Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alexander Jenisch <night@********.CO.AT>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:09:58 +0200
Geoff Morochnick wrote:
> I had been reading an article about overcrowding, and supposedly, if everyone
> in the world lived in a population density roughly equal to a nice, sprawling US
> suburb, the world population could fit into Europe. Figure in that there's gotta
> be some room that are totally uninhabitable (e.g.: mountainous cliffs) and
> technically, you could cram everyone in a relatively spacious population density
> a few thousand times more than we have now.
>
> --
> G.I. Morochnick

Okay, first of all I'd to fix something. As for I thought you all mean
1*10^9 (1 with 9 '0') with billion and not 1*10^6 (one million->European
norm), I thought of much more people.

I do not agree with that article you've read. Where would you put
nature? I mean the human way of living isn't a WITH, more a NEXT or
AGAINST nature. Controlling (her?) it is our aim but not to reachable is
it. I wonder how long it takes till everything comes back. It wouldn't
be rage. I would only be a balancing of energy that was first taken
away.

I think there is a simple formula of living: The more people the less
for all (and the most for the fewest)!

The need of an expansion into space is an evolutional urge! Encountering
new terretories, new places to live. What would happen if earth isn't
able to breath anymore? Then it would be too late thinking about going
into space.

>>>IMO<<<
NT
Message no. 2
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:20:31 -0400
> I do not agree with that article you've read. Where would you put
> nature? I mean the human way of living isn't a WITH, more a NEXT or
> AGAINST nature. Controlling (her?) it is our aim but not to reachable is
> it. I wonder how long it takes till everything comes back. It wouldn't
> be rage. I would only be a balancing of energy that was first taken
> away.

I don't believe the article I read had anything to do with a communal living with
nature... but as to your point abot where we'd put nature, well... I think that there
are many people out there who would prefer to have children than to have nature. We
don't totally control nature, perhaps, but we do a damn good job of it. There are
humans living on every corner of the earth, and there are no major human predators...
only something like VITAS, but ten times worse, would remove humanity from masters of
nature.

>
>
> I think there is a simple formula of living: The more people the less
> for all (and the most for the fewest)!
>

I never said life would be pleasant for the masses, or that there'd be enough
resources to go around, only that there'd be space for them.

> The need of an expansion into space is an evolutional urge! Encountering
> new terretories, new places to live. What would happen if earth isn't
> able to breath anymore? Then it would be too late thinking about going
> into space.
>

Expansion into space is not an evolutional urge, expansion into space is a dream. The
evolutional urge is to survive, and it is amazingly impractible to live on other
planets. Changing another planet to be suitable for our life would take millions of
years, or insanely advanced technology, and finding another planet within ten thousand
light-years or so would be quite suprising, and we cannot even travel at the speed of
life.

--
Stonebow
The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness.
By loudly denouncing all bad things-war and hunger and date
rape-liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important,
they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite
of those who care deeply about such things. . . . It's a kind of
natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy
is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky
to join it, you just have to be liberal.
--P. J. O'Rourke
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 3
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:14:05 -0400
>Expansion into space is not an evolutional urge, expansion into space is a
dream. The
>evolutional urge is to survive, and it is amazingly impractible to live on
other
>planets. Changing another planet to be suitable for our life would take
millions of
>years, or insanely advanced technology, and finding another planet within
ten thousand
>light-years or so would be quite suprising, and we cannot even travel at
the speed of
>life.

I don't think it is a dream. There are a hell of a lot of problems to deal
with right now, but the idea of going to the moon at all were pretty far
out there 35-40 years ago. Now with finding water on the moon, it does
become a lot easier to figure out. All the materials are out there right
now, its just a question of getting to them.

As to terraforming, right now one of the big scientific discussions taking
place is global warming, greenhouse effect and realated materials. If the
theories are right, and we could significantly change the
temperature/makeup of OUR atmosphere in about 100 years, why should it take
a million to change it to something we want. The biggest problem we have,
IF the facts are straight, is that we can't stop the causes of the problems
without seriously changing the way the world economy works. But if you can
change that another place, then you're not fighting yourself.

Sommers
Message no. 4
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:58:08 -0400
Alex van der Kleut wrote:

> >Expansion into space is not an evolutional urge, expansion into space is a
> dream. The
> >evolutional urge is to survive, and it is amazingly impractible to live on
> other
> >planets. Changing another planet to be suitable for our life would take
> millions of
> >years, or insanely advanced technology, and finding another planet within
> ten thousand
> >light-years or so would be quite suprising, and we cannot even travel at
> the speed of
> >life.
>
> I don't think it is a dream. There are a hell of a lot of problems to deal
> with right now, but the idea of going to the moon at all were pretty far
> out there 35-40 years ago. Now with finding water on the moon, it does
> become a lot easier to figure out. All the materials are out there right
> now, its just a question of getting to them.

