On 2002-05-28 12:53, SJ wrote:
Since we are on this topic, one of the ideas on the other thread (Invasions from China: Future) was a Chinese/U.S.-European space race.

Would we need the equivalent of a Chinese Sputnik (e.g. a Chinese moon-landing c. 2010) to energize space exploration?

I think that such an event will greatly help, but is not required.

On 2002-05-28 21:46, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-05-28 11:33, SJ wrote:

What a revitalized space program is most necessary for - why it is most important - is its psychological optimism.

Why do you think the gloom and doom types are so utterly opposed to a revitalized space program?

I have to agree with this too. I find that people who are truly anti-space (Brian is definitely not anti-space) tend to think that humans are evil, while those who are pro-spave tend to have a positive view of humanity. Arthur C. Clarke made the same observation some time ago.

On 2002-05-29 09:57, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-05-28 21:46, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-05-28 11:33, SJ wrote:

What a revitalized space program is most necessary for - why it is most important - is its psychological optimism.

Why do you think the gloom and doom types are so utterly opposed to a revitalized space program?

I have to agree with this too. I find that people who are truly anti-space (Brian is definitely not anti-space) tend to think that humans are evil, while those who are pro-spave tend to have a positive view of humanity. Arthur C. Clarke made the same observation some time ago.

Brian does represent something of a funny case though. He may be positive about space but he essentially says, "No, you are not allowed to journey beyond earth until you learn to put metals in their cute little container and plastics in theirs." Brian believes that man is destroying the earth's environment thereby destroying himself. Yet Brian would rather that man destroy himself here rather than save himself by expanding into space...IF he refuses to learn what Brian sees as the all-important ecological lesson. I find this attitude bizarre. Of course, if I have misinterpreted Brian, he should set me straight immediately. :wink:

Also, I tend to see very little difference between insisting that a serious space effort must wait until we have achieved a global Utopia, and calling for an outright (and permanent) ban on any such effort. To me, at least, the effect looks much the same.

On 2002-05-29 00:45, Eric A Meece wrote:
Well I think Robert's predictions are an excellent illustration of why it would be best to get it together on earth (as or before) we go into space. I'm not saying we shouldn't go. But we will probably just take our current immaturities with us.

Basically, I think that space development and Earth improvement will happen simultaneously. This can happen only if in this 4T, we reallocate our resources properly.

Will we take our immaturities with us? Yes. This was clearly seen in the European colonization of America. However, we will also bring the best with us. Likely, in the 1T, colonies will be mostly scientific and industrial, but the next 2T is when the fun starts. The onset of of the next 2T will likely be in the early 2040s, and technology will undoubtedly have advanced to a hitherto magical level. So with this new cultural explosion will come new social experiments. If racism isn't eradicated, there will be some colonies of hate, which would exclude certain ethnicities or races. There will be some anarchist colonies. There will likely be many Aquarian colonies. Perhaps, there will even be some transhumanist colonies. Basically, there will be many, many different types of colonies with different cultures and world views.

Remember too that, as far as inspiring the people goes, it didn't work before. Kennedy had people interested for a while, but other concerns came along and that was that. Space is not something that will really hold the interests of the masses. A new religious awakening, and artistic expressions, can, do, and always have. And these things are what are remembered and valued from past civilizations. Why do Americans, and T4T readers, seem so blind to this fact? That is the question in my mind.

Apollo collapsed because of its goals and methods, and because it was largely a 2T phenomenon. First of all, the Moon landings were regarded as a short-term,dead-end political goal, whose only purpose was to beat the Russians and prove the superiority of capitalism. Space exploration and colonization is a secular goal. And remember that during 2Ts, spiritual goals take precedence over secular goals. Also, Nixon killed Apollo because it was a Democratic program. In the early 1970s, when the 2T climaxed, America hadn't yet developed a permanent national space infrastructure. The next 2T will not climax until after 2050. That is plenty of time to build an infrastructure. Space is most likely to hold the largest interest near the climax of the 4T, and up to the climax of the 2T. If, by that time, there is a reliable and cheap space infrastructure, space colonization will not wane, but accelerate during the 2T. Many Millies will build elder communities in space, while many 16ers will build new social experiments in space. Wherever there is a reliable transportation infrastructure, there will be migration during a 2T. This was very apparent in the Puritan Awakening.

