What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow?It occurs to me you're using the same argument Mozart Link is using when he wants me/us to think that our brains are upset that heaven doesn't exist. ;-)
What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow?]The point is expanding our knowledge. Robotic exploration is much less expensive than sending people. In the case of Mars, sending people makes no sense. We do not yet have the technology to keep them safe on the trip (cosmic radiation is a bitch), we certainly do not have the technology to keep them safe from radiation on the surface of Mars. They'll need to carry enough air, water and food to survive until such time as they can erect shelter (which won't protect them from stellar radiation). The time to send people is after the robots have built shelter in a suitable location, such as a large asteroid past the orbit of Mars.
DarronS - Robotic exploration is much less expensive than sending peopleI wish they would just get on with the sample return mission. Although, just sending robots there, digging up the samples, and sending them back is a technologically difficult and expensive task, even though we don't have to worry about all the life support problems that would make a human landing and return mission an order of magnitude more difficult. In 1969 we did not have the robotics technology, plus the moon is so close we can get there with minimal cabin space and supplies. So at that time it made sense to send men with some geological training to drive around picking up rocks and bring them back to Earth. Today we have the robotics technology to do it all remotely, and Mars is just so far and exposed to danger that it makes no scientific sense to send people to explore. I would gladly pay another $20 in taxes to fund a great sample return mission.
The Bull Shit was about you diverting a comment about squandering precious resources on manned travel to Mars in a time of increasing real down to Earth existential challenges - to me attacking the entire space program.What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow? Hmmm. Is that the best reason you can come up with? :gulp: I guess what really astounds me is that the folks who are dreaming up this stuff (and apparently most everyone else), actually believe that in thirty, forty years, our society will be running pretty much the way it is now. That's utterly (I don't want to say insane) suffice it to say disconnected from the reality of the trends we've so recklessly set into motion, and the continuing changes happening upon our planet with their inevitable destructive impact on global society.Killing NASA's manned program isn't going to do diddly towards saving the planet. Doing something that inspires people to take an interest in things like the sciences, however, will wake them up to the damage that's being done. A species which operated solely on logic and reason (which we humans most certainly don't) doesn't need big, sexy, projects to inspire them. One of the reasons why so much of our infrastructure is crumbling is that the public pays less attention to repairing an existing bridge or road, than they do the construction of a new bridge or road. So, rather than repair what we have, politicians undertake new projects to show the public that they're "doing something." Which means that existing roads and bridges fall into decay. The technology which spins off from the space program is used in everything you can name, even if its not obvious that it originated with the space program. Sure, you could spend $1 billion on better solar panels for us to use, but try selling that to the American public who doesn't think we need to stop using fossil fuels, and is going to be fought against by the fossil fuel industry. Say you need to spend a $1 billion on better solar panels so that we can go to the Moon or Mars, and you'll get a lot less resistance. That technology will then be adopted by the rest of the solar generation industry, thus benefiting all of humanity. Remember, when Reagan came into office, he killed most of the research in to alternative energy, but NASA kept plugging away at it, and improving the technology, because more efficient panels meant that they could send bigger payloads into space. If Trump gets elected President, selling him on the idea of doing away with fossil fuels is going to be a non-starter. He's already said that he intends to get the coal mines in WV going again. (What he'll actually be able to do is another matter, of course, but he certainly won't be willing to fund alternative energy research, even if he can't get the coal mines going again.) Think of the manned program (which would need better, lighter panels than we currently have, or that the robotic programs could justify) as an insurance policy. So long as we have it, and we're pushing outwards, then those things we need to deal with the issues here on Earth are going to get at least some funding. And if we don't put at least a token amount of money towards those kinds of things, then few other countries are, either. China and India have both already said that they're only going to be as supportive towards such things as we are.