What do you mean by all the materials are out there? I don't know of any, even
theoretical, ideas on how we can add a livable atmosphere to an existing
planet. Huge, air-tight domes (the only way -I- can think of having a
settlement on another planet that doens't have an atmosphere we cna handle)
would be too expensive to be feasible, and in addition, even a tiny crack in
the air containment structure would spell doom for the poor bums stranded
inside.

>
>
> As to terraforming, right now one of the big scientific discussions taking
> place is global warming, greenhouse effect and realated materials. If the
> theories are right, and we could significantly change the
> temperature/makeup of OUR atmosphere in about 100 years, why should it take
> a million to change it to something we want.

We have something to start with, ergo editing it is that much easier.What
atmosphere earth's moon has is miniscule, if any at all.

> Sommers



--
Stonebow
"Eateries that operate within the designated square downstairs
qualify as food court, anything operating outside the said
designated square is considered an autonomous unit for mid-mall
snacking."
Brodie, MallRats
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 5
From: Alexander Jenisch <night@********.CO.AT>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:16:39 +0200
Geoff Morochnick wrote:
>
> I don't believe the article I read had anything to do with a communal living with
> nature... but as to your point abot where we'd put nature, well... I think that there
> are many people out there who would prefer to have children than to have nature. We
> don't totally control nature, perhaps, but we do a damn good job of it. There are

I never said we control nature but we would like to.

> humans living on every corner of the earth, and there are no major human predators...
> only something like VITAS, but ten times worse, would remove humanity from masters of
> nature.
>
> I never said life would be pleasant for the masses, or that there'd be enough
> resources to go around, only that there'd be space for them.

But space should at least include some privacy. I mean, surely you can
dig a hole and pile up people there. They just won't like it. And that's
in fact the problem!

> Expansion into space is not an evolutional urge, expansion into space is a dream. The

Not at all. There are many theroies about colonizing the mars. Starting
on the moon as a space station for there is less gravity. Then terraform
Mars. Or Venus.

> evolutional urge is to survive, and it is amazingly impractible to live on other

I agree with you. But isn't colonizing the space the next step of
surviving? I mean as long as most of smoking people (as far as I know
them) throw away their left cigarette and say: 'It's but nothing!' I see
the need of expanding into space. :]

> planets. Changing another planet to be suitable for our life would take millions of
> years, or insanely advanced technology, and finding another planet within ten
thousand
> light-years or so would be quite suprising, and we cannot even travel at the speed of
> life.

No, it would not take millions of years and technology will insanely
advance. I'm sure of that. It's (IMHO) the human way. Faster, easier,
better.

Got no faith in science ? ;)

NT
---------------------------------

Is there really a matter of time?

---------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:23:13 -0400
>What do you mean by all the materials are out there? I don't know of any,
even
>theoretical, ideas on how we can add a livable atmosphere to an existing
>planet. Huge, air-tight domes (the only way -I- can think of having a
>settlement on another planet that doens't have an atmosphere we cna handle)
>would be too expensive to be feasible, and in addition, even a tiny crack in
>the air containment structure would spell doom for the poor bums stranded
>inside.

Sorry, what I meant was the potential building materials are out there.
With water recently discovered on the moon, there is potential to produce
both water and oxygen for the first settlements. These would of course have
to be domes, although its actually easier to build them underground. That
way you don't have to deal with a very big dome to protect, and you
compatmentalize it like submarines are.

There are also a lot of other types of building materials floating around
out there, in the asteroid field. Basically big floating rocks that could
be mined without fear of environmental impact. And the belt, moon, and Mars
for that matter are all within a relatively short distance, even with our
slow rockets.

>> As to terraforming, right now one of the big scientific discussions taking
>> place is global warming, greenhouse effect and realated materials. If the
>> theories are right, and we could significantly change the
>> temperature/makeup of OUR atmosphere in about 100 years, why should it take
>> a million to change it to something we want.
>
>We have something to start with, ergo editing it is that much easier.What
>atmosphere earth's moon has is miniscule, if any at all.