The answer to the last question may well be that T4T readers are attracted to the vision of the next "High" that the authors present, which is mostly a period of materialistic, technological and institutional success like the 1950s.

As a Millie, I have to admit that I am attracted to the 1T.

Campbell said that space could be inspirational and spiritual, yes; but only if it is "mythologized" in the way exemplified by Star Wars. It can help us perceive the world in larger ways, seeing the connections between "out there" and "in here". ("the laws of space are in our heads," he said). However, remember that he also said that a civilization focused on economics "looks like the end of the story, not the beginning," fully agreeing with the comments I and the authors Tim quoted made on the wheels within wheels thread.

I do not think that we need to worry about this. Both are needed to successfully colonize a frontier. Inevitably, there will be many new "mythologies" and cultures in space.

I would think one of the benefits of a renewed and energized space program would be technological advances that could save or at least ameliorate our environmental situation. All sorts of new things were born as a result of the initial '60's space program, especially in miniaturization, now being called nanotechnology. But who knows what discoveries will be possible unless the push is made?

But in some cases the technology is already here for an environmental clean-up: I remember an NPR report some years ago about a scientist (at Carnegie-Mellon or Penn State maybe?)who could take any toxic chemical, no matter how long the formula, and break it back down into its basic elements by melting it in a centrifuge filled with liquid steel. Even nuclear waste could be handled this way.

So what's happened? It's just easier and cheaper not to do the competent, moral thing: status-quo thinking lets the status quo survive.

That's another reason why a space program is needed: shake everyone up and open new pathways for ideas that should be enacted.

On 2002-05-29 10:23, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Brian does represent something of a funny case though. He may be positive about space but he essentially says, "No, you are not allowed to journey beyond earth until you learn to put metals in their cute little container and plastics in theirs." Brian believes that man is destroying the earth's environment thereby destroying himself. Yet Brian would rather that man destroy himself here rather than save himself by expanding into space...IF he refuses to learn what Brian sees as the all-important ecological lesson. I find this attitude bizarre. Of course, if I have misinterpreted Brian, he should set me straight immediately. :wink:

:lol:
Are you throwing a gauntlet? :wink:

Robert's argument above actually outlines while not mentioning one *major* reason for a sustained space effort, of the sort he describes. That is in order to get at least some of our species' eggs out of their single current planetary basket. Thus, not only would humanity have a better chance of surviving the next 4T than we do this one, but we would also be less vulnerable as a species to extinction by asteroid or comet impact(which could happen at any given time).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-05-29 10:52 ]</font>

On 2002-05-29 10:39, walterhoch wrote:
But in some cases the technology is already here for an environmental clean-up: I remember an NPR report some years ago about a scientist (at Carnegie-Mellon or Penn State maybe?)who could take any toxic chemical, no matter how long the formula, and break it back down into its basic elements by melting it in a centrifuge filled with liquid steel. Even nuclear waste could be handled this way.

As a former physicist, I have to object to that bit about nuclear waste. That does NOT sound right.

It is true that applying extreme temperatures can break down hazadous chemicals into their component atoms. Similar suggestions involving plasma torches have been made. The process is expensive, however, which is probably one of the reasons it isn't widely used.

I've been away from the field for a while, but as for radioactive nuclei, I would be surprised if merely applying heat at temperatures of liquid steel would eliminate the radioactivity.

Radioactive nuclei are unstable nuclei. They undergo nuclear reactions, breaking down, until all of the nuclei have reached a stable structure. Each reaction emits energetic particles (radiation) which can damage living cells.