What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow?]The point is expanding our knowledge. Robotic exploration is much less expensive than sending people. In the case of Mars, sending people makes no sense. We do not yet have the technology to keep them safe on the trip (cosmic radiation is a bitch), we certainly do not have the technology to keep them safe from radiation on the surface of Mars. They'll need to carry enough air, water and food to survive until such time as they can erect shelter (which won't protect them from stellar radiation). The time to send people is after the robots have built shelter in a suitable location, such as a large asteroid past the orbit of Mars.And there were all kinds of issues which people thought would be impossible to solve, or take decades to crack before humans could ever set foot on the Moon when JFK made his pronouncement. It turned out that we were clever enough to find solutions when we decided that we had to. Most technological advancements humans make fall into the "good enough" category. If its a few percentage points better than the previous version, its "good enough" to use. That's why battery technology didn't really progress from around the late 1800s until the 1960s. Lead acid batteries were "good enough" for the jobs they were tasked to do. When NASA needed better batteries to send people into space, the technology got a boost. Then it didn't start to get a large investment in improving it until portable computers came along. Its only been since Musk decided to rethink the electric car that they got another large boost. Had we kept funding the Apollo program (which was aiming for month-long stays on the Moon by the mid-70s), all of our technology would be much farther along than it is now. Because the "good enough" tech NASA needs is more advanced than what industry thinks that the public needs. Additionally, since the NASA's required to make all its developments available to anyone who asks, much of the R&D costs industry normally has is already paid for. That's one of the reasons Musk has been able to be so successful with SpaceX. He's basically taking everything that NASA did, and since he started from scratch he doesn't have to deal with some of the legacy issues they do. (For example, since he was going to be using new hardware, he doesn't have to worry about if its compatible with the shuttle hardware. Or use systems that are long out of date, but NASA can't afford to replace them because their budget has been frozen for 50 years.)
Only one person which any significant geological training went to the Moon: Harrison "Jack" Schmitt. The crew training that was given to the Apollo teams was slightly better than a freshman college course, and in the case of Apollo 14, was botched because Alan Shapard wasn't interested in learning about it. The Soviets did a robotic sample return mission in 1970.] Given that Soviet technology was far behind ours at the time, had we chosen to, we could have beaten them to the task. Of course, if we had done that, we wouldn't have had the moment where Schmitt moved his foot and happened to notice that there was orange soil on the Moon. Something no one ever expected to see.DarronS - Robotic exploration is much less expensive than sending peopleI wish they would just get on with the sample return mission. Although, just sending robots there, digging up the samples, and sending them back is a technologically difficult and expensive task, even though we don't have to worry about all the life support problems that would make a human landing and return mission an order of magnitude more difficult. In 1969 we did not have the robotics technology, plus the moon is so close we can get there with minimal cabin space and supplies. So at that time it made sense to send men with some geological training to drive around picking up rocks and bring them back to Earth. Today we have the robotics technology to do it all remotely, and Mars is just so far and exposed to danger that it makes no scientific sense to send people to explore. I would gladly pay another $20 in taxes to fund a great sample return mission.
The Bull Shit was about you diverting a comment about squandering precious resources on manned travel to Mars in a time of increasing real down to Earth existential challenges - to me attacking the entire space program.What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow? Hmmm. Is that the best reason you can come up with? :gulp: I guess what really astounds me is that the folks who are dreaming up this stuff (and apparently most everyone else), actually believe that in thirty, forty years, our society will be running pretty much the way it is now. That's utterly (I don't want to say insane) suffice it to say disconnected from the reality of the trends we've so recklessly set into motion, and the continuing changes happening upon our planet with their inevitable destructive impact on global society.Killing NASA's manned program isn't going to do diddly towards saving the planet. Doing something that inspires people to take an interest in things like the sciences, however, will wake them up to the damage that's being done. Seems to me perhaps you haven't thought about it much. But, there is a reality unfolding beyond all the Republican Current of Delusion. For starters, you misunderstanding A) it's not about saving the planet, B) it's our society who's foundation we are destroying, (and it will complete it's crumbling in a time span decades.), C) that doesn't mean humans are doomed. D) but their numbers will sure as shit be radically diminished, E) that'll leave a small sub set of humans living today to carry on, F) their only hope of dealing with the brave new world of radical weather and "hospitable zone" shrinkage (like we can't imagine today), G) is education and learning about the rapidly changing situation in order to confront it's challenges constructively, so long as everyone pretends that what's developing on this planet, isn't actually developing - how will they prepare? It comes down to different priorities. And appreciating certain physical realities, the longer we ignore it, the uglier and worse it's going to be. _____________________________________ ( :red: Speaking of ugly, the hurried-er I get, the sloppier I write. Sorry hope I fixed it up some. )
Some like to write me off as just caught up in my own trip, that AGW fad as they called it in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.