The moon does have a very slight atmosphere, but that wouldn't be a good
choice. Mars is better, but still a lot of work. Some of the better choices
are the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Europa and Titan both have a lot of
water, some kind of atosphere, and enough gravity to hold it. Either one
could conceivably be lived on in the future.

Now I'm not saying that this is going to happen ten years from now. But
think how far we've gone in the last 100 years. From the very first cars
(steam powered) in the 1890's to fuel cell prototypes today. Form hot air
balloons to sending probes outside of the solar system.

To bring it back to Shadowrun topic, there are a lot of references to
orbitals. A lot of them are going to be automated factories, basically
giant robots. But there are several living facilities, the 2 most famous
being Zurich orbital and Daedulus. There are more implied. And once you
have platforms in orbit, it makes it much more effiecient for the corps to
build systems to go to the moon and asteroids, for instance. A lot of
reserach would go on up there, both for the unique environment and the
security (we have to go HOW FAR to get that scientist???).

Sommers
Message no. 7
From: Geoff Morochnick <bodiam@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:45:22 -0400
Alexander Jenisch wrote:

> Geoff Morochnick wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe the article I read had anything to do with a communal living
with
> > nature... but as to your point abot where we'd put nature, well... I think that
there
> > are many people out there who would prefer to have children than to have nature.
We
> > don't totally control nature, perhaps, but we do a damn good job of it. There
are
>
> I never said we control nature but we would like to.
>
> > humans living on every corner of the earth, and there are no major human
predators...
> > only something like VITAS, but ten times worse, would remove humanity from
masters of
> > nature.
> >
> > I never said life would be pleasant for the masses, or that there'd be enough
> > resources to go around, only that there'd be space for them.
>
> But space should at least include some privacy. I mean, surely you can
> dig a hole and pile up people there. They just won't like it. And that's
> in fact the problem!
>
> > Expansion into space is not an evolutional urge, expansion into space is a
dream. The
>
> Not at all. There are many theroies about colonizing the mars. Starting
> on the moon as a space station for there is less gravity. Then terraform
> Mars. Or Venus.

A space station on the moon is feasible, I suppose, though the cost of keeping it supplied
with food and other resources ( I suppose water and air could be recyled) would be
astronomical... but heyy... it can be done.

>
>
> > evolutional urge is to survive, and it is amazingly impractible to live on other
>
> I agree with you. But isn't colonizing the space the next step of
> surviving? I mean as long as most of smoking people (as far as I know
> them) throw away their left cigarette and say: 'It's but nothing!' I see
> the need of expanding into space. :]
>
> > planets. Changing another planet to be suitable for our life would take millions
of
> > years, or insanely advanced technology, and finding another planet within ten
thousand
> > light-years or so would be quite suprising, and we cannot even travel at the
speed of
> > life.
>
> No, it would not take millions of years and technology will insanely
> advance. I'm sure of that. It's (IMHO) the human way. Faster, easier,
> better.

However much technology advances, I'm not sure about it's being able to speed up the
process
significantly of turning a planet with a disgustingly heavy atmosphere and even hotter
weather into something we could survive on. -Maybe-... just -maybe- Mars could be done...
it
does have an atmoshphere of sorts, and I guess that atmosphere could be changed... though
I'm not sure where'd we'd get the necessary gas.... but whatever the case, altering the
soil
and atmosphere of an entire planet would take several centuries...

>
>
> Got no faith in science ? ;)

I've some faith in science... I just don't think it will continue to exponentialy
expand...
and I don't beleive in the all-powerfulness of technology. All roads have an end. :)

>
>
> NT



--
Stonebow
"My true friends have always given me that supreme
proof of devotion, a spontaneous aversion for
the [one] I loved."
Sidonie Gabrielle Colette
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427
Message no. 8
From: Alexander Jenisch <night@********.CO.AT>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 01:28:34 +0200
Geoff Morochnick wrote:
>
> A space station on the moon is feasible, I suppose, though the cost of keeping it
supplied
> with food and other resources ( I suppose water and air could be recyled) would be
> astronomical... but heyy... it can be done.

I think concerning food genetics comes into play. Why shouldn't you able
to 'make' food on a moon station? IIRC there are quite a lot of ores on
the moon and water to. And there are many plans of making a spaceships
that could easily land and take off like a normal airoplanes. On the
moon it would be quite easier. Water is (not proofen yet) there, I
think.

> However much technology advances, I'm not sure about it's being able to speed up the
process
> significantly of turning a planet with a disgustingly heavy atmosphere and even
hotter
> weather into something we could survive on. -Maybe-... just -maybe- Mars could be
done... it
> does have an atmoshphere of sorts, and I guess that atmosphere could be changed...
though
> I'm not sure where'd we'd get the necessary gas.... but whatever the case, altering
the soil
> and atmosphere of an entire planet would take several centuries...

