Where we Live
Michael Martin-Smith
on the divergent views of Greens and numerous scientists on the present and
future prospects for our planetary ecosystems.
Inter alia, Greens at the WWF are quoted as saying that, by 2050, we will
need the resources of two planets to maintain our current ways of life,
while scientists are quoted as saying that this is too pessimistic a view of
our ability to manage our affairs here with Earth's resources .
If the Earth were indeed an isolated system unthreatened by factors from
neighbouring Outer Space , we could accept the scientists' statement as
sound.
As it is , the Greens have, quite unintentionally, hit the nail on the
head - we will need at least two planets to ensure our survival for the
longer term.
Fortunately our solar system contains nine planets, several dozen moons, and
countless thousands of asteroids and comets - all awaiting the creative hand
of our cosmic gardeners.
Let us take the Greens at their careless words, and go forth!
Yours sincerely
Michael Martin-Smith, author, "Man Medicine and Space" at www.amazon.com
Len
Then we need population reduction (we don't but that is the myth) and
we can start reducing population via politics, as in Zaire, drought,
as in most of Africa, plague/pestulance, as in most 3rd world nations.
OK, allow killing, death & destruction by 2050 as your hysterical
greenies want.
It was that french water guy with the greenies, can't recall his name,
stated that about 300,000 people a day need to die for us to "get
back into balance with nature".
Fucking fascist socialist killers is what you and your ilk are.
Frank White
mar...@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk says...
The costs of getting up there and accessing those resources
has so far proven daunting. WE are still just taking baby
steps into space, not major leaps.
That won't change for quite a while.
FW
Len
>>Then we need population reduction (we don't but that is the myth) and
>>we can start reducing population via politics, as in Zaire, drought,
>>as in most of Africa, plague/pestulance, as in most 3rd world nations.
>>OK, allow killing, death & destruction by 2050 as your hysterical
>>greenies want.
>Old news. We did it to the American Indian. What was the survival rate on
>slave ships? Old news.
I missed it. We got a lot of bad Indians running around since the only
good ones are dead, according to that wonderful warrior Sherman. So a
bunch made it.
As for slave survival. Does that mean we got the best Blacks money
could have bought? Strongest, best equipped, etc? No argument there
either. As your Uncle Joe once stated, from the Russian, "One man's
death is a tragedy, a million deaths is history". I can tell you
studied him. Same Red color.
>We could issue hunting licenses. The real thing. Rich hunter against poor
>hovel dweller. Natural order of things.
OK. Given same equipment, or just one gun in the hands of one poor,
but lucky guy. Let's get busy.
As for the natural order, you wouldn't recognize it if it ran down
your let and was yellow.
>Could raise some more tax income. More challenging than deer or turkey.
>(Hovel dwellers may not have firearms unless the rich hunter checks a box on
>the form. If you don't have a rich hunters license, firearms cost triple.)
Not where I grew up. Guns could be had for the cheap. Probably still
is that way in some 'hoods.
Sounds like you want to keep guns in the hands of the rich only? And
you want to tax them as well? What is with the "class warfare" you
wish to start? And then keep the poor unarmed? I know who your heroes
are.
>>It was that french water guy with the greenies, can't recall his name,
>>stated that about 300,000 people a day need to die for us to "get
>>back into balance with nature".
>>Fucking fascist socialist killers is what you and your ilk are.
>More people than that die every day from perfectly natural causes. The problem
>is birth rate.
Oh, same forces are taking care of that world wide. China had a
policy, still has I think, where they kill their unborn after one or
two kids, and that is if the whole town, or gov't agrees to let them
have kids. In this country the same is happening but it is mostly in
the poor parts of town, the ghettos, the barrios, the white trash side
of the economic structure. And this is per Margaret Sanger, the
founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a eugenist, that is hated
niggers, spics, and really feared chinks and other zipper heads, and
it was her plan and foundation that is carrying out her work: kill
babies as often and as soon as you can, even if you have to crawl into
the belly of the mother. Great gal. Friend? or just colleague?
Len
>and
>>countless thousands of asteroids and comets - all awaiting the creative
>hand
>>of our cosmic gardeners.
>>Let us take the Greens at their careless words, and go forth!
>The costs of getting up there and accessing those resources
>has so far proven daunting. WE are still just taking baby
>steps into space, not major leaps.
>That won't change for quite a while.
We do not have the will. We would rather piss around with welfare,
gov't research for stuff that we already know. I don't understand it,
really. We could have been there by now, but...........history.
Michael Martin-Smith
> has so far proven daunting. WE are still just taking baby
> steps into space, not major leaps.
True- same as once true of aviation. We need a longterm concerted space
effort aimed at ensuring an self sustaining "daughter" civilization, based
on reusable space trasnport, closed loop life support systems and in situ
resource utilization.
It will be costly but there is nothing we can do which would be more worth
the effort .
The global annual expenditure on cigarettes - not to mention illegal mind
deadening drugs- would pay for it many times over.
LIke the marine ancestors' conquest of Dry Land it will indeed take time-
but it represents the only positive human(e) future open to our restless
species.
Without Hope and the prospect of a New Frontier Humanity - will surely
drown in its own matrerial and spiritual wastes
>
> That won't change for quite a while.
"Frank White" <fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com> wrote in message
news:aktalp$vc9$4...@news.fsr.net...
Michael Martin-Smith
and using it to go in the opposite direction- Expansion and Liberty on the
Space Frontier is the last thing the Greens actually want- but in making a
cavalier point about needing two planets by 2050, they ( the WWF) have laid
themselves open to mischievous exploitation for an opposite cause.
As a promoter of Space colonization I have endured much oppostiion from
Greens and Socialists over the years, and find it humorous to find them
unintentionally admitting that the human future requires more than one
planet .
I say - if we need more than one planet - go for it!
"Len" <l...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:g484nuo2d5ch5eha6...@4ax.com...
Charles Scripter
I think you may have misread what he suggested. The _Greens_ were
blathering about resources, and the previous author suggested "OK,
let's go colonize other planets". (obviously not to agree with the
Greens, but to take their "suggestion" at simple face value -- which
is _not_ what the Greens want)
Hint: colonization will not reduce the Earth population, but it may
well ensure the survival of the Human race, should a large rock crash
into us. (which is the way that I read the author's suggestion)
--
Charles Scripter * cesc...@progworks.net www.progworks.net/~cescript
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Len
It's been observed that social movements move in the direction of
those extremists that are most vocal. That Hegelian crap about thesis,
antithesis, synthesis, and so they use that to gain political motion
in their direction.
We should have been on at least three planets by now, but, as I live
and breath, some other stuff got in the way. To bad. Loved to have
been there myself. Prettiest planet is home, but gadz...........maybe
our grandkids?