I guess I could believe that heating the nuclei would make this process go faster, but not appreciably faster, not enough to make it worth it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 10:57 ]</font>

On 2002-05-29 09:14, firemind wrote:

The government during the Kennedy administration made very bad technical decisions for the sole purpose of beating the Russians to the Moon rather than opening a new frontier. That is why the momentum was lost.

Culturally, however, the hold of "space" on the minds of the masses only kept increasing, until science fiction went from a minor fringe phenomenon to the central genre of our entertainment industry. The masses see the loss of momentum in space development as a disappointment.

It seems like the idea of space exploration and colonization is making a dramatic resurgence in the culture. Basically, the Mars Pathfinder mission back in 1996 or 1997 was very popular. John Glenn didn't really make a dent in the national perspective of space, except that NASA was a directionless and bloated organization. The failures of the ISS evoked similar, and more urgent responses. The Mars Society is doing several Martian colony simulations. Several companies are competing for the X-Prize. More and more people support a manned Mars mission. Dennis Tito jump-started space tourism, and Mark Shuttleworth is making it more popular. The teacher in space program has restarted, we are back to designing new launch vehicles, O'Keefe is returning back to the very basics, and NASA is undergoing an overhaul. Lance Bass, and perhaps many other celebrities have aspirations of traveling to space for various reasons. China plans to send a man into space by 2005, and maybe even a moonshot by 2010. This time, however, it wouldn't be to leave flags or footprints, but to prospect for resource use. Oceans of ice has been found on Mars. There is a bill in Congress that would set goals to revitalize manned space travel, build an infrastructure for it, and send man to Mars by 2020. I think we might be moving in the right direction again.

All of this, of course, does hinge on serious technical problems that cannot be just wished away. To accomplish a space-faring civilization, we may have to move from a civilization focused on economic matters to one, in a sense, focused on the nuts-and-bolts problems of surviving in space (and making it profitable). It might be generations before such a preoccupation could settle into the background.

If this is not done by the Xers, it will definitely be done by the time the 17th generation comes of age.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."-Thomas Paine

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-05-29 11:18 ]</font>

On 2002-05-29 10:47, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-05-29 10:23, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Brian does represent something of a funny case though. He may be positive about space but he essentially says, "No, you are not allowed to journey beyond earth until you learn to put metals in their cute little container and plastics in theirs." Brian believes that man is destroying the earth's environment thereby destroying himself. Yet Brian would rather that man destroy himself here rather than save himself by expanding into space...IF he refuses to learn what Brian sees as the all-important ecological lesson. I find this attitude bizarre. Of course, if I have misinterpreted Brian, he should set me straight immediately. :wink:

:lol:
Are you throwing a gauntlet? :wink:

I am actually waiting for Brian to come along and tell me that I misinterpreted what he said. Regardless, why should our expansion into space rest upon our all becoming ridiculously anal-retentive ecological types? Screw that. We are humans and we are part of the damn ecosystem as it is. When horses and cattle start sorting their own damn trash, I'll buy into this obnoxious, senseless, pain-in-the-ass BS. For godsake, it's trash! Just get rid of it!

Especially since the sort of steady-state worldview the radical environmentalists seem to want would preclude any such effort, by it's very nature, in much the same way that Ming Dynasty China turned it's back on oceanic exploration and travel in the 1440's, despite some spectacular successes in the previous decades under Admiral Zheng He.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-05-29 11:39 ]</font>

In defense of recycling, some kinds of recycling are actually so profitable that there are sometimes people willing to sort your trash for you.

The best example of this are steel and aluminum cans. These are the "gold" of recycling. Before recycling was very common, when I was in college, in large cities one could see people collecting these cans from the ground and other people's trash on their own initiative simply to sell for the money they'd get. To be nice to these guys, the dorms at my college started trying to separate the cans from the rest of the trash, but they would still look in the other trash for the extras.