I've read a (more or less) theoretical book about terraforming. There it
says you can build up small atomic plants for chemistry factories that
pump CF3 and SOF6 into the atomsphere to create a greenhouse effect that
should heat the planet and melt the frozen water to create 02. And so
on. There are many other (possible) things to do too to fasten the
process.

> I've some faith in science... I just don't think it will continue to exponentialy
expand...
> and I don't beleive in the all-powerfulness of technology. All roads have an end. :)
> Stonebow

So then my road seems a bit longer than yours. :)


NT
-----------------------------------

Darkness is just abscnece of light!

-----------------------------------
Message no. 9
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:52:32 +0000
> I think concerning food genetics comes into play. Why shouldn't you able
> to 'make' food on a moon station? IIRC there are quite a lot of ores on
> the moon and water to. And there are many plans of making a spaceships
> that could easily land and take off like a normal airoplanes. On the

Umm...what does this have to do with food genetics? Genetics won't
let you wave your hands and summon food....it still needs to grow.

> moon it would be quite easier. Water is (not proofen yet) there, I
> think.

Nope, they just settled the question (Cassini?)...there are (limited)
deposits of ice surrounding/in some crators. If it is of any use is
the new question.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 10
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:39:01 -0300
Brett Borger escreveu:
>
> > I think concerning food genetics comes into play. Why shouldn't you able
> > to 'make' food on a moon station? IIRC there are quite a lot of ores on
> > the moon and water to. And there are many plans of making a spaceships
> > that could easily land and take off like a normal airoplanes. On the
>
> Umm...what does this have to do with food genetics? Genetics won't
> let you wave your hands and summon food....it still needs to grow.

I think the moon's soil is good enough to accept plants growing on
it. The only problem is tha atmosphere and water, wich could be
provided.

>
> AAP Techie

Ubiratan
Message no. 11
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:29:21 +0100
And verily, did Ubiratan P. Alberton hastily scribble thusly...
| I think the moon's soil is good enough to accept plants growing on
|it. The only problem is tha atmosphere and water, wich could be
|provided.

Also required would be oeganic matter in the soil (to bind it and supply
fertility), anaerobic bacteria, and nitrates.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 12
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:42:10 -0500
>
>> However much technology advances, I'm not sure about it's being able to
speed up the process
>> significantly of turning a planet with a disgustingly heavy atmosphere
and even hotter
>> weather into something we could survive on. -Maybe-... just -maybe- Mars
could be done... it
>> does have an atmoshphere of sorts, and I guess that atmosphere could be
changed... though
>> I'm not sure where'd we'd get the necessary gas.... but whatever the
case, altering the soil
>> and atmosphere of an entire planet would take several centuries...
>
>I've read a (more or less) theoretical book about terraforming. There it
>says you can build up small atomic plants for chemistry factories that
>pump CF3 and SOF6 into the atomsphere to create a greenhouse effect that
>should heat the planet and melt the frozen water to create 02. And so
>on. There are many other (possible) things to do too to fasten the
>process.

Hum I wonder if you could g-engineer a micro-organism to do this. Nah
you'd have better luck getting the sulfter and CO2 out of venuses
atmosphere. Of course you'd still have to lock away a good portion of the
atmosphere and I expect at some point you'd probably need nanotech to take
care of the sulfer on the ground. Of course the real problem is speading
the planet up...

SteveD
>
>> I've some faith in science... I just don't think it will continue to
exponentialy expand...
>> and I don't beleive in the all-powerfulness of technology. All roads
have an end. :)
>> Stonebow
>
>So then my road seems a bit longer than yours. :)
>
>
> NT
>-----------------------------------
>
>Darkness is just abscnece of light!
>
>-----------------------------------
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 13
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space)
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:45:51 -0300
Spike escreveu:
>
> And verily, did Ubiratan P. Alberton hastily scribble thusly...
> | I think the moon's soil is good enough to accept plants growing on
> |it. The only problem is tha atmosphere and water, wich could be
> |provided.
>
> Also required would be oeganic matter in the soil (to bind it and supply
> fertility), anaerobic bacteria, and nitrates.
>

Oops, had forgot that. This can be brought from Earth too, with the
first
plants. After a while, they'll start being naturally produced.

Ubiratan

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT] Just space needed? (was: Mages and Space), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!