Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Alexander Ibrahim

Thu Feb 01 12:54:05 -0800 2007

manage

I propose that we put a moratorium on all manned space exploration until we've stabilized Earth's climate, ensured all of the basic human rights as defined by the UN, and documented at least 80% of the species living on our own planet.

Your position is astronomically shortsighted sir. Pun intended, sadly.

We will never achieve some of those goals. The simple reason? There are people opposed to those goals. Do you think people who trade in slaves will quit because you impose a moratorium on manned spaceflight? Are you unaware that the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur aren't about manned space flight?

I think you need to take a long hard look at your fellow humans and realize that some of them are bad people. They aren't bad because they were somehow disadvantaged, but because they LIKE IT. There will always be some amongst us who feel that way. ALWAYS.

We stand a better chance of stabilizing the environment on Earth if we can move some of our more environmentally destructive industries into space. This eliminates some of the incentive to abuse the environment on Earth.

Whenever we do manage to build settlements in space, regardless of the purpose, people will fight much more viciously over them in great part because that property will be a larger investment of resources. Think about it, if you need air on your Martian homestead you have to manufacture or import it. On Earth if someone takes our homestead, you could go outside and try again... in space you will die.

This also means that, with the exception of exceptionally earth-like environments we might encounter, fights over property rights on Earth itself are going to occupy more of our efforts and be increasingly violent and dangerous. People are mighty strongly addicted to air and water after all.

I really don't have the inclination to lay out my argument in its entirety, but I hope this sets you on the right train of thought.

Alexander Ibrahim takes stand against peace on Earth.

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 14:05:26 -0800 2007

manage

Alexander says:
"Your position is astronomically shortsighted sir . . . We will never achieve some of those goals."

How incredibly short-sighted of you, sir.

Alexander says:
"Are you unaware that the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur aren't about manned space flight?"

Genocides are by definition government policies, which are responses to resource allocation.  They are related.

Alexander says:
"I think you need to take a long hard look at your fellow humans and realize that some of them are bad people. They aren't bad because they were somehow disadvantaged, but because they LIKE IT. There will always be some amongst us who feel that way. ALWAYS."

You must be a sociologist.  No, seriously.  Because I haven't seen a characterization of the human condition that simplistic since draining humors went out of style.

Canada has a suicide-bomb rate of 0.  Iraq has a suicide-bomb rate much higher.  According to your logic, this is because Canada screens out the bad people (using a Canadian moralmeter, I imagine) while Iraq does not.  Your worldview ignores the fact that Canada has a healthcare safety net, and Iraq does not.  You ignore that Canada has a mild economic class distribution, while Iraq does not.  You ignore that Canada has a reasonable employment rate, while Iraq does not.

Alexander says:
"I really don't have the inclination to lay out my argument in its entirety . . ."

Please don't; it is absurd prima facie.  Any embellishment would be a stepping stone on quicksand.

To summarize the rational sociological consensus: populations with stable jobs, houses, and healthcare do not tolerate terrorism.  Those without, become victims of violence.

Since stable jobs, houses, and healthcare are all matters of resource allocation, peace is possible.  Your short-sighted pessimism is irrational, and a disservice to those greatest of men, the pacifists.

Jesus, Gandhi, MLK Jr., etc. would disagree with you, and I think that, unlike you, they had a pretty good handle on the human condition.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Alexander Ibrahim

Thu Feb 01 15:15:32 -0800 2007

manage

I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but here I go - sort of.

Your post is a straw man at almost every point, and I think you know it. Well except for the parts where it is misinformation. Unless of course you meant to lie. Did you?

For example you might want to check the definition of genocide. You'll notice no mention of governments in the UN definition of genocide. If you really want to talk about government sponsored genocide, the word you want is democide.

You also make the argument that Canada is much safer than Iraq. Well it would be fantastic if we could make Iraq just like Canada. Wealth, healthcare and employment aren't the answers, though they might help.

Before you persist you might want to look up the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. Why would that happen in your complex social theory in such a perfect place as Canada? Certainly you don't think that we should only use suicide bombings as measure's of violence levels do you?

Don't get me wrong, I think Canada is a great place and I've yet to meet a Canadian I don't like, and I've met a lot.

Unfortunately Iraqi's are not Canadians.

The majority of adults there grew up under Saddam Hussein, in a violent regime. A lot of the Iraq vs. Iraqi violence is a cycle of revenge. Some of it is the people who were in charge using violence to restore their privileges, including the power to hurt people at a whim. A quick perusal of the wikipedia article bears this out.

If we transferred ALL of the wealth of the United States to Iraq tomorrow, and spent all our sweat and blood to establish for them the premier healthcare system in the world, there would still be Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence.

This is a problem which will take generations to solve, regardless of the resources we spend on it. Wether or not we have a manned space program in the US has no bearing on the eventual resolution, as the space program is a trivial amount of government resources.

I do ask you to notice two things about your examples.

Canada works closely with the US Space program and has their own space agency, CSA

Iraq does not have any involvement in space.

Maybe having a space program is a good thing. Maybe a manned space program is even better.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 16:01:39 -0800 2007

manage

Alexander says:
"Your post is a straw man at almost every point, and I think you know it. Well except for the parts where it is misinformation. Unless of course you meant to lie. Did you?"

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.  Unless, of course, you meant to be dizzy.  Did you?

Alexander says:
"For example you might want to check the definition of genocide. You'll notice no mention of governments in the UN definition of genocide."

From both of your links, my emphasis:
"According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder."

Thanks for clearing that up, chap.  Although, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you saved us some time and discredited yourself openly, instead of linking to your contradiction.

Alexander says:
"Before you persist you might want to look up the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. Why would that happen in your complex social theory in such a perfect place as Canada?"