If it wasn't profitable, why would they do this?

Another example: when I was a teenager, people used to bring their glass bottles back to the supermarket for a refund. I was the guy they paid to sort the various bottles into the appropriate crates which would be taken back to the factories at night.

Over the area where this sorting took place, some wiseacre put up a sign:

"DON'T THINK OF IT AS ASSEMBLING A BIG PILE OF STICKY BOTTLES...

THINK OF IT AS ERECTING A MONUMENT TO MAN'S NEVERENDING QUEST FOR REFRESHMENT."

Again, why would corporations pay people to bring the bottles back, as well as paying me and a bunch of truck drivers if the bottles were not worth it? Back then, there was no law forcing them to do this.

My point is, while it is true that some forms of recycling are questionable on a simple cost-benefit analysis, others are not.

If you only recycle one category of trash, recycle the pop cans.

On 2002-05-29 10:54, firemind wrote:

On 2002-05-29 10:39, walterhoch wrote:
But in some cases the technology is already here for an environmental clean-up: I remember an NPR report some years ago about a scientist (at Carnegie-Mellon or Penn State maybe?)who could take any toxic chemical, no matter how long the formula, and break it back down into its basic elements by melting it in a centrifuge filled with liquid steel. Even nuclear waste could be handled this way.

As a former physicist, I have to object to that bit about nuclear waste. That does NOT sound right.

It is true that applying extreme temperatures can break down hazadous chemicals into their component atoms. Similar suggestions involving plasma torches have been made. The process is expensive, however, which is probably one of the reasons it isn't widely used.

I've been away from the field for a while, but as for radioactive nuclei, I would be surprised if merely applying heat at temperatures of liquid steel would eliminate the radioactivity.

Radioactive nuclei are unstable nuclei. They undergo nuclear reactions, breaking down, until all of the nuclei have reached a stable structure. Each reaction emits energetic particles (radiation) which can damage living cells.

I guess I could believe that heating the nuclei would make this process go faster, but not appreciably faster, not enough to make it worth it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 10:57 ]</font>

As I recall the interview, the process would leave the waste in a radioactive state, just returned to an original element: e.g. depleted uranium hexafluroide would be returned to uranium and fluorine, which (the implication was) could be reused rather than stored in Nevada.

I will see if I can find out more about this.

On 2002-05-29 13:01, walterhoch wrote:
As I recall the interview, the process would leave the waste in a radioactive state, just returned to an original element: e.g. depleted uranium hexafluroide would be returned to uranium and fluorine

OK, yeah, that sounds valid. And then the centrifuge separates the (still radioactive) elements.

Campbell believed that Man was primarily a Myth-Maker, and that therefore the "mythologization" of space was an inevitability (provided we remain human).

As Hamlet said, "Ay, there's the rub." (didn't he also say, "there's more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy"? I believe so, uh hummm).

If we look upon space as just another economic and political project, and don't make the special effort to change the spiritual and social milieu we live in, we may not indeed stay human. Some of us feel definitely that our consciousness is definitely on the wrong track, and that more material conquests will not put us on the right one. We can't expect this "myth-making" to happen automatically. It hasn't in America, and won't.

One correction for madscientist: The space program was a 1T project; it was launched in 1957-58, and it was in the Awakening that it became unpopular (though it was completed then; it had to be if completed at all).

I'm sure many great space projects will be launched in the next 1T too. I'm sure many Millies will just love it. More power to them. I know according to the polls I've heard that many also (inexplicably to S&H and their readers) are searching for real spiritual fulfillment in their lives. I'm glad you at least said we need both; but I AM worried, as Campbell was.

Meanwhile, Stonewall has thrown down the gauntlet to Brian. Now, if we hadn't pointed it out to him, I would have said, count on a response too. Now that we have though, I don't know.... :wink:

The government during the Kennedy administration made very bad technical decisions for the sole purpose of beating the Russians to the Moon rather than opening a new frontier. That is why the momentum was lost.