But this is for real and while folks in their cozy air-conditioned rich people’s enclaves and busy themselves with their self-aggrandizing dreams, this is what’s happening in the real world. Mind you this is 2016, mid century is not that far away, and from what we’ve seen develop over the past decades there is no reason to think this scenario will not come to pass. Imagine the cascading consequences. But you want me to continue dreaming of seeing a man on Mars. Keep the dream alive man. And they call me the deluded one . . . :lol: :blank:
Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa May 2, 2016 The number of climate refugees could increase dramatically in future. Researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute in Nicosia have calculated that the Middle East and North Africa could become so hot that human habitability is compromised. ... The temperature during summer in the already very hot Middle East and North Africa will increase more than two times faster compared to the average global warming. This means that during hot days temperatures south of the Mediterranean will reach around 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century. Such extremely hot days will occur five times more often than was the case at the turn of the millennium. In combination with increasing air pollution by windblown desert dust, the environmental conditions could become intolerable and may force people to migrate. … By mid-century, during the warmest periods, temperatures will not fall below 30 degrees C (86° F) at night, and during daytime they could rise to 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit). By the end of the century, midday temperatures on hot days could even climb to 50 degrees Celsius (approximately 122 degrees Fahrenheit). Another finding: Heat waves could occur ten times more often than they do now. … .. In both scenarios, the strongest rise in temperature in the Middle East and North Africa is expected during summer… primarily attributed to a desert warming amplification in regions such as the Sahara. Deserts do not buffer heat well, which means that the hot and dry surface cannot cool by the evaporation of ground water. Since the surface energy balance is controlled by heat radiation, the greenhouse effect by gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor will increase disproportionately. (an example why expectating a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temps is a dishonest exercise.) Regardless of which climate change scenario will become reality: both Lelieveld and Hadjinicolaou agree that climate change can result in a significant deterioration of living conditions for people living in North Africa and the Middle East, and consequently, sooner or later, many people may have to leave the region. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-climate-exodus-middle-east-north-africa.html#jCpLook away from the desert, don't think sea level rise is for real, and that it will do major crippling damage to coastal areas, and islands . . .
Sea-level rise claims five islands in Solomons: study May 7, 2016 Five islands have disappeared in the Pacific's Solomon Islands due to rising sea levels and coastal erosion, according to an Australian study that could provide valuable insights for future research. A further six reef islands have been severely eroded in the remote area of the Solomons, the study said, with one experiencing some 10 houses being swept into the sea between 2011 and 2014. ... "At least 11 islands across the northern Solomon Islands have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion," the study published in Environmental Research Letters said. ... The researchers looked at 33 islands using aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014, combined with historical insight from local knowledge. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-sea-level-islands-solomons.html#jCpIt may be true enough that it's too late to do anything about it*. But, does that really justify, or excuse, continuing to ignore the reality of what is happening here on Earth? * At this point only the rate of future warming can be moderated, shit hitting the fan is pretty well guaranteed. (Of course, our reaction is - Great, so what's the point of changing our thinking or practices.)
It may be true enough that it’s too late to do anything about it*. But, does that really justify, or excuse, continuing to ignore the reality of what is happening here on Earth?It's not necessarily as bad as all that. When I was a kid we used to worry about world population increasing exponentially ad-infinitum. Turns out there are limiting factors and population will probably peak out and level off. I used to worry about pumping out all the oil and it would be 1973 all over again but permanently. Turns out there are lots of alternative methods to fuel transportation and other needs. There are studies showing Antarctic ice is growing due to increased snowfall brought about by warming temperatures. If you live in the great white North you know that the bitter cold nights are beautiful for their clear skys, but as temperatures rise the snow comes. So increased snowfall in regions that do not thaw could be at least a mitigating factor in sea level rise. Electric vehicles are coming on, and vehicle efficiency keeps improving with technology and people just being satisfied with a smaller car. Building codes are improving, wind and solar an nuclear continue to grow. So, it isn't all bad news, although it does seem too late to prevent a substantial rise in temperatures that is no reason to stop our efforts to minimize and delay that rise as much as we can. For example, I commute on an ebike. Lots of fun, very practical at my distance from work, no gas stations, charges at night. I am under no illusion that this is going to be some kind of panacea, far from it, just a suggestion to anybody who wants an affordable auxiliary all electric vehicle.