Mental illness.  That's psychology, not sociology.  In fact, the media frenzy surrounding the incident lends credence to the observation that it was unexpected and considered by reasonable people to be unlikely.  If that happened in Iraq today, I doubt it would even make a headline in the U.S.

Prosperity is a proscription for healthy societies, not healthy individuals.  You can't talk about distributing resources to one individual, because the word 'distribute' requires a receiving group.  We're talking about government policies and their impact on societies, not the exception, which in this case, happens to reinforce the rule.

Alexander says:
"If we transferred ALL of the wealth of the United States to Iraq tomorrow, and spent all our sweat and blood to establish for them the premier healthcare system in the world, there would still be Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence."

Really?  How much Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence?  I'd be willing to bet, that with 2 gaming consoles and 7 cars a piece, the only violence committed by a newly-endowed Iraqi against another would be in a video game or in a car accident.  I'm pretty sure you can't drive, watch television, eat a McMeal, and frag your neighbor at the same time.  The human brain can only coordinate so many actions at once.  And wait 'til they see World of Warcraft.  Seriously, you have no idea what that situation would look like, and your statement is meaningless at best.

Alexander says:
". . . the space program is a trivial amount of government resources."

Almost $17Billion, two cents of every tax dollar.  That's ~40% of the $40Billion that the UN estimates it would cost to feed, house, and provide basic education to every person on the planet who currently goes without.  Trivial, you say?

Alexander says:
"Maybe having a space program is a good thing. Maybe a manned space program is even better."

. . . because the U.S. space industry is much more advanced than Canada's, and violence also happens to be much more of a problem in the U.S. than in Canada.  Thanks for providing me with more evidence, Alexander.  But really, you shouldn't do so while giving the appearance of disagreeing with me.  Others on this thread might begin to suspect that you are in fact my strawman alias.

Again, as simply as I can state it:
Prosperity promotes peace.

The p**3 principle, for those of us with short attention spans.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Charles E Hill

Thu Feb 01 20:44:59 -0800 2007

manage

There are a number of people and groups who desire nothing more than to force their will upon others.  Some of the worst genocides in history are based on this principle.  I'm thinking of the Khmer Rouge, the Communist Revolution in China, the Mongols and forcible conversion of large populations to Islam, the Crusades and forcible conversion to Christianity, and numerous others.

Prosperity was had by a great many, especially those in power in each of those regimes, yet they were not peaceful.  Iraq is full of many of those people.  Just take a look at the "cultist" battle the other day and what was found.

Yes, prosperity pacifies to a great extent.  Specifically it reduces the probability of grass-roots revolutions, but it doesn't guarantee it

If you want to continue with the silly Canada/U.S. analogies, I'd suggest Canada's extensive peace and prosperity has lulled most of its citizens into complacency.  The U.S. is more "adventurous" and aggressive than Canada.  Canada is a lot more laid back.  [Note: That isn't criticism, just an observation.] 

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 21:27:08 -0800 2007

manage

Charles says:
"Prosperity was had by a great many, especially those in power in each of those regimes, yet they were not peaceful."

The fact that the ruling class was very rich, and the poor were very much poorer, does not make the society prosperous.  Quite the contrary.  And in fact, it was the poor non-prosperous segment of society that gets called upon to do the dirty work.

Charles says:
"I'm thinking of the Khmer Rouge, the Communist Revolution in China, the Mongols and forcible conversion of large populations to Islam, the Crusades and forcible conversion to Christianity, and numerous others."

Good thinking.  Let's review:

* Khmer Rouge: War torn Cambodia, poverty stricken, epidemic-prone.
* Communist China during the Revolution: War torn China, poverty stricken, huge class disparity, poor health system.
* Mongols during conquest: War torn nomads, poverty stricken, no healthcare.
* Islamic revolution: War torn Arabia, centuries of fighting between Rome, Byzantine, and Persian empires.
* Catholic Crusades: War torn western empires send the most desperate criminals to the East for the promise of full temporal and spiritual pardon.  600,000 of these indigent die trying to find and fight in the Holy Land before the first crusade officially begins.

Thanks for making my point, Charles.  To review: societies that have little security and great economic disparity (as in all of your examples) are prone to desperate and violent acts.  Prosperity, on the other hand, promotes peace.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Charles E Hill

Fri Feb 02 09:28:34 -0800 2007

manage

With the Khmer Rouge and Communist Revolution in China I was referring to the fact that those in power intentionally looked for anyone with an education and murdered them.  Both the Khmer and Red Chinese actively sought out doctors, teachers, accountants, lawyers or anyone with a formal education past primary school and killed them.

With the Mongols, it wasn't a people's uprising, but an expanding empire.  Those in power had wealth and comfort (according to their standards), but just kept taking more.

Rome is a better example.  At the height of their glory, Rome had some of the best technology of the time.  Sewage, roads, etc.  There actually was a middle class, and relative comfort in comparison to the rest of the world.  No, not for the outskirts or lower classes, but that is irrelevant.  I'm not talking about the upheaval that split Rome, I'm talking about that up to and during their height they went on never-ending conquest.  Those with wealth, comfort and prosperity simply insisted on forcing their way on anyone that they could reach.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 13:14:32 -0800 2007

manage

Charles says:
"With the Khmer Rouge and Communist Revolution in China I was referring to the fact that those in power intentionally looked for anyone with an education and murdered them."

Yeah.  So?  Those in power led a destitute, indigent lower class to commit atrocities.  Lack of prosperity => violent conditions.  That's my point.  What's yours?

Charles says:
"With the Mongols, it wasn't a people's uprising, but an expanding empire.  Those in power had wealth and comfort (according to their standards), but just kept taking more."

