is increasing at an alarming rate. Laying the 
groundwork for future colinization of space would at least give us a place
to expand to when the resources on earth run out.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Travis R. Wheatley   | The opinions expressed herein are my own and do
[email-masked] | not represent those of anyone else in particular.
===========================================================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Herman Rubin)
Date: 9 Mar 1995 08:46:49 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
Mike Jensen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Travis Wheatley ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: How can we justify spending big tax $$$ on space when we have an unemployment
>: and poverty problem? IMHO, the answer is comes in two parts.

>: 1) Providing jobs in the space industry will serve to offset the large amount
>: of defense related jobs that have gone down the tubes as a result of recent
>: cuts in defense spending. It's true that a space program will not provide
>: jobs for all of the unemployed. However, it can provide a wide range of jobs
>: (everything from engineers to custodians) that would otherwise not be 
>: available. Further, at least the taxpayers get *something* for their money.

>Hey.. kinda a strange thought here.. but how's about this idea.. 

>Take all the engineers/science types on welfare.. (there ARE some
>I'm sure..).. offer them twice the normal welfare payments, in trade
>for 20 hours a week working for NASA.. :) You'd get more people to
>do the work that needs to be done, you'd have cheaper personnel
>costs for the projects, and you'd be giving those out of work
>people some practical experience with which to look for other 
>jobs..

This is not the problem.  There are more than enough engineers working
on the problem, but quite possibly not enough scientists and real 
designers.  One problem is that the best people for advancing space
research get into management, where their research abilities are lost.

The "information superhighway" is a narrow dirt road with lots of 
potholes, and these engineers will almost need to have access to 
the aerospace facilities.  And what is to be done about experimentation
which requires equipment?  Suppose an engineering genius comes up with
a possible way to get things into space cheaply, but which may or may
not work out?  Fusion energy was only 10 years away 40 years ago.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Communist China is technologically underdeveloped because they have no
>alphabet and therefore cannot use acronyms to communicate ideas at a 
>faster rate. -- Omni
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may have been a joke, but a native Chinese knowing a reasonable
amount of {English, French, German, Russian} can often figure out a
new word more easily in that language than in Chinese.

>[email-masked] / [email-masked]

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
[email-masked] (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!a.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave Bass)
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 11:01:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (jw) writes:
[munch]

> I confess I simply can't understand people who talk of
> the survival of the human race as something hardly desirable.
> I try hard to grasp their point of view, but I fail.
> Would they save a drowning child?
> Do they disapprove of Hitler's Holocaust? 
> 

Do they have kids?

I met a man once who expressed a desire to 'write himself out of the 
gene pool' - presumably because he had a miserable life.
-- 
David Bass,  ESTEC/YCV, Postbus 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
#include std_disclaimer

---

From: [email-masked] (Philip Young)
Date: 6 Apr 1995 15:37:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Harry H Conover) opines:

|> Len Lekx ([email-masked]) wrote:
|> 
|> :     It all depends on how you define your "end".  MY end is 'The Immortality
|> : of Humanity' - thus the means are expansion into space.
|> 
|> Why do you believe that Humanity deserves immortality any more than 
|> the species that preceded it?  Frankly, if immortality is ever achieved, 
|> I'd prefer it to be done by something considerably more advanced and  
|> deserving than Man who, at this juncture, remains little more than a 
|> cunning and inventive savage.

What does "deserves" have to do with it?  The relevant factors are
perspective, ability, application and natural constraints (laws of
physics).  Your misanthropic whinings, and the implication that
there's an objective, external morality against which our species is
collectively to be judged (by whom?), would induce a severe case of
ROTFL, except that it's politically incorrect to deride mental illness.

So you would judge us all, and doom us to universal isolation and
death?  God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for a handful of
righteous men.  Is there not such a handful today in your terms?
Even without, He spared Lot ... and the reputation of the God of
the OT is not exactly bleeding heart.  Yet you, who are (presumably)
one of us, don't even have His smidgeon of compassion for your own
people.

Now, I *know* I'm dealing in allegories here. Don't impute the 
presence or absence of any theological outlook, or use this as an
excuse to avoid the conclusion that your philosophical position is
bigoted, cruel and loveless.  Is that how you see yourself, or are
you smugly superior, the one Righteous Man, the Lot of our time?

Anyone for salt?  
 
-- 
Philip R. Young					[email-masked]

theoreticians have come up with a whole bunch of explanations, some of
them could even be true.                                -- Marc Bellon

---

From: Azeez Hayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Apr 1995 06:37:16 GMT

Thanks for that entertaining post, if you hadn't done it, then I would 
have. I rather think that humanity should go for immortality because we 
are all(I think :^)) _Homo_Sapiens_Sapiens_, oh yeah, and pretty much 
because that's what all species do according to evolutionary theory.

---

From: [email-masked] (Pamm McFadden)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:30:48 GMT

Hello everyone,

I though you might be interested in this announcement.

SOLAR '95   The National Solar Energy Conference

sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society

Solar '95 will celebrate the rich history of American Solar Energy Society Conferences.  This is the 20th anniversary of the first passive solar conference.
We also mark the 40th anniversary of the first solar society conference.
Solar '95 will focus on 10,000 Solutions: Paths to a Renewable Future.  In
Minnesota, the midwestern climate presents unique challenges to realizing a 
renewable energy future.  As we work toward this goal, experts from the 
midwest and around the world will share their experience in the Plenary
and Symposia Sessions.

The technical sessions include over 140 technical presentations chosen in
a rigorous review process by two program committees.  Thetechnical program will also include forums for audience participation, and hands-on demonstrations
of recently developed assessment technology.

There will also be tours and workshops.

For more information, contact:
	The American Solar  Energy Society
	2400 Cnetral, Unit G1
	(opps, I can't go back and edit - 2400 Central)
	Boulder, CO 80301
	(303) 443 3130    phone
	(303) 443 3212    fax
	[email-masked]  email

Pamm

P.S. and let them know where you found out about the conference!