Good points. However, I think there were other reasons. The people became more interested in the problems of earth and in personal and spiritual fulfillment. And I think it is reductionist to think Kennedy's reasons were solely to beat the Russians; his whole "New Frontier" program had its own purposes, including the space program. He didn't have to commit the nation to going to the Moon; Russia hadn't done so.

Culturally, however, the hold of "space" on the minds of the masses only kept increasing, until science fiction went from a minor fringe phenomenon to the central genre of our entertainment industry. The masses see the loss of momentum in space development as a disappointment.

Of course, that's the mythology of space, not just the technical accomplishment of going there. The stories and the artistry of the movies is what inspired the people, just as I originally said. The masses have no such opinion, as far as I know. They were definitely opposed for a while; now I don't know. I suspect they might be more inspired when they see some real connection to their lives and real frontiers opening; that could be a while. Even so, without the "mythical" element (as we are calling it here), just opening frontiers is nowhere as exciting as the myths, stories and arts themselves.

A real opening of a new frontier would definitily energize the masses in a way that the world hasn't seen since the 1800's, when the world held it's breath at the phenomenal growth of the U.S., the masses rushed into America, and intellectuals everywhere predicted that America was the way of the future.

I think they were more inspired by the promises of democracy and pluralism, than mere economic gain; although certainly the promise of a new start was tantalizing for the immigrants, free of the class and government restrictions in the old country. I would counter, however, that the 19th century in Europe was most inspired by the romantic arts, and the movements of democracy in their OWN lands out of which these arts came, and which they in turn celebrated-- not to mention the transcendentalist and anti-slavery movements here in the USA. We in America tend to think the world revolves around us and pays exclusive attention to us, but other peoples also have their own movements and concerns to inspire and motivate them. That was CERTAINLY true of Europe in the wake of the French Revolution, as any historian could tell you.

And the achievements of the romantic artists are what we will and do value most from that time and place. And the movements in science and philosophy too; not for the tools they gave us, but because of the knowledge they gave us. And the whole scene was inter-related.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-29 15:20 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-29 15:25 ]</font>

On 2002-05-29 15:18, Eric A Meece wrote:
We can't expect this "myth-making" to happen automatically. It hasn't in America, and won't.

Yes, we can. The myth-making never stops. It is ever-moving, ever-changing. If you don't believe it's there, you won't see it.

The unreal never is. The real never is not.

Your continued attachment to the milieu of the last Awakening is blinding you. You must learn that every era has an equal amount of b*llsh*t, and that includes your beloved "Awakening".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 15:40 ]</font>

I wrote my last post while listening to Beethoven on my computer; very appropo...

When horses and cattle start sorting their own damn trash, I'll buy into this obnoxious, senseless, pain-in-the-ass BS. For godsake, it's trash! Just get rid of it!

Firemind made some good replies to this (I'm amazed, he actually makes some good arguments at times :wink: )

Meanwhile, we can learn to sort our trash, and need to. We can be inspired by the new "frontier" of learning how to live in harmony with nature, inspired by the beauty of nature and the chance to preserve it. Millions were so inspired around the time of Earth Day; it is these kinds of movements that really inspire the people, more than just the material conquests. In 4Ts as well as 2Ts.

Not taking away from the thrill of conquest, mind you, with all the fun of rape and pillage and destruction; but I think its getting late in human evolution for that, and too dangerous... exporting our mindless conquest mode into space will just postpone the inevitable lesson.

No, the "steady state" approach, as jds calls it, with its recycling, and an end to dumb growth that ignores all but the power and moneygrubbing of a few white men, will just have to be exported sooner or later into space too if we are to succeed there. I think that is the implication of the points Robert has made. And of course steady-state ecology will still need to be practiced here too, no matter whether we go into space or not; and even though space projects could certainly help, if done partly with ecological (and mythological) goals in mind.