Last night I put together a paragraph by paragraph response, but didn't have time to finish it. Nor do I have the time this morning. Beyond that it's so difficult to approach this sort of discussing without offending and derailing the original intend, so I'm thinking it's just as well. I wonder if you would reread that list of yours and really think about it. Then think about the decade by decade progression of global events and the state of our planet; think about the amount of land that has been destroyed; or the land that has been radially transformed and diminished; or the things happening to our essential mountain glaciers and forest landscapes; or the ocean, fisheries, pollution, oxygen depletion, acidification; the growing threat to agricultural stability; and on and on. It has always astounded me how glibly people disregard all these happenings. Instead of considering the harsh reality, they come up with quaint bromides such as that superficial list of rationalizations for ignoring. Ignoring the state of the Earth and the harsh brave new world we have invited into our children's lives. This summer will simply be a foreshadowing. Remember our planet operates on timescales we choose not to comprehend. I wonder, Do you really believe a 30 year investment on a new Miami high-rise will payout? _____________________________________________________________________ And that doesn't even mention the human situation of over-crowding, wars, refugees, quality of life. We are quite insulated from it, so it's quite easy to blissfully ignore - but it's out there just the same. Think about Europe and what they are facing with the influx of refugees, think that's going to get resolved? I'll bet it only gets worse. I say this not because I love watching things go to shit, but because that is the reality we have created for ourselves! don't laugh at The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus' warning. It is happening all over the third world and creeping towards a neighborhood near you.It may be true enough that it’s too late to do anything about it*. But, does that really justify, or excuse, continuing to ignore the reality of what is happening here on Earth?It's not necessarily as bad as all that.
The Bull Shit was about you diverting a comment about squandering precious resources on manned travel to Mars in a time of increasing real down to Earth existential challenges - to me attacking the entire space program.What's the point of sending robots into space if humans don't follow? Hmmm. Is that the best reason you can come up with? :gulp: I guess what really astounds me is that the folks who are dreaming up this stuff (and apparently most everyone else), actually believe that in thirty, forty years, our society will be running pretty much the way it is now. That's utterly (I don't want to say insane) suffice it to say disconnected from the reality of the trends we've so recklessly set into motion, and the continuing changes happening upon our planet with their inevitable destructive impact on global society.Killing NASA's manned program isn't going to do diddly towards saving the planet. Doing something that inspires people to take an interest in things like the sciences, however, will wake them up to the damage that's being done. Seems to me perhaps you haven't thought about it much. But, there is a reality unfolding beyond all the Republican Current of Delusion. For starters, you misunderstanding A) it's not about saving the planet,Really? So, you're telling me that the planet (or at least those aspects of it which make life enjoyable for humans) isn't in danger? Well then, who cares what the US does with the $20 billion/yr NASA gets? Heck, let's double NASA's budget to $40 billion. That'll still keep it under 10% of what we spend on our military, or $10 billion more than what Americans spend for cosmetics or pro-sports each year.
B) it's our society who's foundation we are destroying, (and it will complete it's crumbling in a time span decades.),How many decades left do you think we've got? Lots of sciencey folks seem to think that we've got until 2100 until the shit really hits the fan. Others, like James Lovelock, are saying that they think 2050 is a bit optimistic. I'm in Lovelock's camp.
C) that doesn't mean humans are doomed.Define "doomed." Because society gets disrupted enough and then all it takes is a good plague, like say HIV (for which we as yet don't have a vaccine or cure for) and we're basically boned. Even if it only sets us back to the kind of technological level like the Amish have, that's still a big freakin' loss for humanity.
D) but their numbers will sure as shit be radically diminished,Yup. I agree.
E) that'll leave a small sub set of humans living today to carry on,Again, assuming we don't get hit by some kind of nasty disease that shrinks our numbers even farther. But we can totally stop that by gutting one of the most advanced science programs on the planet, right?