They were nomads.  They had very poor medical knowledge, short lifespan, no permanent housing, few or no natural resources.  When Genghis came to power, his people were surrounded by agrarian city-states in a power vacuum left by diminishing empires on all sides.  You are trying to characterize the Mongol society at this stage as 'prosperous'?  Are you mad?

Charles says:
"Rome is a better example.  At the height of their glory . . .  I'm talking about that up to and during their height they went on never-ending conquest."

At the height of their prosperous middle-class, any citizen living within the borders of the Roman Empire had an amazing assurance of safe travel, free commerce, and legal reparations for personal injury caused by another person.  That's exactly what the Empire was famous for at the time.  And what came with this prosperous middle class?  That's right: very little crime.  On the edges of the Empire, where the prosperity of the citizens were not secure, violent acts occurred all the time.  But inside the Empire, citizens enjoyed the safest streets and most equitable distribution of justice in the known world at that time.  Again: prosperity => peace.  Prosperity within the confines of the Roman Empire lead to peace within the confines of the Roman Empire.  Again, your case supports my point.

Cassius Rosenthal takes a stand against logic, reason and moderation.

Charles E Hill

Fri Feb 02 18:42:34 -0800 2007

manage

I wasn't arguing that prosperity doesn't lead to peace.  I was trying to point out that there are, and have been throughout history, groups of people who would rather have dominion than peace and prosperity.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that some radical Muslims define "peace with Israel/Jews" to mean "none of them left alive".  Ditto for other extreme groups.  Religion is the worst promoter of this thought process.  It isn't "our way or the highway", it is "our way, period".

Yes, there was peace in the Roman Empire.  Does that justify the forcible expansion of the empire?  This is my argument.  There are those who, achieving peace and prosperity, will then use that as an argument to forceably enlarge their "empire".  Are you arguing for a Pax UN?  Do the ends justify the means here?

Cassius Rosenthal selectively quotes to change meaning.

Alexander Ibrahim

Fri Feb 02 12:28:46 -0800 2007

manage

He selectively quotes me above and the articles on genocide/democide.

To be clear, when he quotes me talking about transferring all US wealth to Iraq he specifically ignores the context, which is simply that wealth is irrelevant to the motivations of Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence. Neither the revenge motive nor the desire to hold power over others is defused by wealth.

Regarding his misrepresentation of my argument regarding genocide, it is true that this text appears in both articles.

Of course I did refer to the UN definition, which he ignores in order to "support" his point.

The very next sentence of the text he quotes in both articles:
"It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning."

His selection of edit points is extraordinarily dishonest. They are selected with the specific intent of changing meanings. Read the links and judge for yourselves.

Cassius Rosenthal's arguments are consistently illogical in that they specifically and intentionally misrepresent both the positions of those he communicates with and any references to which they refer.

Put more simply, Cassius Rosenthal is consistently dishonest.

I conclude that Mr Rosenthal's motives are not to further the discussion or develop new insights, but rather to simply expend time arguing.

This is a particular pity because, although I disagree with him strongly, I would normally agree that the position he supports bears discussion. Mr. Rosenthal has single handedly made the attempt at having that discussion fruitless.

Cassius Rosenthal selectively quotes to change meaning.

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 13:40:48 -0800 2007

manage

Alexander says:
" He selectively quotes me above and the articles on genocide/democide."

Let's focus on just this thread surrounding 'genocide' for a moment:

Cassius says:
"Genocides are by definition government policies, which are responses to resource allocation."

Alexander replies:
"Well except for the parts where it is misinformation . . . For example you might want to check the definition of genocide. You'll notice no mention of governments in the UN definition of genocide. If you really want to talk about government sponsored genocide, the word you want is democide."

Cassius replies:
"From both of your links, my emphasis: 'According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.' "

Summary:
*  I say genocide is committed by a government.
*  You imply that genocide is not committed by a government.
*  You provide two links, which say:  "The ordinary meaning is murder by government . . !"
*  That's according to the man who came up with the word 'democide.'

Conclusion: I used the word genocide properly.  Your distinction of "the UN definition" is irrelevant, because I didn't use that qualification.  Your insistence on using the word 'democide' is irrelevant because even the man who came up with the word agrees that my definition of 'genocide' is, in fact --wait for it-- the ordinary meaning of the word.

So I am right.  Your qualification of "the UN definition" is purposely misleading, but I didn't fall for it.  Not only are you dishonest, but you aren't very good at hiding it.  The rest of your whining is little more than an excuse to bow out of the discussion -- an excuse which I happily grant you.

Cassius Rosenthal selectively quotes to change meaning.

Alexander Ibrahim

Fri Feb 02 16:04:36 -0800 2007

manage

No, you are wrong.

In fact the definition of genocide never actually included government participation. Its a very new word, and the etymology is well understood.

This "ordinary" meaning that Rummel and others occasionally refer to is in fact a misunderstanding basedon the simple fact that until relatively recently you needed governmental resources to engage in genocide practically.

Nevertheless it IS an misunderstanding. In other words its wrong.

I made the mistake of citing an article which includes debate on the word, when I should have gone to a dictionary directly. I did this because any normal person would have just gone with the text at the very top of the article instead of digging through for a few words that support their position.

I simply didn't understand what sort of person I was dealing with.

So, with no further ado:
Dictionary.com cites SIX dictionaries in its meaning. Itself (dictionary.com), the American Heritage Dictionary in two editions, Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary and the Kennerman Multilingual dictionary.

The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

The Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary

The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary is not linkable but gives this definition: the murder of a whole race or group of people. (Interested readers may do their own search.)

So, if you want an accurate representation of the meaning of the word there it is.