It is well that we learn how to live in harmony with nature, and with our own nature. Space is no excuse not to preserve Earth. We don't need to do it "first;" we can do it as we go. Nature is out there in space too; where is the imaginary boundary that says Nature ends at the ionosphere? The boundary isn't there. As Campbell said, the laws of nature are in our heads, and everywhere we go.

So Stonewall and jds, I say to you guys, if you leave some trash out there on Mars and Jupiter, you go pick it up. Don't leave it to your descendants to do. Let's do space right.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-29 15:45 ]</font>

I apologize to everyone else for whom this conversation is no doubt off-subject (if not gibberish). Henceforth, I will confine this stuff to the "Nothing is happening" folder, if not suppress the urge altogether.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 15:48 ]</font>

You must learn that every era has an equal amount of b*llsh*t, and that includes your beloved "Awakening".

I certainly agree there. I could rattle off some examples, but do I really need to? Maybe there was even a greater amount of BS to balance out the greater amount of inspiration-- to arrive at your formula of "equal amount of BS in every era."

The point of the Awakening is not that it happened and it was great. The point is, we were supposed to be awakened. That hasn't happened if we just go back to sleep again, has it?

And that is our challenge. Don't let the current 3T blind YOU to the fact that it contains so little of real cultural value. Not compared only to the previous turning, but perhaps to all previous turnings.

At least, if you only the consider the culture and myth-making that gets any attention nowadays. Yes, some culture is indeed better than others. In that respect, it WAS better 30 years ago. I would say our mainstream culture today is the trash that we shouldn't leave behind; just get rid of it! Meanwhile look beneath the surface, and yes some great "mythmaking" is going on (in the broad sense of the term). But most people can't see it because they are not allowed to.

To think we need to expend extra effort and attention to go into space, but the cultural and related aspects just come automatically, is the idea I am challenging. Nooooooo. Only what gets attention and energy will grow. Neither will come automatically. This is not an automatic universe; events are based on decisions and choices made (cf Materialism thread).

On 2002-05-29 15:43, Eric A Meece wrote:

Meanwhile, we can learn to sort our trash, and need to.

I suppose you sort all the canned goods in your pantry for the hell of it, huh? No other hobbies or interests to occupy your time such that you can allocate all this time for organizing the peas, green beans, Nibblets, Vienna sausages, etc. Hey, if you are into that, Eric, no problem! In fact, more power to you! Just don't require that the rest of us share your busybody hobby when we would rather allocate that time for other interests and purposes. Frankly, I would rather watch grass grow.

We can be inspired by the new "frontier" of learning how to live in harmony with nature,

The fact that we continue to exist necessarily means that we are in harmony with nature. If we were not, we would not be here, now would we? Also, note that a dog is in harmony with nature as well and he does not sh*t where he eats. So then why should we? Contrary to ecological dogma, nature does not require that we become one with our waste. That is just friggin' sick.

inspired by the beauty of nature and the chance to preserve it. Millions were so inspired around the time of Earth Day; it is these kinds of movements that really inspire the people, more than just the material conquests. In 4Ts as well as 2Ts.

Yes, nature is beautiful. Humans are part of nature. Man is in harmony with nature as part of the ecosystem. But again, this harmony does not require that man become one with his waste. Never has, never will.

Not taking away from the thrill of conquest, mind you, with all the fun of rape and pillage and destruction; but I think its getting late in human evolution for that, and too dangerous... exporting our mindless conquest mode into space will just postpone the inevitable lesson.

So long as man exists, men will use other men toward their ends. Part of the benefit of going into space is acquiring the ability to "get lost" such that one can get out from under the thumb of less moral men who use their fellow men like beasts of burden or milk cows toward their ends. Anonymity in the recesses of the universe would be bliss. No more tyranny. Wonderful thought, isn't it? I don't understand the mindset of those who would oppose such liberation.