F) their only hope of dealing with the brave new world of radical weather and "hospitable zone" shrinkage (like we can't imagine today), G) is education and learning about the rapidly changing situation in order to confront it's challenges constructively,Why is this two segments? It should be only one from the way it reads. And how do you convince people who have the attention span of a gnat to invest in things like the sciences? By shutting down NASA and building windfarms? Or do you show them people doing things that no human has ever done before, and saying that maybe the crazy, optimistic future we saw on things like Star Trek isn't impossible?
so long as everyone pretends that what's developing on this planet, isn't actually developing - how will they prepare?Who said anything about pretending? At the same time the US was running the Apollo program, we were also trying to sort out Civil Rights issues, fighting in Vietnam, and doing a whole host of other things. Why does stopping global warming mean we have to gut NASA? Are you saying we can't convince folks to give up on trickle down economics and raise taxes so that the US can afford to tackle the many different issues which we absolutely need to face? If we can't do that, how can we convince people that global warming is an existential (or nearly so) threat to our survival?
It comes down to different priorities.And knowledge, all knowledge, should be our top priority. Suppose the first manned mission to Mars discovers proof of life off of Earth, what then? Will it lead more people away from religion? Will it force religions to be more open to new ideas? We don't know, and we can't know, until it actually happens.
And appreciating certain physical realities, the longer we ignore it, the uglier and worse it's going to be.Agreed. But how many people developed an interest in science because of the manned space program and how many of them developed an interest in science because of a documentary they saw on TV? And how many of them did because of something like Star Trek or Star Wars? In the end, it doesn't really matter, nearly so much as the fact that people are interested in science, and our money should be spent in all areas of the sciences, not just those focused in one particular area, because if there's one thing that I've learned over the years is that you cannot predict where a scientific pursuit is going to take you.
A) it's not about saving the planet,Really? So, you're telling me that the planet (or at least those aspects of it which make life enjoyable for humans) isn't in danger? Well then, who cares what the US does with the $20 billion/yr NASA gets? Heck, let's double NASA's budget to $40 billion. That'll still keep it under 10% of what we spend on our military, or $10 billion more than what Americans spend for cosmetics or pro-sports each year. Let's not quibble over semantics. The Earth will survive, it knows how to take big hits. The biosphere we depend on will continue crumbling, but there will be a new biosphere establishing itself as the old one dies. As for comparing NASA MannedMarsMission spending with what's squandered on NASCAR, Hollywood blockbusters, cosmetics, etc., etc., it's equally hideous. Sometime makes one think we don't deserve to survive anyways so what the f.
B) it's our society who's foundation we are destroying, (and it will complete it's crumbling in a time span decades.),How many decades left do you think we've got? Lots of sciencey folks seem to think that we've got until 2100 until the shit really hits the fan. Others, like James Lovelock, are saying that they think 2050 is a bit optimistic. I'm in Lovelock's camp. I'm a pessimist, when I look at what's happening to our cryosphere everywhere, I think of sea level rise and seems serious coastal city/infrastructure destruction will be happening within three. The cascading consequences of that, take us into the impossible to project. Of course there is also the wild card of feeding people. Look at California, yes water is coming back, but not that much. And what about the damage deluges inflict on cropland. I don't think we have three or four decades of globally clear sailing - I dare say within three some unheard of ugly shit will be going down. I'd love to be wrong. But so far, it's all those who were telling me nothing untoward was developing on this planet, who have been proven to be totally wrong. My high school terrors are what I'm actually watching happening in the world, so I'm a bit less timid about my opinion than I used to be. I think by 2100, those who got through the first fires of hell, will be well on their way to diverging into whole new species of human, with our oh so proud greco-roman reign fading into unknown history.
C) and we're basically boned.Yup. I agree.
D) but their numbers will sure as shit be radically diminished,Yup. I agree.
But we can totally stop that by gutting one of the most advanced science programs on the planet, right?Nope, I didn't say a thing about that. I was complaining about wasting precious effort on taking humans to Mars! If you were to press me, guess what pisses me off is the obsession with Mars, when more than ever before, we need to learn about this Earth we depend on, more than learn about it, we need to learn to appreciate it and learn how to nurture it.