So, you are still wrong. You already knew it, but instead of saying, "oops, I guess I meant democide" you decided to argue this relatively meaningless point. Ad infinitum, apparently for the sheer joy of arguing, without regard to the uses of debate in learning and thinking.

As I've said since your first response, you are intellectually dishonest. You purposely seek to distort the simplest facts to support your agenda. I thought your agenda might be elimination of manned space flight, but now realize you seek only to engage in an old fashioned USENET style flamewar.

I trust that anyone who reads this far will see you for what you are sir, and draw all the appropriate conclusions.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

rubycodez

Thu Feb 01 14:03:24 -0800 2007

manage

HIstory shows that Earth's climate never was stable nor ever will it be, until that day when the Sun expands so much the earth will no longer have a biosphere other than microbes, less than half a billion years from now.  20% of the species of this planet have no bearing on the environment or biosphere, we're already down to classifying rare local lifeforms.  Some of those "human rights" as defined by the U.N. are so repugnant and unacceptable  to major portions of the human race you'd have major civil wars if you tried to enforce them.  I would even say there's one or two I'd gladly go to war over.  Like Article 29 part 3, if the U.N. tried to take away a right the U.S. constitution gives me.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

President4242

Thu Feb 01 14:41:12 -0800 2007

manage

Heck, most women in the United States seem to think they have a right to break Articles 2 & 3 as well (and in fact, that opinion has been held up by the Supreme Court).

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 15:18:42 -0800 2007

manage

Which are:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

And:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Respectively.

Notice that neither begins with "Every biological human cell count above 20,000 that is genetically distinct from its host . . . ."  In fact, Article 2 assumes birth, and does not mention distinctions made on the basis of age.  So these rights apply to people who have been born, and your statement is wrong.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

President4242

Thu Feb 01 16:00:58 -0800 2007

manage

Actually, look again at that wording- "without distinction of any kind"..."birth or other status".  One could easily interpret that to mean that creating a distinction based on birth would be wrong- therefore it would be wrong to discriminate against the preborn (regardless of cell count).  Limiting the rights only to people who have been born is creating a disctinction based on birth.

I'm not saying it's possible not to discriminate, I'm just pointing out that we do in the United States discriminate.based on circumstances of birth, and therefore, could arguably be violating Articles 2 & 3.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 21:36:29 -0800 2007

manage

Birth refers to conditions at birth, and conditions at birth only.  Not prior to birth, not after birth.  Specifically, this refers to birth rights that were once proscribed by the class of the parents or the presence of siblings.  It does not refer to whether or not someone was yet born.

If you know of a U.S. law that contradicts Article 2 or 3, please chime in with that legislation; however, the practice of abortion does not arguably violate Article 2 or 3 in any meaningful sense.  You are just wrong in that case.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

President4242

Fri Feb 02 06:53:01 -0800 2007

manage

Birth refers to conditions at birth, and conditions at birth only.  Not prior to birth, not after birth.

Why?  That doesn't make sense- are you saying that the discrimination only counts if it happened at the hospital?

Specifically, this refers to birth rights that were once proscribed by the class of the parents or the presence of siblings.  It does not refer to whether or not someone was yet born.

Do you have documentation to that effect, or are you just guessing?

If you know of a U.S. law that contradicts Article 2 or 3, please chime in with that legislation; however, the practice of abortion does not arguably violate Article 2 or 3 in any meaningful sense.  You are just wrong in that case.

If I'm wrong, then you should be able to point out debate from 1947 to that effect.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 13:21:34 -0800 2007

manage

Cassius says:
"If you know of a U.S. law that contradicts Article 2 or 3, please chime in with that legislation; however, the practice of abortion does not arguably violate Article 2 or 3 in any meaningful sense.  You are just wrong in that case."
P4242 replies:
"If I'm wrong, then you should be able to point out debate from 1947 to that effect."

Or not, because they didn't see a conflict between US law and Articles 2 & 3.  They did not.  You do.  You are wrong, and you have failed to provide any evidence for your assertion.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

President4242

Fri Feb 02 14:58:19 -0800 2007

manage

Or not, because they didn't see a conflict between US law and Articles 2 & 3.  They did not.  You do.  You are wrong, and you have failed to provide any evidence for your assertion.

They didn't because in 1948 abortion was illegal in the United States.  Susan B. Anthony, the great feminist, even stated that to base women's rights on abortion rights would be to deny the human rights of the fetus.

At the time the UDHR passed, America's laws were completely within all of the articles.  It's only since then that we've denied Article 25, 26 & 27 rights to families, and created an economic need for abortion (in addition to the triage situation that comes with medically neccessary abortions).

rubycodez defames biology

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 14:53:06 -0800 2007

manage

rubycodez says:
"HIstory shows that Earth's climate never was stable nor ever will it be, until that day when the Sun expands so much the earth will no longer have a biosphere other than microbes, less than half a billion years from now. "

Your connotation of 'stable' is unreasonable.  We are currently at the beginning of the sixth great extinction event, where 1/4 of the world's species are expected to be lost before 2030, 1/2 before 2100.  (Reference E.O.Wilson, The Future of Life, or any of his recent publications.)  This is not disputed in peer-reviewed biology, and this is happening in our lifetimes.  Projecting the climate 1/2billion years from now is unreasonable, expresses too much confidence in your powers of foresight and imagination, and overlooks the concept of stability (relative change) entirely.  A 'stable' climate in a more reasonable sense would be a climate that does not induce an extinction event.  In this regard, Earth's climate has been stable for most of the time that life has existed on the planet.

rubycodez says:
"20% of the species of this planet have no bearing on the environment or biosphere . . ."