It is well that we learn how to live in harmony with nature, and with our own nature.

Hello? Nature has no tolerance for disharmonious elements and the fossil record attests to this fact. Man yet survives. Ergo, man is yet in harmony with nature. We do not need to learn to live in harmony with nature. We are in harmony with nature by virtue of our existence.

Space is no excuse not to preserve Earth.

As if puny man were capable of destroying Earth. The vanity in such a claim! Can we please worry more about comet strikes, etc.? That is the sort of thing which will destroy mankind. Certainly not man himself. And sorting your damn waste does not do a damn thing to avert collision with Earth. It merely takes time away from focusing on what really counts.

We don't need to do it "first;" we can do it as we go. Nature is out there in space too; where is the imaginary boundary that says Nature ends at the ionosphere? The boundary isn't there. As Campbell said, the laws of nature are in our heads, and everywhere we go.

Yes, yes. Very good, Eric. So long as we exist, we are in harmony with nature regardless of whether we recycle and become "one with our waste" or not.

So Stonewall and jds, I say to you guys, if you leave some trash out there on Mars and Jupiter, you go pick it up. Don't leave it to your descendants to do. Let's do space right.

Hey, I don't like to look at trash. I say dispose of it like man has always done. Just don't complicate existence by making something so basic and ever present from the beginning of Creation as waste disposal into some ridiculous exercise which only the anal-retentive-to-the-point-of-being-dangerous can handle. Just throw it out! Burn it! For godsake, it's trash! Just get rid of the crap as quickly as possible!

On 2002-05-29 15:40, firemind wrote:

Yes, we can. The myth-making never stops. It is ever-moving, ever-changing. If you don't believe it's there, you won't see it.

The unreal never is. The real never is not.

Your continued attachment to the milieu of the last Awakening is blinding you. You must learn that every era has an equal amount of b*llsh*t, and that includes your beloved "Awakening".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-05-29 15:40 ]</font>

Myths are very important to our society, however they change like everything else. Awakenings are times when old myths die and new ones are born.

The fact that we continue to exist necessarily means that we are in harmony
with nature. If we were not, we would not be here, now would we?

And as everyone knows, or has been told, we indeed WON'T be here much longer if we continue as we're going.

You are getting all riled up about trash. I didn't know this was such a touchy subject for you; (strange question deleted) :wink:

I would think as a pragmatic Xer you would look upon it as what it is, a useable resource; not something to get rid of because its ugly or something. Especially when we throw away so much we don't need to throw away, or should never have made or bought in the first place.

If I were the president, I would require YOU Stonewall to spend four hours a day sorting your trash to save money on our recycling program. Everyone else can be taxed or charged instead, to support an efficient program that sorts on-site, as our own city is now doing. You would like that; you could write off your efforts and save on taxes.

Contrary to ecological dogma, nature does not require that we become one with our waste.

Nature recycles everything, and all plants live partly on their own waste and that of their neighbors.

Anonymity in the recesses of the universe would be bliss. No more tyranny. Wonderful thought, isn't it? I don't understand the mindset of those who would oppose such liberation.

Oppose it, I don't know. Would it work as you wish Mr. Libertarian? I doubt it. It didn't work before. People would find you and come and join you, or you would soon overpopulate yourselves, especially with your libertarian approach to family planning (none I assume).

Can we please worry more about comet strikes, etc.? That is the sort of thing which will destroy mankind. Certainly not man himself.

I hope you will become more informed on this subject. Your views are rather ridiculous. Man is well on his way to destroying himself, and as already come close a number of times. Or I guess you don't remember 1962. And you think global warming is Marxist junk science. Ah, the blessings of being a Boomer...

Why do you worry about comet strikes, when you plan to be lost in the recesses of deep space? Come on, deal with the real issues!