And how do you convince people who have the attention span of a gnat to invest in things like the sciences?Can't. It's beyond that. In fact, I'm in a sort of transition process, where I'm starting to think it's useless for the smart young people who understand what's happening to waste anymore time on the Republican/libertarian types who have clearly shown that they embrace a world dominated by fantasy and fear driven hatred for all they don't understand. For those who want to survive, it's time to quietly network with like minded, try to distance yourselves from the "grid" and prepare. But those would be the rare individuals with brains, mettle and passion. The less faith-based crazies know about these folks the better it will be for them. Low profile is an excellent survival strategy.
Or do you show them people doing things that no human has ever done before, and saying that maybe the crazy, optimistic future we saw on things like Star Trek isn't impossible?Hmmm, that's an interesting question. Not sure I can buy into it considering every time I'm stuck watching one of these new action movies come out I'm astounded at the utter unreality folks take in stride - then they walk out the theater with those fantasies of being a super hero or super rich dancing in their heads. Not sure how much it's actually helped the march of society, I dare say it's one of the things that's helped screw us.
Who said anything about pretending?Tucker look around, our entire media monster is set up to pretend reality is different from what's actually happening out on this planet or within society for that matter. And the people seem happy with it, they don't want to know, because that would demand worrying about it, that might force them to change their expectations and habits. Can't have that.
Suppose the first manned mission to Mars discovers proof of life off of Earth, what then? Will it lead more people away from religion? Will it force religions to be more open to new ideas? We don't know, and we can't know, until it actually happens.Yeah, what then? Sub surface germs, perhaps if they really get lucky some odd robust cyanobacteria. How long is that splash going to excite our short attention span? I remember first seeing that epic, humanity grabbing, picture of Earth rise over the moon. A magnificent utterly profound human achievement that put Earth into an entire new light. We all marveled at it, wonderful words were written about it. Then it was back to bombing Viet Nam, and deregulating industry and ignoring all the warning that we, that is the human population were reaching the limits of Earth's ability to sustain all of us. Who heard? Who cared?
... because if there's one thing that I've learned over the years is that you cannot predict where a scientific pursuit is going to take you.No, but we can understand and project where our Earth's geophysical systems and it's global heat and moisture distribution engine will take this planet's biosphere. From there it only takes an appreciation for our complex society and what it takes to keep it humming to understand our many vulnerabilities.
CC - think about the amount of land that has been destroyedNot much. True, there are a few areas that have become uninhabitable due to toxic waste dumping. Strip mining and open pit mining scars the surface in a few small areas. On the bright side clear cutting makes room for replanting and for agriculture. Landfills are now sometimes turned into open spaces after they are covered over. So, no, I don't think all that much land has been "destroyed"
or the land that has been radially transformed and diminishedTransformed does not necessarily mean diminished. Human beings are an animal species. If we use land to provide food for our species I do not see that as some kind of inherent evil. Trees used to grow on the land. Now corn grows on the land. How is that a bad thing? Oh, now I suppose you might say there will be increased erosion, increased use of agricultural chemicals, and decreased biodiversity, fair enough. But the vast majority of all species have gone extinct all on their own so I really don't think a few less varieties of birds or lizards is gong to be a catastrophe for the biosphere.
the things happening to our essential mountain glaciers and forest landscapesWhy is a mountain glacier "essential"? Essential to who, for what? You mean to keep land ice to prevent ocean rise? Mountain glaciers are a tiny bit of that. Most land ice is in Antarctica and that is increasing! Greenland is the next biggest repository. True, rising sea level will create a lot of new construction needs and losses of coastal property.
and on and on.Dude, you worry a lot, I think you need to get outside more or something. It's a beautiful day, sun, rain, snow, a starry night...it's all good my friend. Oh, ok, the stuff you list has a lot of truth in many respects, but things tend to balance out. We haven't killed all the fish, we are handling our toxic materials ever more carefully, and the phytoplankton is still oxygenating the world. Corn produces oxygen too plus I like to eat it so it's not all bad.