Says who?  Species compose an environment.  Your statement is false in principle and in fact.

rubycodez says:
". . . we're already down to classifying rare local lifeforms."

We have only discovered ~10% of species on this planet.  So you are saying that we are down to 90% of the task.  To say that you are wrong would be an understatement.

Furthermore, the economic value of the Earth's ecosystems are estimated to be around $30 trillion per year.  That's more than the sum of all gross national products, and it is provided to us for free.  Destroying this resource is worse than stupid -- it is suicidal.  Refusing to manage this resource in a sustainable manner is no better.

Space currently does not offer any resource that we need to go out and extract in order to survive.  Earth has many resources that we need to manage intelligently in order to survive.  We understand very little about Earth, and yet some fools propose that we need to explore space in order to survive.  Fools are foolish.

rubycodez says:
"Some of those "human rights" as defined by the U.N. are so repugnant and unacceptable  to major portions of the human race you'd have major civil wars if you tried to enforce them."

I didn't realize that you were an international pollster.  An example, and evidence to back up your assertion?

rubycodez says:
"I would even say there's one or two I'd gladly go to war over.  Like Article 29 part 3, if the U.N. tried to take away a right the U.S. constitution gives me."

Which is:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Wow.  You are such a rebel.  The purpose of the UN is to resolve intergovernmental disputes.  What's your guff?

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

Alexander Ibrahim

Thu Feb 01 15:25:44 -0800 2007

manage

rubycodez says: "Some of those "human rights" as defined by the U.N. are so repugnant and unacceptable to major portions of the human race you'd have major civil wars if you tried to enforce them."

Cassius Rosenthal says,"I didn't realize that you were an international pollster. An example, and evidence to back up your assertion?"

How about you try looking for criticism of human rights?

That first section represents 21% of the planet Mr. Rosenthal.

Its the first think I think any responsible reader should do.

I disagree with these criticisms myself, but I think you should at least acknowledge that they exist and are strongly held beliefs by a large population.

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 21:44:50 -0800 2007

manage

Alexander says:
"How about you try looking for criticism of human rights? [Quote from Iranian representative to UN.]
That first section [Islamic population of Earth] represents 21% of the planet Mr. Rosenthal."

An objection by one representative of Iran, who by no means threatened civil war over the issue, does not represent the opinion of 21% of the planet.  Proposing that the ambassador from Iran speaks for all Muslims is offensive, naive, and moronic.  Congratulations on distinguishing yourself in that respect, Alexander.  Next time you post a link, please read it first.

I'm starting to think that Alexander Ibrahim really is my strawman alias.

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

Alexander Ibrahim

Fri Feb 02 12:00:32 -0800 2007

manage

Talk about picking and choosing...

The first sentence of the section I linked two reads:
Predominantly Muslim countries, like Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries.

That is significantly more than one representative as you try to convince us.

Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the reference. You also state a non-sequitur... because nobody is talking about civil war.

You then follow up with a pure ad hominem attack, presumably because arguing based on the actual statements in the reference will not support your position. You then suggest that I should read the article, when I did in fact read it, and it is you who are intentionally misrepresenting its contents.

Bruce... I think we need moderation here.

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 13:55:33 -0800 2007

manage

Alexander says:
"Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the reference. You also state a non-sequitur... because nobody is talking about civil war."

Yet rubycodez says, "you'd have major civil wars if you tried to enforce them ..."  Alexander, you are either unwittingly wrong, or you are a liar.

Alexander says:
"That is significantly more than one representative as you try to convince us."

You tried to convince us that this criticism represents 21% of the population.  I said it does not, and I am correct.  Again, Alexander, you are either unwittingly wrong, or you are a liar.

Alexander says:
" Bruce... I think we need moderation here."

Brilliant.  See: that's how it works in repressive societies.  You can't tolerate being proven wrong, so you turn to authority to try to censure any expression contrary to your position.  This epitomizes the character of your side of the debate, Alexander.

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

the womble

Fri Feb 02 10:35:11 -0800 2007

manage

No, they represent some very nasty governments. Only one (Iran) has any kind of national election. Most Muslim's I know despise the Saudi government. What proportion of the population of even thses countries agrees with them? What about Malaysians or Bangladeshis?

Cassius Rosenthal also can't be bothered to look anything up himself.

Alexander Ibrahim

Fri Feb 02 12:37:24 -0800 2007

manage

Most Muslim's I know despise the Saudi government.

The important question is why? The answer is varied.

In the United States, and western nations where I have travelled the muslims I know disagree with the Saudi government because of its extremely conservative and restrictive nature.

In the middle east people despise the Saudi government because of their ties to the United States and their progressive stance. This is exactly the argument of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It is a widespread position throughout the middle east.

I have no personal experience with Asian and Persian muslim societies.

You may be interested to know that in my travels in the middle east I found that many arab people think voting and democracy is somehow wrong. These numbers were changing in favor of democracy when I was there, but I was stunned how many people didn't want the right to vote.

rubycodez defames biology

rubycodez

Thu Feb 01 18:19:55 -0800 2007

manage

Your connotation of 'stable' is unreasonable.  We are currently at the beginning of the sixth great extinction event

We might be, bad things are happening due ot man.  But I was just arguing against waiting on space exploration until planet is stabilized, that will never happen even by a reasonable definition.   The oceans have been rising for thousands of years, for example, fertile areas that even had great advanced human civilizations have become arid due to natural causes, etc.  Not saying we shouldn't stabilize (better yet reverse) OUR contribution to making a mess of things.

I didn't realize that you were an international pollster.  An example, and evidence to back up your assertion?

A large portion of the muslim world would take exception to parts of it (wrongly and sadly so, unlike the parts which I take exception to, which are a threat to my liberty).