Besides, maybe we can ride the comet itself to another world, like those cultists wanted to do. Why worry? :razz:

On 2002-05-30 01:04, Eric A Meece wrote:

You are getting all riled up about trash. I didn't know this was such a touchy subject for you; (strange question deleted) :wink:

Nah, "touchy" is not the right word. It is not like I am sitting here fuming mad. I am just astounded by the willingness of so many to obey orders even when those orders are to waste their valuable time sorting their friggin' trash. Why on earth do two-leggers tolerate this? I just find it astonishing. I don't get made anymore; I just laugh in disbelief.

I would think as a pragmatic Xer you would look upon it as what it is, a useable resource; not something to get rid of because its ugly or something.

It is waste product. Get rid of it!

Especially when we throw away so much we don't need to throw away, or should never have made or bought in the first place.

Live! In Concert! Eric Meece soloing with the Plastic Ono Band! You are in 2002. He is in 1969. Eric Meece: Live IN SENSAROUND!!!

Eric, you know what I am going to say. Just please let the market decide this. Please do not presume to dictate what people should make or buy. I don't understand this propensity to dictate to others their likes and dislikes.

If I were the president, I would require YOU Stonewall to spend four hours a day sorting your trash to save money on our recycling program.

Dude, I have no choice. I have to. I have gotten somewhat used to it but I still find it obnoxious.

Nature recycles everything, and all plants live partly on their own waste and that of their neighbors.

We are not plants. We as mammals live partly on our own waste after conversion through the nitrogen cycle. Most of us would rather not play in our unconverted waste. But ecologists are obviously different. Scientific detachment is one thing. But this is just plain gross.

Oppose it, I don't know. Would it work as you wish Mr. Libertarian? I doubt it. It didn't work before. People would find you and come and join you, or you would soon overpopulate yourselves, especially with your libertarian approach to family planning (none I assume).

The point is that you would live with people of your choosing through voluntary association. You could keep out all control freaks, criminals, and racketeers. Overpopulation would presumably not be a problem as you would move on to another planet if things got too crowded. Presumably the technology is there to support you, Eric, if it is there to help you travel through space and time to these other worlds. It is just a nice dream, that's all.

I hope you will become more informed on this subject. Your views are rather ridiculous. Man is well on his way to destroying himself, and as already come close a number of times. Or I guess you don't remember 1962.

Are you talking about nukes? There will always be survivors, Eric. With every strike, you have a blast zone and a fallout zone. There will always be people who safely avoid the fallout zones. Man will never completely eradicate himself in this way.

And you think global warming is Marxist junk science. Ah, the blessings of being a Boomer...

What is it that man did to bring us out of the Ice Age, what, 12,000 years ago? Obviously, man is responsible for these things. It is never the Sun, the Earth, God, or anything else. It is always man. So what did those mammoth hunters do to raise global temperatures? They didn't have those "evil" internal combustion engines. I guess they mixed a lot of roughage in with their mammoth diet. It was obviously caveman flatulence which melted the glaciers in Pennsylvania and gave us the beauty and splendor of the Great Lakes. It sure as hell wasn't the Sun, Earth, God, or anything else and only an idiot would blame something other than man himself.

Come to think of it, what is it that man did to cool temperatures during the Little Ice age of the 1600s? And what did man do to bring us back out of that Little Ice Age? Still no "evil" internal combustion engines. Must have been more of that damn flatulence.

Besides, maybe we can ride the comet itself to another world, like those cultists wanted to do. Why worry? :razz:

Hey, sounds like fun! :wink:

On 2002-05-29 11:36, jds1958xg wrote:

Especially since the sort of steady-state worldview the radical environmentalists seem to want would preclude any such effort, by it's very nature, in much the same way that Ming Dynasty China turned it's back on oceanic exploration and travel in the 1440's, despite some spectacular successes in the previous decades under Admiral Zheng He.

I just hope that China doesn't have the last laugh.