It has always astounded me how glibly people disregard all these happenings. Instead of considering the harsh reality, they come up with quaint bromides such as that superficial list of rationalizations for ignoring. Ignoring the state of the Earth and the harsh brave new world we have invited into our children’s lives. This summer will simply be a foreshadowing.Oh, now I suppose you are going to go and call me glib but what you don't seem to get is that it is ok to be happy at the same time we confront our problems. In fact, I rather prefer to look on the bright side of things. See, it is not an matter of ignoring, it is a matter of not panicking as we methodically work the issues.
Think about Europe and what they are facing with the influx of refugees, think that’s going to get resolved?Yes. They have had their belly full. They are starting to ship them back and block their entry. Here in the states it is now a political plus to call for the ban , not just on refugees, but all foreign Muslims. When the pendulum reaches its fullest travel then it swings back the other way.
... if there's one thing that I've learned over the years is that you cannot predict where a scientific pursuit is going to take you.We can safely predict that a manned expedition to Mars would be a one-way ticket to a slow, painful death. Unless the crash. Then it would be quick. I'm all for space exploration and I will never forget watching Neil Armstrong stepping onto the surface of the Moon, but this talk about sending people to Mars is way premature. You advocate it and I respect that but I challenge you to think this through and answer a few questions about the project. How will we protect astronauts from stellar radiation? (This is the largest hurdle.) How much fuel will it take to transport the people, their food and water, and the supplies they will need? Is this going to be done with one ship or multiple ships? What is your evacuation/rescue plan? How will the astronauts protect their crops from stellar radiation? Notice I asked about stellar radiation twice? Earth has a large magnetic field shielding us, which Mars lacks. This is the issue that almost everyone ignores, at least publicly. Until we figure out a way to deflect those nasty, invisible stellar particles the manned Mars project is a nonstarter.
Why is a mountain glacier "essential"? Essential to who, for what?The citizens of California who rely on Sierra Nevada snow pack for water, and the farmers in Kansas rely on the Ogallala Aquifer which is replenished by Rocky Mountain snow melt. Without mountain glaciers two of our country's most important farmland regions will dry up and blow away. The rest of your post is so shallow and short-sighted that I cannot make myself reread it to respond. Sure, let's clear cut the Amazon Rain Forest to make room for agriculture. What could possibly go wrong?
Transformed does not necessarily mean diminished. Human beings are an animal species. If we use land to provide food for our species I do not see that as some kind of inherent evil.Well seems to me this planet had evolved an incredible biodiversity, one that humans have been steadily nibbling away at. Now we and our actions are destroying biodiversity at a breakneck speed - with the promise of complete systems collapse in the not too distant future. Diminished is diminished.
Why is a mountain glacier "essential"? Essential to who, for what?The citizens of California who rely on Sierra Nevada snow pack for water, and the farmers in Kansas rely on the Ogallala Aquifer which is replenished by Rocky Mountain snow melt. Without mountain glaciers two of our country's most important farmland regions will dry up and blow away. The rest of your post is so shallow and short-sighted that I cannot make myself reread it to respond. Sure, let's clear cut the Amazon Rain Forest to make room for agriculture. What could possibly go wrong? Also they anchor local, regional weather patterns. As for the astronauts and solar rays - sorry Darron, no room for pragmatic concerns, keep the dream alive. and all that jazz :smirk:
Dude, you worry a lot, I think you need to get outside more or something. It's a beautiful day, sun, rain, snow, a starry night...it's all good my friend.Excuse me a moment - fuk off, I'm over fools telling me not to worry about real and serious stuff. To you life appears to have the substance of a flat TV screen, I myself see way more layers of texture and details. You got words and self-certitude to make your point, I've got facts unfolding on this planet. Me, I take all this seriously, and I'm over apologizing for it. Now I gotta run. I know plenty about getting out and enjoying this beautiful world, do it all the time. That's why I worked on planting myself in this area of the country. But that doesn't' make the unfolding horrors of the world any less real.
Have fun. I got my work bench together over the weekend. Have a few more things to post on flea bay today, then will start restoring some of my antique hand tools so I can start on making firewood furniture.
Have fun. I got my work bench together over the weekend. Have a few more things to post on flea bay today, then will start restoring some of my antique hand tools so I can start on making firewood furniture.Hmm, trying to figure that out. Is it firewood before you restore it or does it become firewood after you've worked on it? Lois
After I’ve worked on it. 