The purpose of the UN is to resolve intergovernmental disputes.

That's one thing they sometimes do.   But I was speaking of potential for future evil.  Maybe someday one person's peacekeeper is another person's armed invading thug.  Maybe they could use a tyranny of the majority of nations to persecute a minority.  Maybe they could take away some liberties I have as a U.S. citizen in the name of the greater good.  I don't want them to have that power and would like to nip things in the bud.  One world government doesn't appeal to me.  Not a rebel, just a constitutional conservative. 

cassius mustah ate 'em!

rubycodez

Thu Feb 01 18:26:08 -0800 2007

manage

we've classified most of the living mass of the biosphere, by weight or by volume far more than 80%. 

rubycodez gets out his scale

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 21:49:32 -0800 2007

manage

rubycodez says:
" we've classified most of the living mass of the biosphere, by weight or by volume far more than 80%."

So?

That gets you no points.  Because of you, a biologist didn't get his wings.

Exploration

zogger

Thu Feb 01 14:46:58 -0800 2007

manage

Exploration is pushed by three things-the spirit of adventure, refugees fleeing for greener pastures, and the promise of possible commercial exploitation, and a lot of times it is all three in  a nice handy package.

 I doubt you will eliminate those because they are hard coded DNA apparently. It would be nice if we didn't have predatory people-but humans are just predatory by nature to some extenet. It varies person by person, but it is there, same as with any other critters.

Our cows all are part of their herd, there's a certain organization for mutual benefit in the herding instinct, and self protection, and etc. And the mommas are definetly ornery about their new calves. But..even being grass eaters and not predators..the larger cows will get quite physical with the younger or smaller and less dominant cows and literally knock them out of the way to get to better food. I mean no fooling around, BUMP, get outta the way! action.  And that is just how it goes.  My roosters will scrap over a tasty morsel or a hen, they just do, that's all. And the larger hens bully the smaller hens, same deal more or less.

 Plants excrete chemicals from their roots that tend to discourage competetive species growing near by.

And so on.


I think this fight to survive deal is just way too hard coded to try and eliminate it completely. We can *try* and it is a laudable goal to be sure, and I support that, this civilization on going process deal..but I don't think we can eliminate the part where we will always want to go out and explore and try to be "successful" at it, with all the aspects of our hard coded DNA being present. The only precedent we have now is Antarctica, and that is tenous, IMO. Or say the open oceans and fishing or minerals exploitation. If it is there and valuable, eventually it will be used to make a buck. Once bucks are involved, disputes will arise.

The chinese sat test, and the previous lasering episodes, are going on now to tell the US to backoff, without saying as much in diplomatic circles. They were an indication of tech that they decided they would allow to be seen, meaning they-like other large nations-have reserve capacity beyond that that is even technically superior, at least in engineering design theory.

And my best guess is-they are telling the US to not bork their Iranian and Venezuelan energy supplies and their mineral (and more oil) supplies coming from Africa. It's a clear line in the sand, a warning, that they have the capacity to cha-cha in any theater now and can if they need to.

At least that is how I would read it if it was my call there. And like all large nations, they don't care a whit about "collateral damage" if it suits their purposes and they feel the action is important enough to act upon, despite potential tangential side problems that might arise.

And who knows, maybe there are some blackbudget satellites out there from their "business competitors" that they really want to get rid of, but can't attack directly at this time. If they get destroyed from the debris field, and a public stink arises (probably not if the sats are black), they can go "gee, sorry about that, it was an accident".

Exploration

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 15:07:22 -0800 2007

manage

zogger says:
"the larger cows will get quite physical with the younger or smaller and less dominant cows . . . My roosters will scrap over a tasty morsel or a hen . . . Plants excrete chemicals from their roots that tend to discourage competetive species growing near by . . . And so on."

Damn.  Those cows, roosters, and plants should lodge complaints with their legislators in their respective representative governments.  Oh, wait . . . that's right -- humans manage conflict differently than every other living thing on the planet.

zogger says:
"I think this [x] is just way too hard coded to try and eliminate it completely."

Same argument used to justify slavery, subjugation of women, genocide of 'primitive' peoples, etc.  Notice that we frown upon those behaviors now, much as we should frown upon any and all behaviors that jeopardize the survival of the species, such as trying to commercialize space when we haven't yet managed Earth.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Charles E Hill

Thu Feb 01 20:25:59 -0800 2007

manage

A) We've done a horrible job of exploring Earth since we know more about Mars' surface than we do about our own oceans;

That isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.  You may read more in the news about Mars probes, but we have entire generations of people whose careers, and in many cases LIVES, were and are dedicated to Oceanography.  Jacques Cousteau and his various explorations and efforts have ALL BY HIMSELF generated more knowledge about this world's oceans than we will most likely learn about Mars in the next 50 years.

B) Life support capacity?  Are you talking about maximizing the number of people this planet can support, or can support comfortably?  There are already 6 billion here, how many more do you want to see?

C) "Seize space" is an interesting concept.  You seem to have no idea of how large it is.  Are you talking about orbits?  Lagrange points?  The Moon?  What?

"Manned" flights have little to do with commercialization or militarization.  EVERY military satellite put in to orbit to date has been "unmanned".

By "all manned space exploration" do you mean by governments, private citizens, corporations or all of the above?  If you don't want taxes used by your government to fund manned space flight, that is one thing but if you think you can get away with telling private citizens or even corporations not to do it -- you're crazy.

"Ensured basic rights", I like that.  Good luck convincing any sovereign nation, much less a major power to let you "ensure" anything.  Exactly how are you proposing to "ensure" China (for example) grants basic human rights to Tibet?  How about to women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?  UN Peace-keepers going door-to-door to make sure women can drive/vote/run for office and are not intimidate?  How do you propose letting the non-Chinese-gov't approved Panchen Llama reside in Tibet?  What about the Dalai Llama?

 Charles

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Thu Feb 01 22:05:22 -0800 2007

manage

Cassius says:
"A) We've done a horrible job of exploring Earth since we know more about Mars' surface than we do about our own oceans;"
Charles says:
"That isn't true by any stretch of the imagination."

No stretching needed.  It is true.  We have higher resolution maps of Mars than we have of the surface under the Ocean.  That is fact.

Charles says:
"B) Life support capacity?  Are you talking about maximizing the number of people this planet can support, or can support comfortably?  There are already 6 billion here, how many more do you want to see?"

Wilson and other biologists estimate that Earth has the capacity to support 9 billion people if its resources are managed well.

Charles says:
"C) "Seize space" is an interesting concept.  You seem to have no idea of how large it is.  Are you talking about orbits?  Lagrange points?  The Moon?  What?"

You seem to have no idea of how large the stakes can be raised when an unstable society with great economic disparities is roused to forcibly seize a resource from other people.  Orbits, Lagrange points, the Moon -- which of those do you think Halliburton would not like to own?

Charles says:
"Exactly how are you proposing to "ensure" China (for example) grants basic human rights to Tibet?  How about to women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?  UN Peace-keepers going door-to-door to make sure women can drive/vote/run for office and are not intimidate?  How do you propose letting the non-Chinese-gov't approved Panchen Llama reside in Tibet?  What about the Dalai Llama?"

That is exactly the question you should be asking.  You mention the Dalai Lama.  He (like the afore-mentioned pacifists) proposes that prosperity creates social conditions that are coincident with the protection of human rights.  Gee, imagine that: Gandhi, Dalai Lama, and MLK Jr. all agree on this principle.  But you think you know better, huh?

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Josh

Fri Feb 02 08:59:52 -0800 2007

manage

I think you've presented a disingenuous argument based on unattainable principles.

Contrary to your assertion, space exploration does compromise a relatively microscopic portion of the budget. Money could more easily be drawn from dozens of other government services and agencies. It seems by the veracity of your argument that you probably support your agenda above virtually every task westerners engage. Can I ask how you personally contribute to these goals? I have difficulty accepting such a strongly principled position from someone complacent enough to spend the day arguing on the Internet. Don't interpret this as an insult. After all, I justify my choices on the fact that my principles are purely academic when in fact I really don't care much about anything.

I'll save my diatribe about the importance of space exploration to our scientific and spiritual development for another day.

Claiming that we know more about the surface of mars "than we do about our own oceans" based on the resolutions of our images is irresponsible. You've twisted one slight fact to prop up an extremely exaggerated statement.  Clearly we have investigated portions of our oceans in far more detail than anything we've been able to do on mars. We have cataloged and studied life from shallows to the deep.  We have at least a rudimentary understanding of  ecosystems. We understand the formation of many substantial geological features. We know various compositions of sediment. We understand the behavior of ocean currents. People have been there... if I knew anything about what I was talking about I'm sure I could go on. Essentially all we've seen from mars are photons that have been the basis for much controversial speculation.

Cassius says:
"Wilson and other biologists estimate that Earth has the capacity to support 9 billion people if its resources are managed well."

This is either disingenuous or reflects a lack of understanding. I fail to see how you can rely on a biological statement  to determine human occupancy, especially given your argument for peace on earth and total Utopian prosperity.  To fix the disparity in prosperity (which I agree is likely to be the largest "problem" factor), the impoverished will brought up to something that resembles western standards. It is the only realistic option unless some catastrophic event requires the west  to philosophically step down in consumption. That means arguably five billion people need to be brought up to energy and GDP per capita metrics that exist in the developed world. Even using the efficient figures found in Scandinavia or Japan, this requires a phenomenal amount of development.  Actually it's an incomprehensible amount of development and the longer the disparity exists the more resources it will take to correct. The speed with which we fix it will also be directly proportional to the required amount of resources.

9 billion people consuming energy at the rate we use now enters into the realm of the absurd. The worlds sustainable and renewable don't apply to 9 billion people. I would expect a biologist to recognize this immediately. We're talking about futuristic efficient solar panels requiring half the world's desert. Or more likely, strip mining the 10,000 quads of global coal reserves in 4 years. The rising use of energy and the capitalistic propensity for growth elevates the scenario to even more ridiculous heights. It's just not going to happen.

I'm perplexed that you even suggest such a scenario is possible, let alone simultaneously support the umbrella of 'biology' and sustainability.  Humans stepped out of our biological footprint 6000-8000 years ago. We've never slowed down. The logical extension from a biological POV for me is to either revert back to a few hundred thousand nomads or fly all these 9 billion energy hogs off onto some desolate rock, where we have nothing to contend with but ourselves.

I am getting a bit silly myself so I'd better stop. Unfortunately I don't have the time to be rigorous with energy numbers. But here's a quicky 9 billion people at 80% of the US energy per capita is 2400 Quads/yr.  This number must begin to rival all the energy humans have ever consumed to this point.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 12:31:46 -0800 2007

manage

Josh says:
"I think you've presented a disingenuous argument based on unattainable principles."

That's fine, but you are wrong.  Fortunately, it is easier for me to prove you wrong than it is for you to prove whether I'm ingenuous.  (Also, principles aren't really attainable; goals are.)

Josh says:
"Contrary to your assertion, space exploration does compromise a relatively microscopic portion of the budget."

2% is not microscopic.  Have you ever seen a roll of pennies?  2% is one penny.  That's noticeable.  1.68 trillion pennies every year -- that should be very noticeable.  That's more money than even the richest person in the world makes in a given year.  Would you notice if your entire year's paycheck disappeared?  Or would that be microscopic to you?

Josh says:
" 9 billion people consuming energy at the rate we use now enters into the realm of the absurd."

I agree.  Most of the energy now used is wasted.  Your assumption that the only way 9 billion people could be comfortable is if every one of them wasted energy the way a U.S. citizen does  . . . well, that's stupid.  Most U.S. citizens aren't comfortable, even though they do waste several times more energy that people in societies that report much higher levels of personal satisfaction.  You seem to have entirely missed the meaning of the word 'managed.'

Cassius says:
"Wilson and other biologists estimate that Earth has the capacity to support 9 billion people if its resources are managed well."
Josh replies:
"This is either disingenuous or reflects a lack of understanding."

Nope -- neither.  You are just wrong.

In The Creation, E.O.Wilson, Pellegrino Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, Pulitzer Prize-winner and "Darwin's natural heir," states that the planet can support 9 billion people comfortably if the Earth's resources are managed well.

When you have tenure at Harvard and win a Pulitzer for a book on biology, then maybe I'll consider your haphazard pontifications.  Until then, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take Wilson's evidence over your guesstimates.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Josh

Fri Feb 02 13:25:09 -0800 2007

manage

I purposefully chose energy metrics from nations considered to be extremely frugal and responsible in their energy use. Incidentally, these same countries also hold the least amount of economic disparity. I used metrics from industrialized countries because it's ridiculous to assume that the west will step down to meet your goals.  I believe such an event would be the first in the history of man.

Cassius says:
"When you have tenure at Harvard and win a Pulitzer for a book on biology, then maybe I'll consider your haphazard pontifications.  Until then, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take Wilson's evidence over your guesstimates."

I see.  Then tenure-track at a substandard public university for trivial contributions in the meaningless science of energy conversion would be not enough for the Cassius Rosenthal? I think Wilson would be wiser than you in choosing his battles. I wonder, with such high standards, why you bother participating in recreational argument to begin with? By the way, you never answered my first question.

I find it wonderful how you manage to treat opponents so poorly in discourse while at the same time manage to chastise them for not advocating global Utopia.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Fri Feb 02 14:09:12 -0800 2007

manage

Cassius says:
"When you have tenure at Harvard and win a Pulitzer for a book on biology, then maybe I'll consider your haphazard pontifications.  Until then, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to take Wilson's evidence over your guesstimates."
Josh replies:
"I see.  Then tenure-track at a substandard public university for trivial contributions in the meaningless science of energy conversion would be not enough for the Cassius Rosenthal?"

Pulitzer-prize winning, world-famous biologist, currently on speaking tour addressing the subject of human impact on the biosphere, following a book that he just wrote addressing the human impact on the biosphere.  --- or ----  "Tenure-track substandard public university" scientist in the field of energy conversion.

The question is on the subject of human impact on the biosphere.  Who do you think is more qualified to answer this question?  Hmmm.  Cake or death.  What are the choices again?

Josh says:
"By the way, you never answered my first question."

Which was a personal question, followed by your confession, "After all, I justify my choices on the fact that my principles are purely academic when in fact I really don't care much about anything."  Why should I answer a question that you ask when you simultaneously wave-off the set of possible answers?  Had you seriously asked, I would have been apt to seriously respond.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Josh

Fri Feb 02 15:15:14 -0800 2007

manage

Again, I feel you are being disingenuous (or unbelievably naive) by propping up exaggerated statements with specious evidence. The book is an environmentalist puff peace. Wilson may be a great scientist and a wise man, but this book isn't science. And it is naive to suggest that one man could effectively wrap his arms around the entire issue. There has been legitimate original research that has attempted to place upper bounds on earth's capacity. This book is not found among it.  A few years back some researchers made similar projections at the upper bounds based mainly on the agricultural and distribution limits. I think their work was featured in Nature and I'm sure Wilson has read their results among others. There are other factors to consider that biologists typically are both untrained and unmotivated to address.   Their research certainly does represent a very important step in this regard, but it by no means constitutes the only legitimate estimate. You may have inspired me to reinvest in my earlier investigation, but I am done with this conversation having realized your entire contributions to this thread may have very well come from the back cover of Wilson's essay.

Chinese Satellite Destroyed in Test Was in Polar Orbit: Junk Ring Spreads

Cassius Rosenthal

Sat Feb 03 13:02:50 -0800 2007

manage

Josh says:
"Again, I feel you are being disingenuous (or unbelievably naive) by propping up exaggerated statements with specious evidence."
E.O.Wilson says [paraphrasing from a talk he gave at Philadelphia's Free Library in October, in answer to this very question]:
9 billion.  9 billion is the population that Earth's biosphere can sustain if we choose to.

I paraphrase based on my notes from his talk.  You may confirm that number in his most recent book, which is not original science only because it is not intended to be original.  It is a compilation of conservative estimates.  Environmentalist puff peace?  You are entitled to your opinion, but you are hardly in a position to dismiss his stance as impossible.  His basis is peer-reviewed science, and he is an acknowledged expert on the subject.  You aren't even in the same field.

Josh says:
" . . . but I am done with this conversation having realized your entire contributions to this thread may have very well come from the back cover of Wilson's essay."

I will gladly offer that I have read every one of Wilson's books published since Consilience, cover-to-cover.

So, again, it is your guesstimate vs Wilson's educated opinion in the field for which Wilson is famous, and has spent the past decades researching.  Hmmm.  I think I'm still going to have to go with Wilson's answer.

Josh's guesstimate  vs   Wilson's expert opinion
Which would you choose?